John Zube

An Anthology of

Wisdom & Common Sense

On the personal and social changes required to achieve
freedom, peace, justice, enlightenment, progress & prosperity in our time

Index - H

(1973 - 2012)



HABITS: The greatest threats and the greatest incentives are often no help against habits of thoughts and actions. Instances: The nuclear war threat has not yet demolished territorialist notions and microfiche, floppy disks and CDs have not yet done away with long established publishing and reading habits. - J.Z., 12.9.00, 20.8.02. - HABITS OF THOUGHT, CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS, FAITH, BELIEFS, MODELS, RULING DOGMAS:

HABSBURG, OTTO VON: The Social Order of Tomorrow, 1957, review only, by J.Z., 113, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

HAHNE, HEINRICH, Klassischer Anarchismus, Eine Jugendschrift Fichtes, 1 S., in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901. - Besprechung von Fichtes 1793 Werk: "Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische Revolution", fiched in PEACE PLANS 416.

HAKLUYT, Principle Navigations of the English Nation.” - In the Principal Navigations of the English Nation, Hakluyt gives the text of "a copie of the first priuileges graunted by the Emperour of Russia to the English Marchants in the yeere 1555." Among the provisions of this document is the following remarkable article: 4. Item, we giue and graunt vnto the saide Marchants and their successours, that such person as is, or shalbe commended vnto vs, our heires or successours by the Gouernour, Consuls and assistants of the said fellowship residant within the citie of London within the realme of England, to be their chiefe Factor within this our empire and dominions, may and shal haue ful power and authoritie to gouerne and rule all Englishmen that haue had, or shall haue accesse, or repaire in or to this said Empire and iurisdictions, or any part thereof, and shal and may minister vnto them, and euery of them good iustice in all their causes, plaints, quarrels, and disorders betweene them moued, and to be moued, and assemble, deliberate, consult, conclude, define, determine, and make such actes, and ordinances, as he so commended with his associates shall thinke good and meete for the good order, gouernment and rule of the said Marchants, and all other Englishmen repairing to this our saide empire or dominions, or any part thereof, and to set and leuie vpon all, and euery Englishman, offender or offenders, of such their acts and ordinances made, and to be made, penalties and mulcts by fine and imprisonment.1     1 Hakluyt, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 99. - (38 - LIU: EXTRATERRITORIALITY -[318)

HALL, WILLIAM EDWARD, A Treatise on International Law, 7th ed., Oxford, 1917, 8th. ed., Oxford, 1924, pages 179-209, on immunities of foreign sovereigns, diplomatic agents, military forces and public vessels. Also Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, 3rd. ed., London, 1879-89, vol. I, pp 574-481, vol. ii, pp 139-141. (A footnote in Liu’s book, page 18.)

HALL, WILLIAM EDWARD, A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown, Oxford, Clarendon Press, etc., 1894, 304pp. - On capitulations and consular jurisdiction. (Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor) E. W. Hall: 1836-1894:,

HALLIDAY, ROY: A Single-Owner Proprietary Nation: Advantages, Problems, and Solutions. -

HALLIDAY, ROY: Non-Territorial Freedom . Here, under the following three headings he offers 36 relevant articles: Cyberspace and the Internet - 20 articles. - Extraterritoriality - 2 articles by Richard C. B. Johnsson. - Panarchy, Polyarchy, or Multiple Governments - 14 articles by Le Grand E. Day, Max Nettlau, Gian Piero de Bellis, Bruno S. Frey & J.Z. - When I downloaded it, this page was last updated on July 11, 2011. He sums up the articles very shortly and refers to their URL location on various libertarian sites, thus providing a good links list on the subject.

HALPER, B.: Mann's "Jews under the Fatimid Caliphs", JQR, n.s. 14, 1923-24, 87-109.

HALSALL, PAUL: Jewish History Sourcebook, July 1998, online, - 4pp. He quotes an Arabic scholar in Cairo, 1772, and another one of 1788, on the remaining intolerance towards Jewish communities. The degrees of autonomy they did enjoy should not give the impression that Jews were generally tolerated and lived already under ideal panarchistic conditions. On the contrary, the repressions were so predominant that even today many scholars are inclined to overlook the exceptional cases of tolerance. - J.Z., 29.1.99.

HAMID, M., Das Fremdenrecht in der Tuerkei, Berlin, 1919. (The Rights of Foreigners in Turkey.)

HAMILTONIANS: Hamiltonians were terrible persons who actually believed there were circumstances under which some individuals had the right to tell other individuals what to do. - L. Neil Smith, The Nagasaki Vector, p.167. - Innocent people, when wrongfully attacked, have, indeed, the right to tell the attackers what to do - and, moreover, the right to defend themselves against them, even armed and organized. - Smith would be the last person to deny that. His remark was intended as directed against meddlers and aggressors. Hamiltonians can rightly tell each other what to do, as far as their own affairs are concerned. - They should have no say over the rightful actions of others. Those who are not Hamiltonians do not have the right to decide how Hamiltonians ought to treat each other. - J.Z., 18.10.02. - STATISTS, ETATISTS, INTERVENTIONISM, PANARCHISM, AUTHORITARIAN BUT NON-TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS OF VOLUNTEERS,

HAMMER, J., Histoire de I'Empire Ottoman, 18 vols., Paris, 1835-45.

HAMMER, RICHARD O., Article on panarchism, using other terms, 6pp, in PP 1365, p.115. - Some of the writers of the FNF (Free Nations Foundation) write in terms of "virtual cantons". – VIRTUAL CANTONS

HAMMER, RICHARD O., Toward Voluntary Courts and Enforcement. -

HANOTEAU, General & LETOURNEUX, M.: La Kabylie et les Coutumes Kabyles, Paris, Challamel, 1893, 3 vols., with information on the Sof or Cof organization, competing private protection groups. Compare plan 201 in PEACE PLANS 12. - COF, PROTECTION AGENCIES, PRIVATE, COOPERTIVE & COMPETING

HANSEATIC LEAGUE: In the maritime codes of the European cities in the Middle Ages, the influence of the principle of the personality of laws was clearly discernible. It is said that one of the cardinal principles of the celebrated Hanseatic League was the absolute independence of its members of all foreign jurisdiction wherever they resided and traded.6 - (6 Pardessus, op. cit., vol. ii, p. cxxvij.) - In the twelfth century, Lübeck enjoyed such exemption in Wisby, and acquired the right to transfer the privilege to other cities.1 From about the same time, the German merchants and other inhabitants of Wisby on the island of Gothland in the Baltic enjoyed similar privileges in the Republic of Novgorod in Russia.2 - 2 Miltitz, op.cit., vol. i, pp. 401-408. - LIU, Exterritoriality, pages 29/30. - - In 1447, the Hanseatic cities instituted a tribunal of commerce sitting at Lübeck, of which the President was known as the Alderman, his functions being similar to those of the judge-consul in the other countries.1 (1: Miltitz, ibid, pp 175/76.) – LIU: Extraterritoriality, page 33. - - As has been seen, the Hanseatic League was particularly jealous of the right of its own members to be exempt from any foreign jurisdiction.6 In actual practice, many efforts were made to secure the safeguard of this right. In Scania, which now belongs to Sweden, privileges were granted to the Hanseatic merchants in 1361 and 1368, including the right to choose from among themselves judges to decide their disputes according to the law of Lübeck.7 By the peace of 1285, it was stipulated that disputes between Germans - - (6 Supra, p. 29. - 7 Miltitz, op. cit., vol. ii, pt. i, pp. 343-344.) - in Norway were to be decided by their own judges.1 Even in England, King Edward IV granted to the merchants of Hansa the right to be judged by their own magis­trates according to their own laws. The treaty of 1474 permitted the Hanseatic merchants in London, to hold in perpetuity their special community known as the Steelyard. Cases of contract in which Englishmen proceeded against Germans were to be heard before two specially appointed English judges, and the same practice was to be observed in Germany. Within the Steelyard, the merchants were to have exclusive administration, and, what is more important, they were completely freed from any judicial process emanating from the local authorities ("Dampuis, Injuris, Spoliationibus, Rapinis, Incarcerationibus, Arrestationibus Personarum, Bonorum, & Mercandiarum . . . per viam Facti, per viam Judici & Sententiae, seu Executionis . . . absolvunt firmitir per praesentes"). The special nature of the privileges granted is indicated by the promise of King [Edward IV not to concede them to other foreigners. 2   - LIU, ibid, pages 34/35. - (1) Miltitz, ibid, vol. ii, part. 1, p 344.  2 Rymer, Foedera (2nd ed., London, 1726-35), vol. ix, pp. 795, 706, 797. - - - In England, the office of the foreign consul did not make its appearance until the beginning of the fifteenth century. But long before England sent consuls abroad to protect the interests of her nationals, she had made efforts to safeguard the security of foreign life and property within her own borders. Even before the Hanseatic treaty of 1474, King Edward I had issued his great Charter, in 1303, commonly known as the Carta Mercatoria, which contained a provision, that in all cases, except those entailing the death penalty, in which a foreign merchant was implicated, the jury to be charged with the trial of the cause should be composed of an equal number of foreign merchants and natives.3 - LIU, ibid, pages 35/36 - - 1 Ibid., p. 344. - - 2 Rymer, Foedera (2nd ed., London, 1726-35), vol. ix, pp. 795, 706, 797. - - 3 "6. Item, that in all manner of pleas, saving in case where punishment of death is to be inflicted, where a marchant is impleaded, or sueth another, of what condition soeuer hee bee which is sued, whether stranger or home borne, in fayres, cities, or boroughs, where sufficient numbers of marchants of the foresayd countreis are, and where the triall ought to bee made, let the one halfe of the Iurie be of the sayd marchants, and the other halfe of good and lawfull men of the place where the suite shall fall out to bee: and if sufficient number of mar-chants of the sayd countries cannot bee found, those which shall be found fit in that place shall be put vpon the iurie, and the rest shall be chosen of good and fit men of the places where such suit shall chance to be." Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation (ed. by K. Gotdsmid, Edinburgh, 1885-90), vol. i, p. 121. - - Although the nature of the grant differed considerably from a concession of consular jurisdiction, it nevertheless throws some light on the general privileges enjoyed by the foreigner in the Middle Ages. Indeed, the institution of the mixed jury is so important that some writers have regarded it as the origin of the modern mixed court.1  - - In 1404, King Henry IV accorded to the merchants of England in the Hanseatic towns the power to choose a certain number of individuals to be known as "Gubernatores mercatorum" and to exercise, in the name of the King, judicial authority over their compatriots. The same power was conferred on English merchants in the Netherlands in 1406, and in Norway, Sweden and Denmark in 1408. In 1485, King Richard III bestowed upon one Lorenzo Strozzi the office of the consul in Italy, with power to decide disputes between the Englishmen resident there. 2 In the letters-patent issued to the consul, it was stated that in creating the office, the King had consulted the experience of other nations, 3 thereby showing the trend of international practice at the time. There is little doubt, therefore, that one of the most important and common functions of the consul during this period was his judicial competence. - (1 Lippmann, Die Konsularjurisdiktion im Orient (Leipzig, 1898), p.10. - 2 Miltitz. of. tit., vol. ii, pt. i, pp. 385-386. - 3 Ibid., p.385.)

HANSEN, Die Freiheit der Meere, Marion von Schroeder Verlag, Postfach 9229, D 4,000, Duesseldorf, Germany, 1986. - Eine Analogie zur exterritorialen Autonomie - aber nur auf den Weltmeeren und immer mehr eingeschraenkt durch Ausdehnung der territorialen Grenzen auf das Meer. - J.Z., 1.9.04. (Freedom of the High Seas. It is an analogy to exterritorial autonomy – but confined to the high seas or oceans and is becoming more and more restricted through the national claims upon offshore natural resources, which are becoming more and more extended and thus lead also to national government clashes. – J.Z., 17.12.11.)

HANSEN, KARL-AUGUST, Wider die Wohltäter. Gebt den Menschen endlich frei! - - Ob der Mensch ein Einzel- oder ein Gemeinschaftswesen ist, sei dahingestellt. Nur den wenigsten jedenfalls ist vergönnt, ein Einsiedlerdasein zu führen. Die meisten Menschen sind mehr oder weniger in die Gemeinschaft mit ihresgleichen gezwungen. - Eine Ansammlung von Menschen braucht für den reibungslosen Umgang unter- und miteinander Regeln. Oft sind auch die Lebensbedingungen nur erträglich zu gestalten, indem in Gemeinschaft Leistungen erbracht werden. - Aus diesen beiden Notwendigkeiten leiten die Staaten ihre Existenzberechtigung ab. - Viele Freiheitsfreunde, Liberale und Libertäre, beugen sich diesem Schluß. Sie legen es darauf an, den Staat dahingehend zu reformieren, daß er sich auf das unausweichlich Notwendige beschränkt. Er hätte demnach nur zu regeln, was seine Bürger vor Verletzung und Verlust schützt, und nur solche Gemeinschaftsaufgaben zu übernehmen, die nicht der Privatinitiative überlassen bleiben können, weil mit ihnen kein Gewinn zu erzielen ist. Diese Erwartung jedoch wird unerfüllt bleiben. Sie widerspricht der Eigenart der Staaten. Sie ist wahrlich eine Utopie. - Eine Einrichtung von den Ausmaßen eines Staates muß, will sie ihren Bestand erhalten, jeden Mißstand, der in ihrem Inneren oder ihrem Umfeld auftritt, beseitigen. Sie wird mit einem Regelungsbedarf konfrontiert, der bei fortschreitender Entwicklung immer größer und verwickelter wird. Und der ihr innewohnende Vereinheitlichungsdrang läßt immer weniger zu, Entscheidungen zu delegieren, sie etwa Unterteilungen (Ländern, Bezirken, Kreisen) zu überlassen. Das Machtmonopol des Staates jedoch entmündigt und entwürdigt seine Bürger. Das wiederum verursacht deren Enthemmung. Einerseits verleitet die Anonymität des fernen Staates den Bürger, ungeniert bemüht zu sein, Leistungen, die der Staat einfordert, zu umgehen. Andererseits verführt die Omnipotenz des Staates den Bürger, von ihm zu verlangen, daß er ihn von allen Sorgen und Nöten befreie. Der Staat ruft Gleichgültigkeit, Leistungsunlust und Anspruchsdenken hervor. Das unterwirft ihn einem Circulus vitiosus. [Vicious circle. - J.Z.] Seine Eigenart verändert das Verhalten des Menschen. Das löst Mißstände aus. Diese kann er nicht bestehen lassen. Jede Regelung aber verlangt Gleichbehandlung und Allgemeingültigkeit. Durch Vereinheitlichung jedoch ist Gerechtigkeit nicht herzustellen (Das Leben ist zu vielfältig, als daß es sich schematisieren ließe). Es gelingt ihm deshalb nicht, die Mißstände in befriedigender Weise zu beseitigen. Dadurch hinwiederum vermehrt und verstärkt er sie erneut. Der den Staaten immanente, aus seinem Wesen gespeiste unendliche Regelungs-(Reform) Bedarf ist eine Teufelsspirale. Staat heißt Tun. Er kann sich nicht beschränken. Ihm bleibt nichts übrig, als das Recht ständig zu vermehren. Ein Recht indessen, selbst wenn es widerspruchsfrei wäre, aber ins Unendliche geht, kann niemand mehr befolgen. Es führt in die Rechtlosigkeit. Der Staaten Ende ist das Chaos, das aus einem anderen Grund, der auch im Wesen der Staaten begründet liegt, in vielen Teilen der Welt schon vorhanden ist. - - Wie ist dem zu entkommen? Wie gelangt man zu akzeptierten und weitgehend befolgten Regeln? Und wie erhält man die Bereitschaft, sich in eine Gemeinschaft einzubringen, Nachbarschaftshilfe zu leisten, das Nötige und Förderliche mitzugestalten? - - Die Antwort gibt die Geschichte: Durch Beendigung der Bevormundung, durch das Stellen in die Eigenverantwortung, durch die Befreiung des Menschen. - - Der Mensch, auf sich gestellt, muß, will er Ruhe und Frieden haben, sich mit seinen Nachbarn verständigen. Das haben die Menschen in dieser Lage zu allen Zeiten verstanden. Sie haben sich zu Gruppen gleicher Lebensart zusammengeschlossen. Das machte nötig, sich Regeln zu schaffen, um ihr Zusammenleben zu erleichtern und den Frieden unter einander aufrechtzuerhalten. Und wenn etwas zur Erhaltung oder Erleichterung ihres Dasein nötig war, haben sie es gemeinsam in Angriff genommen. - Der Bevormunder und Betreuer also bedarf es nicht. Freie Menschen finden aus eigener Kraft, wie sich ihre Verhältnisse für sie wohltuend gestalten lassen. - Was sich herausbildet – wie zu allen Zeiten und überall auf der Erde zu beobachten war und ist – sind selbständige Gemeinden. Sie entscheiden in direkter Demokratie, was gelten und geschehen soll. - In dicht besiedelten Gebieten und wo dies angeraten erschien haben freie Gemeinden sich stets mit anderen zusammengeschlossen, um gemeinsam zu regeln, was sie für sich allein nicht bewältigen konnten. Sie haben aus sich heraus das Subsidiaritätsprinzip verwirklicht, das bekanntermaßen im Ursprung folgendes besagt: Der kleinsten gesellschaftlichen Gruppe gebührt uneingeschränkte Autonomie. [Warum nicht auch den Groessten - wenn sie nur aus Freiwilligen bestehen und kein Territorialmonopol beanspruchen? - J.Z., 1.10.11.] Ihr ist anzuraten, nur diejenigen Aufgaben an selbstgewählte Vereinigungen abzugeben, die sie selbst nicht wahrnehmen kann. - Schon Kant vermutete, daß, wenn man die Vergesellschaftung freigäbe, sich selbständige Gemeinschaften aus eigenem Antrieb fortgesetzt zusammenschlössen, bis am Ende der Weltbund vollzogen ist. Dieser allerdings wäre von anderer Art als heute die UNO. Und seinen Gründern wäre nur an einem gelegen: die Lebensgrundlagen auf der Erde zu erhalten, das Gemeingut der Menschheit zu bewahren. - Nun ist die Frage, ob das, was in Stedingen und Dithmarschen, in der Urschweiz und auf Island zu Wohlstand und Frieden führte, auch im Zeitalter der Megastädte und Multikonzerne noch praktikabel ist. - Die Großstädte sind auf Vermassung und Multikultur angelegt. Dennoch gibt es immer häufiger Beispiele, die davon zeugen, daß Stadtviertel ein eigenes Gemeinschaftsgefühl entwickeln und Selbständigkeit erstreben. - In New York, in Manhattan, machte vor einigen Jahren eine Straße von sich reden, die bis dahin von Prostituierten und Drogenhändlern vereinnahmt worden war, die Jane Street. Die Bewohner der Straße nahmen im September 1990, nach der Ermordung eines ihrer Mitbewohner, ihr Geschick in die eigenen Hände. Sie sperrten kurzerhand die Zugänge zu ihrer Straße gegen Fremde mit Barrikaden und Patrouillen ab – und hatten von Stund an Ruhe. - Dem Beispiel der Jane Street sind inzwischen weltweit viele Gemeinden gefolgt. Sie werden als „Gated Communities“ bezeichnet und haben inzwischen eine eigene Interessenvertretung, das „Community Association Institute“. - - Aus einem anderen Grund, der Furcht vor dem umweltbedingten Kollaps, schotten sich andere Gemeinden ab, „Lifeboat Communities“. Und aufgrund allgemeiner Unzufriedenheit entstehen „Intentional Communities“. Das Verzeichnis der „Fellowship Of Intentional Communities“ verzeichnet allein für die USA 1172 solcher Gemeinschaften. Es steht demnach außer Frage, daß die moderne Demokratie die Neigung zum Aussteigen weckt – nicht nur aus ethnischen Gründen. - In den achtziger Jahren untersuchte Andreas Falke den Verfall der Innenstädte amerikanischer Metropolen. Dabei stellte er fest, daß dort, wo ein „dezentrales Verwaltungssystem“ es erlaubte, Stadtteile mit homogener Bevölkerung sich selbständig „revitalisierten“. Staatliche oder städtische Subventionen hätten sich dafür sogar als eher hinderlich erwiesen, obgleich hier keineswegs gutgestellte Leute am Werk waren. Selbständigkeit bietet selbst den Bewohnern von Slums eine Chance. Erhielten sie die Hoheit über ihren Willen und ihr Gebiet, setzte das erfahrungsgemäß außerordentliche Kräfte frei. Und wenn die Hilfen der Reichen, die ja nicht ausbleiben müßten, ihnen selbst und nicht den über sie Mächtigen zuflössen, würde mit wenig sicher viel bewirkt. - - Im übrigen dürfte die allgemein erteilte Selbständigkeit die Landflucht und damit das weitere Anwachsen der Slums beenden. Denn was sich in den Mega-Cities abspielen wird, die wir bei Fortdauer staatlichen Wirkens zu erwarten haben, dürfte von apokalyptischen Gegebenheiten nicht weit entfernt sein. - - Es bleibt zu prüfen, wie sich die Selbständigkeit mit der Wirtschaft verträgt. Hier genügt der Hinweis auf die Veröffentlichungen der Mitglieder der österreichischenSchule der Ökonomie. Deren jüngster Vertreter, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, tritt für die „natürliche Ordnung“ ein, die mit der föderalistischen, wie sie hier beschrieben wird, nahezu deckungsgleich ist. (Die natürliche Ordnung verlangt die allgemeine Anerkennung des rechtmäßig erworbenen persönlichen Eigentums an Sachen. Der Föderalismus kennt keine Vorgaben. Die Erfahrung jedoch lehrt, daß in zivilisierten Regionen die große Mehrheit der selbstbestimmten Gemeinden das Privateigentum schützt.) - Die Linken aller Schattierungen fürchten die Ausbeutung der Nichtbesitzenden durch die Besitzenden. Tatsächlich gibt es in vielen Weltgegenden Großgrundbesitzer, die ihre Bediensteten wie Leibeigene halten. Ob bei Erteilung der Selbständigkeit die Herren enteignet würden, steht dahin. Was zunächst einmal entfiele, wäre der Rückhalt und der Schutz, den die Staaten ihnen gewähren. Die politisch Mächtigen wären nunmehr die wirtschaftlich Abhängigen. Mit ihnen würden die Besitzenden sich arrangieren müssen. Sicherheit und Schutz könnten ihnen endgültig und dauerhaft nur ihre Angestellten vermitteln. Das dürfte das gegenseitige Verhältnis nachhaltig positiv beeinflussen. - Auch würden die Reichen zwangsläufig Mitglied einer funktionierenden Gemeinde werden. Sie könnten nicht mehr hinter Mauern und Zäunen sich der „splendid isolation“ hingeben. Und selbst wenn sie, was vielerorts ohne Zweifel möglich ist, sich in einer Gemeinde aus lauter Reichen etablierten, so wird diese mit den ihr gleichgestellten Gemeinden aus weniger Betuchten zu Übereinkünften gelangen müssen. Das dürfte den Hochmut und die Unbedenklichkeit der Glücklicheren in Grenzen halten. - - Nach Emil Brunner ist der Föderalismus „der gerechte Aufbau der Ordnungen, nämlich der Aufbau von unten. Das ist die Schöpfungsordnung. Alle Ordnungen sind um des Menschen willen, und nie ist der Mensch um der Ordnungen willen. Beim einzelnen Menschen ist darum anzufangen“. Und Konstantin Franz beschrieb ihn wie folgt: „Der Föderalismus ist das Prinzip der Vergesellschaftung schlechthin, von den kleinsten Gruppen zur größten fortschreitend. Vom Ehe-und Freundschaftsbund zum Völkerbund. Der Föderalismus ist die 'Synthese der Synthese', er ist das Prinzip der gewaltlosen Ausdehnung.“ - Wenn wir Menschen nicht imstande sein sollten, unsere an den Rand des Abgrunds getriebenen Verhältnisse zu ordnen, dann verdienten wir nicht zu leben. Wir werden die Frieden gebende Freiheit verwirklichen oder die Verhängnisse, die wir wachrufen, werden sich an uns vollziehen. - - Siehe auch - - Sent to me by Uwe Timm, 27.7.07, as a contribution to espero, with a note: Lieber Christian, Dear John, - angehängt ein Artikel von Karl August Hansen, den er uns für Espero zur Verfügung stellte und ein Beispiel dafür ist, wie die Leute fast zwangsläufig zur Panarchie kommen. - Viele Gruesse Uwe. - J.Z. - This hardly goes beyond federalism, local community autonomy and the subsidiarity principle. I see in it, apart from the intentional communities, on a propertarian or cooperative ownership basis, not as a proposal for exterritorial autonomy for all groups of volunteers, under self-chosen personal law. Except for intentional communities and gated communities this proposal is still far from panarchism or polyarchy. He does not even mention "proprietary communities". "Die Freiheit, die ich meine, die ist hier, leider, nicht zu Hause!" - I would not bother translating this text into English. - Panarchism and polyarchism etc. means very much more. - J.Z., 1.10.11. - TERRITORIALISM, LOCAL AUTONOMY, DECENTRALIZED STATISM, WELFARE STATE, GEOGRAPHICAL SECESSIONISM, FEDERALISM

HAPPINESS & TOLERANCE: I should, of course, like to see society organized so that the individual would be free to carry on his 'pursuit of happiness' as he sees fit and in accordance with his own capacities. That is because I assume that the individual is endowed at birth with the right to do so. I cannot deny that right to my fellow man without implying that I do not have that right for myself, and that I will not admit." - Frank Chodorov, Out of Step, 105.

HAPPINESS & TOLERANCE: Various routes to happiness lie open and he is free to choose what seems to him the best for the purpose." - Etienne Gilson, "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy".

HAPPINESS: A well-planned, happy prison is still a prison. A free market economy doesn't guarantee every one's happiness … but it guarantees everyone's freedom.” - Charles Blackwell, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 8/76. – Provided it also includes e.g. full monetary and financial freedom, the freedom to decide on war and peace, rightful war and peace aims, rightful weapons and free choice of governments and societies and the right and organization required to defend all individual rights and liberties effectively. The Chinese in Mainland China are now, largely, economically free but not yet monetarily, financially and free to choose the government or society they prefer for themselves and to defend their individual rights and liberties effectively, e.g. by seceding and forming their own panarchies and by joining or establishing a quite rightful militia, which would e.g. destroy all ABC mass murder devices that it could get hold of. – J.Z. 6.1.09. – FREEDOM MEANS MUCH MORE THAN MERELY THE OPTION TO ENGAGE IN THE USUAL FREE MARKET ACTIVITIES.

HAPPINESS: As the happiness of the people is the sole end of government, so the consent of the people is the only foundation of it, in reason, morality, and the natural fitness of things.” - John Adams - Its people are only its own volunteers, not all people who happen to live in a certain territory. - J.Z., 11.10.02. - Territorial governments do not and cannot fulfil their promises. But exterritorial governments should be free to try, for and with their volunteers. - J.Z., 24.11.02, 18.12.11. - CONSENT, GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

HAPPINESS: Bentham, deprecating the use of this force for the benefit of the privileged few, urged that the aim of the law-makers should be the greatest good of the greatest number. Spencer, recognizing that happiness is not the same for all, and that men cannot rightfully be provided for thus in the lump, saw that greater happiness lies in each being at liberty to pursue it in his own way, due regard being paid to the restrictions necessary to prevent encroachment on the equal rights of others.” - Who? In Sprading? page 379. - UTILITARIANISM, THE GREATEST GOOD OF THE GREATEST NUMBER, LIBERTY, INDIVIDUALISM, MAJORITY

HAPPINESS: Everyone is the smith of his happiness - but no one is master in this field.” – “Ein jeder ist seines Gluecks Schmied, doch keiner Meister auf diesem Gebiet.” - Willi Schirp, Gezirp, 84. – Nor are we as yet free enough to practise whatever degree of mastery we have achieved, as we could under personal law or exterritorial autonomy, based upon individual sovereignty and individual secessionism. – J.Z., 7.12.10.

HAPPINESS: Happines for a bee or a dolphin is simply to exist: for man it is to know and to wonder.” - Jaques Yves Cousteau, 1910-1997, marine explorer. – Alas, this is not yet the characteristic of most human beings. – J.Z., 6.1.09. – The know-nothings and the under-educated and unenlightned can be happy in their own way but this should happen only at their own cost and risk. – J.Z., 7.12.10.

HAPPINESS: I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.”- Thomas Jefferson. – Who says that the territorial power-addicts are rational beings rather than a particular kind of madmen, psychopaths or cripples? – J.Z., 7.12.10. - POWER, RATIONALITY VS. IRRATIONALITY

HAPPINESS: Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds - that we cannot be happy without being free - that we cannot be free without being secure in our property - that we cannot be secure in our property if without our consent others may as by right take it away.” - John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies (1768). – There are many other rights than property rights. All are required for a complete condition of freedom. – None should be taken away against one’s will – if one is not a criminal with involuntary victims. - J.Z., 7.12.10.

HAPPINESS: mankind obtain a greater sum of happiness when each pursues his own, under the rules and conditions required by the rest, than when each makes the good of the rest his only object.” - John Morley, On Compromise, p.273. – Rather under his own rightful rules, which do agree with the rightful rules that all others have for their own actions, according to a general law of freedom, as Kant suggested. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - SELF-INTEREST, EGOISM VS. ALTRUISM

HAPPINESS: No one has a right to happiness.” - Eric Hoffer. - He has only the right to try to make himself and others happy - if he can manage to do so without infringing anybody's rights and liberties. - J.Z., 11.2.02. – RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, NEEDS, DESIRES

HAPPINESS: The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” - George Bernard Shaw. - Can innocents imprisoned in nation-wide prisons or reasonable people incarcerated in country-wide madhouses, under millions of irrational rules, be really happy? - J.Z., 30.10.02, 7.12.10. - FAITH, BELIEF, DOUBT, CREDULITY, SKEPTICISM, TERRITORIALISM

HAPPINESS: The great end of all human industry is the attainment of happiness. For this were arts invented, sciences cultivated, laws ordained, and societies modelled, by the most profound wisdom of patriots and legislators. Even the lonely savage, who lies exposed to the inclemency of the elements and the fury of wild beasts, forgets not, for a moment, this grand object of his being.” - David Hume. - By directly aiming at happiness it cannot be achieved. It is, usually, the result of diverse other efforts, especially free and rightful ones. - J.Z., 30.6.00, 7.12.10, 18.12.11.

HAPPINESS: The office of government is not to confer happiness, but to give men opportunity to work out happiness for themselves.” - William Ellery Channing - It should start by letting individuals and minority groups secede from them. - J.Z., 11.10.02. - Otherwise, in is like a despotic spouse that will not permit divorce from it, or like a territorially and hierarchically established church that oppresses dissenters and non-conformists. - J.Z., 24.11.02. – SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

HAPPINESS: The pursuit of unhappiness is an inalienable right of all humans.” - Frank Herbert, Eye, p.174. – Let people be statists at their own expense and risk but not territorialists, for this could only be done at the risk and expense of innocent dissenters living in the same territory. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - ERRORS, MISTAKES AND EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TERRITORIALISM

HAPPINESS: the utilitarian demand that each man merits equal consideration. For equal consideration is compatible with great injustice. For example, I might give equal consideration to slaves in that I think that their happiness is to be computed on the same scale as the happiness of the slaveholders, but argue that the happiness of the latter (because there are more of them, say) outweighs the unhappiness of the former. That is exactly what Kant wants to preclude. It is immoral to deny the freedom of any man against his rational will, no matter how good (on balance) the consequences of so doing.” - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right, p.161. - MAJORITY, UTILITARIANISM, SLAVERY

HAPPINESS: There are a set of religions, or rather moral writings, which teach that virtue is the certain road to happiness, and vice to misery, in this world. A very wholesome and comfortable doctrine, and to which we have but one objection, namely, that it is not true.” - Henry Fielding (1707-1754), Tom Jones (1749). – Let all pursue their kind of happiness in their own ways, but always only at the own risk and expense. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - VIRTUE & RELIGION, TOLERANCE VS. INTOLERANCE

HAPPINESS: There is no such thing as happiness. We just have to be happy without it.” - From film: Money From Home, 1954, with Jerry Lewis & Dean Martin. – Like right and freedom it is just an abstract ideal that can only be approached to different degrees by different individuals, in accordance with their capacity and wish for either. – One form is not a cure-all or panacea for all kinds of illness and troubles. – However, panarchism, with its diverse panarchies, in accordance with individual free choices, can make more people happy, in accordance with their own ideas on happiness, than any other system of human organization. - J.Z., 7.12.10.

HAPPINESS: There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness.” - H. L. Mencken. – They were not satisfied with living as puritans themselves but wanted to force their practices upon all others. To my knowledge, the Non-Puritans were much more tolerant. They tolerated the Puritans to the extent that these did their own things only to themselves, like e.g. monks and nuns do. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - PURITANISM, RELIGION, SIN, CHRISTIANITY, INTOLERANCE

HAPPINESS: To each his own road to happiness, at the own expense and risk. - J.Z., 17.10.02.

HAPPINESS: To refrain from harming others is one thing; to design and order happiness for others and to enforce delivery invites an equal-and-opposite reaction.” - Frank Herbert, The Godmakers, p.81. – Harm and rights infringements are still not sufficiently distinguished. The spurned lover is hurt and harmed in his love relationship – but he is not wronged. He does not have the right to demand love from any particular person. – J.Z., 3.1.09. - HARM, ORDERING, COERCION, FORCE, COMPULSION, UTOPIANISM, PLANNING, CENTRALISATION, SELF-DETERMINATION, CONTROL

HARD TIMES: When people have strong values, they can survive hard economic times.  When they have dissolute values, they can't even survive prosperity.” - Harry Henderson, ) - What is more important, strong values or sound values? At present most people all too strongly adhere to unsound values. That would not matter much - if dissenters were free to do their own things to and for themselves. Let ideologies of all kinds freely compete - exterritorially, i.e., peacefully and tolerantly. - J.Z., 29.10.02. - PROSPERITY

HARM & WRONGS: Voluntary and exterritorial States can, like voluntary churches and sects, do only limited wrongs and harms to their voluntary victims. But for them it is highly educational and deserved, nay, asked for. -J.Z. 19.12.92. - At least their wrongs and the damages they do, are, mostly, confined to their voluntary victims, slaves or serfs, their true believers. - J.Z., 9.12.03. – Outsiders would suffer only indirect some losses through them. – They lose e.g. the coercive utopians as prosperous international customers and suppliers for them. Trade with societies, which, through their irrational and wrongful internal rules have greatly impoverished their members, cannot be very extensive. – J.Z., 17.12.11.

HARM: It would seem that in Paine's view the code of government should be that of the legendary king Pausole, who prescribed but two laws for his subjects, the first being, Hurt no man, and the second, Then do as you please; and that the whole business of government should be the purely negative one of seeing that this code is carried out.” - A. J. Nock, Our Enemy, the State, Caxton, 1959, 36. – Harm and rights should not be mixed up. Territorial governments are the least suitable guarantors for anything positive and rightful. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - HURT, GOVERNMENTS & LAWS

HARMONIZATION OF DIVERSE INTERESTS, NATURAL HARMONIES IN ALL SPHERES VIA THE RELEASE OF ALL CREATIVE ENERGIES – & ALSO OF ALL PROTECTIVE ENERGIES AGAINST REMAINING CRIMES & AGGRESSIONS: Freedom for all, to the extent that it is desired, via exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers and the individual option join or leave or establish any of them, would sufficiently harmonize the diverse interests of human beings, to the extent that they would, otherwise, territorially organized, clash with each other. Frederic Bastiat wrote an excellent but unfinished work called “Economic Harmonies”. Panarchism would not only lead to the inherent harmonies of genuine economics, consistently applied, but also to a sufficient harmonization between the adherents of diverse economic, political and social  systems, since it would leave all of them alone to do their things to or for themselves, as they see fit, but always only at the own risk and expense. Moreover, it would go beyond this and make for all the dissenting groups their own and supposedly ideal political societies and social communities possible, always on a voluntary basis and confined to exterritorial autonomy. Within that framework all kinds of tolerant and tolerable experiments would become possible, conducted by people who think alike and thus harmonize sufficiently, internally. Being left to mind their own business, as well as they can, they will also tend to harmonize with the diverse exterritorialy autonomous actions and communities of others, who will leave them alone, as long as they are left alone, e.g., other enthusiastic reformers and innovators. Minding the own business and abstaining from impositions upon other people’s business, will then become a universal rule and practice, one thus leading to a sufficient harmonization of almost interests. - Well, abortions for abortionists, in their communities, would still not satisfy the rightful and rational interests of their unborn and aborted children but it would be as close to an approach to realizing the right to life of the unborn as we can come under the present state of enlightenment or popular prejudices, since all Right to Life advocates could have their own communities as well. Capitalism for capitalists, State socialism for such socialists, anarchism for anarchists, libertarianism for libertarians etc., etc. Who else but fanatics and totalitarians would then be able to complain and how many of these would then be left after a long or even merely a short period of such free esperimentation? – J.Z., 27.1.05, 18.12.11, 16.5.12. – Q.

HARMONY: A glance at the fresh-baked national States which appeared as a result of the World War gives us a factual picture which cannot be easily misunderstood. The same nationalities, which before the War never ceased to revolt agianst the foreign oppressor, reveal themselves today, when they have reached their goal, as the worst oppressors of national minorities, and inflict upon them the same brutal moral and legal oppressions which they themselves, and with full right, fought most bitterly when they were the subjected peoples. This ought to make plain to even the blindest that a harmonious living together of peoples within the framework of the national State is definitely impossible. – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.202. - TERRITORIAL NATIONALISM, PANARCHISM, NATION STATE, TERRITORIALISM, MINORITY RIGHTS

HARMONY: Actions which can and ought to be willed in obedience to the moral law … are those whose maxims, if conceived as a law of nature, would further the systematic harmony of purposes among men, or at least would do nothing to destroy such a systematic harmony.” - Kant, on page 93 of: Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right. - MORAL LAW, ACTIONS, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, TOLERANCE FOR TOLERANT ACTIONS

HARMONY: Diversity is the first step towards harmony, tolerance and its protection is the next step. Enforced territorial uniformity is its greatest enemy. - J.Z., 12.7.78, 19.10.02. - DIVERSITY, FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, UNIFORMITY, TERRITORIALISM, UNITY, UNIFORMITY

HARMONY: Good thinkers never committed a more fatal mistake than in expecting harmony from an attempt to overcome individuality … A State or a nation is a multitude of indestructible individualities and cannot, by any possibility, be converted into anything else! The horrid consequences of these monstrous and abortive attempts to overcome simple truth and nature, are displayed on every page of the world's melancholy history.” - Josiah Waren, Equitable Commerce. - INDIVIDUALISM, DIVERSITY, TERRITORIALISM, UNIFORMITY

HARMONY: If men were left free to pursue their own devices, if force were once and for all removed from the everyday productive life of the individual, society could indeed be harmonious. - G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, 164. - FORCE, FREEDOM , INDIVIDUALISM, LAISSEZ FAIRE, SELF-INTEREST

HARMONY: If my little treatise of the Economic Sophisms is successful, we may follow it up by another entitled Social Harmonies. It would be of the greatest utility for it would meet the desires of an age in search of artificial harmonies and organizations, by demonstrating the beauty, order, and progressive principle of the natural and providential harmonies.” - Bastiat, in G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.132.

HARMONY: Peace, security, prosperity, order, progress, harmony, cannot be effectively imposed from above. Only the freedom conditions for their natural growth from within and below can be established.” - J.Z., 5.4.89, 19.10.02. - ORDER

HARMONY: When Kant speaks of harmony here, he does not mean uniformity. His ideal moral world is not one in which everyone would have the same purposes. Rather his view is that the ideal moral world would be one in which each man would have the liberty to realise all of his purposes in so far as these purposes are compatible with like liberty for all. … The reasonable, the rational and the moral action for man is that action which does not interfere with the systematic harmony of purposes among men.” - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right, p.93. - LIBERTY VS. UNIFORMITY

HARRIS, J. J.: Cases and Materials on International Law, 3rd. ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1983, indexed, 810pp, JZL. The only relevant information that I could find in it is a case in Italy. 1935-1937, in which the sovereignty of the Order of Malta was recognized. Pages: 123-124.

HARTZOG, PAUL, I am the guy who coined the term panarchy in the early 1980s in regard to modern politics. - Gian Piero de Bellis quoted this in an email message to me from 2.12.02, stating: I got this message from a certain Paul Hartzog. - Do you know him? - Even after some discussion of panarchies in politics had been going on for over a century, the different groups and writers and their fans still did not know of their existence and their output. The situation was similar when it comes to monetary and financial freedom and the various self-management options. The Internet has greatly improved the situation but not yet made contacts easy and certain enough. - J.Z., 29.8.11. - Paul Hartzog is the guy behind - 2. He is contributing these days to a blog named "SMART MOBS" and he is one of the "Blog Mob" and presented as follows: Paul Hartzog is the creator of the post-modern theory of Panarchy [CB: my emphasis]. A self-styled futurist and techno-shaman, his interests include Complexity Theory, Cooperation, International Relations, Environmental Politics, Information Society and Economy, Information Technologies, Sustainable Development, Ethics. - Isn't that a bit arrogant and at the most partly correct? On his site you search in vain a mention of de Puydt, except in one single sentence being a comment added to a page by a reader. - C.B., 30.7.01.

HATE, INTOLERANCE, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM: When there is no choice in governments for its individuals, then dissenting people become either apathetic or intolerant. Peace requires maximum choice for all peaceful people in all spheres not just in many private activities. The latter choices are already enjoyed by most people, right now. They assure us neither peace nor justice nor prosperity for all or the degrees of freedom which different people desire for themselves in their political, economic and social systems. There is no substitute for full exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities.  - J. Z., 21.1. & 24. 2. 99, 17.12.11.

HATE: Even hatred, a generally destructive emotion, can sometimes have a place, if directed against systems and ideologies rather than people.” – Julian Baggini, in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, March 21-22, 2009, p.23. – One should distinguish between systems and ideologies that are territorially intolerant and those which are exterritorially tolerant. – Why hate systems and ideologies that are tolerantly practised only among volunteers? Hatreds and resistance should be confined to those, which are territorially intolerant and imposed upon dissenters. – J.Z., 23.4.09. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

HATE: Hate comes naturally, love is to be learned.” - D. Runes, A Dictionary of Thought, p.71. - Justice, tolerance, peace, freedom, their conditions, principles, institutions and processes are also to be learned. Instincts and mere reactions do not lead us to them or not fast and reliably enough. – (Learned love? Learnt love?) - J.Z., n.d. & 19.10.02, 7.12.10. – As if the old saying: “falling in love” had no meaning at all. Instead of love he should have said something like: “full appreciation of another person”. – J.Z., 17.5.12. – LOVE, RESPECT, APPRECIATION

HATE: Hate is the revenge of the coward for having been intimidated." - Shaw. - "Hate: Something felt in the face of the superiority of someone else." - Bierce. - There are actions and institutions that not only deserve hate but resistance and counter actions and alternative institutions. Irrational and immoral hatreds are likely to be reduced when everybody can come to feel equal or even superior within the society or State of his choice, only among and for like-minded people. - J.Z. 5.7.92, 15.1.93, 18.12.11.

HATE: Love may be blind but hate sees what is not there.” – Dagobert D. Runes, A Dictionary of Thought. – As if one could not hate certain crimes and also people, who do habitually engage in them, e.g. murderers, child molesters and territorial rulers. – J.Z., 7.12.10.- DIS.

HATE: There are actions, institutions and mottos that not only deserve hate but counter-actions. Irrational and immoral hatreds are likely to be reduced when everybody can come to feel equal or even superior within the society or State of his dreams, among and for like-minded people. - J.Z., 5.7.92, 15.1.93.

HATE: to survive man must mutate and … the survival mutation must win before the storm of hatred could break. I ask you, my friend, what is the history of conference?” - Clifford D. Simak, Ring Around the Sun, p.171. - Not human being must become mutated but territorial States must become reduced to exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 23.10.02, 18.12.11 – Negotiations and conferences between heads of States should be distinguished from those, among their victims and over their heads. There should be no territorial monopoly for diplomacy and treaties, either. -  J.Z., 17.5.12. - MAN, SURVIVAL, MUTATIONS, STATE, PANARCHISM, WARFARE STATE, TERRITORIALISM, SUMMIT CONFERENCES, LEADERSHIP, FREE PEOPLE

HATE: When there is no choice in governments for individuals, then dissenting people become either apathetic or intolerant. Peace requires maximum choice for all peaceful people in all spheres, not just in many minor and private activities. The latter choices are already enjoyed, by most people, now. They assure us neither peace nor justice nor prosperity for all or the degrees of freedom which different people desire for themselves in their political, economic says and social systems. There is no substitute for full exterritorial autonomy for all communities of volunteers. - J. Z., 14.9.85, 27.6.92, 21. & 24. 2. 99, 6.1.09, 18.12.11, 17.5.12. - INTOLERANCE, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, PROPAGANDA, PANARCHISM, EGALITARIANISM, ENVY, STATE SOCIALISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, UNIFORMITY & ONE LAW FOR ALL SPLEEN

HATE: Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up hatred than when it tries to stir up friendly feeling?" - Betrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness, 1936. - Because hatreds are an inevitable consequence of the by now almost universal territorialist system for political, economic and social systems. It does wrongly and unnecessarily set all the different true believers in these spheres against each other, as they were once mutually antagonized by the imposition of a religious hierarchy. Only the exterritorial autonomy appeal and tolerance of panarchism for volunteers is sufficiently non-provokative or even friendly towards diverse peoples and their own, different and beloved systems. Hatred prevails because panarchists are still rare. Just consider how few panarchists, polyarchists etc. there are so far. Anyhow, the attractiveness of quite rightful war and peace aims, quite trustworthily declared and demonstrated, has not yet been tried out.You do not have to love your enemies but you owe them justice and ought to tolerate them in all their tolerant actions and even set them panarchistically free, while you claim panarchic liberty not only for them but for yourself and all others as well. - J.Z. 14.9.85, 27.6.92, 11.12. 03. – Hopefully, this be worded much better by myself or someone else. - I consider none of my formulations as final and optimal. – J.Z., 17.5.12.PROPAGANDA, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE FOR THE TOLERANT, ENEMIES, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

HAUMANN, H., Geschichte der Ostjuden”, 1990, Muenchen, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. – Mentioned by Frey. It may contain some details on the degrees of their autonomy and their “territorialist” autonomy aspirations within the Russian empire.

HAUTEFEUILLE, Histoire du droit maritime international, 2nd. ed. Paris, 1869. Liu, in his “Exterritoriality”, quotes him twice on page 24.

HAVES: It is becoming increasingly difficult for haves and have-nots to live together in one society. (*) … The only alternative left is separation - to have only two different societies side by side. In one society the chronically poor will have ideal opportunities to learn new skills and become self-reliant. In the other society the haves will be free to wheel and deal, compete, run risks, build and tear down, experiment - in short, do as they please.” - Eric Hoffer, Before the Sabbath, Harper, 1979, 116/117. - Why only two such societies? Why confine experimental freedom for the poor, as well as the rich - and any other groups, to these two options? - If some poor choose full freedom for themselves and the rich only the present system, then these poor could soon become more affluent than those presently rich. – (*) Only when both are not sufficiently free!  - J.Z., 21.4.00. – Was this as close to panarchism as Eric Hoffer ever came? Neither side should be allowed to territorially rule the other. – J.Z., 6.1.09. - HAVE-NOTS, SEPARATION, PANARCHISM, BIARCHY, Q., EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TERRITORIALISM

HAWAII, BALKANIZATION OR EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Butterbach" To: "John Zube" - "Richard C.B. Johnsson" - Cc: "Ken Schoolland" Sent: Tuesday, May 31, Subject: Balkanization or Panarchism? 16) Hawaii: Akaka bill seeks ethnic-Hawaiian government. WASHINGTON TIMES: "A Senate Democrat is pushing a bill that would allow a separate government for ethnic Hawaiians. Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle and other Republicans also support the bill, which critics say would have dire ramifications beyond Hawaii. 'By creating a race-based government in the United States, we would be enhancing a trend toward the Balkanization of our culture,' said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman. 'This would be the first time that we would actually be creating a race-based government entity within the United States.' The bill, sponsored by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, would designate ethnic Hawaiians -- thought to account for about 20 percent of the state's population -- as an 'indigenous people' comparable to American Indians and Alaska natives." 5/30/05) - - comments: - At.05.2005, John Zube wrote: Dear Christian and Richard, this short news does not state, whether they will get "personal law" autonomy or exterritorial status, or, perhaps and probably, only to the very limited extent of natives on officially recognized reserves. - "Balkanization" is only dangerous when various people, antagonistic too each other, live in the same territory and each of them tries to obtain, maintain or spread a territorial monopoly. In this case even "ethnic cleansing" appears to some of them to be a "solution", which is, naturally, not any better than the "solution" of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews, Gypsies and others, including political opponents. - They are not yet aware that practically all races and religions and ideologies in the world are, already, largely, very mixed ones and that frictions between their various colours and shades can only be minimized to the extent that they manage to leave each other alone - apart from peaceful exchanges, or that they do learn to live together with each other, in spite of them, as they do already largely do e.g. in most large cities. But even there a single territorial government does not provide general satisfaction. - The further away from territorialism "balkanization" gets, the more harmless it will be. Exterritorial balkanization has not demonstrated its evils anywhere as yet except, perhaps, within the limited horizons of sects of fanatics, who have, sometimes, not only wronged and harmed outsiders but even themselves, as hordes of wolves, lemmings or other beasts in human form, but without humane and sufficiently developed minds. Racism in a territorial State is one thing. Racism in a private club etc. is another. Who does e.g. complain about white or black sports teams? - Only territorial government power of one race over another race, without individual consent of the subjected, is objectionable. That Red Indians and Hawaiens, Eskimos, Chinese, Japanese etc. etc. were so far largely subjugated by territorial constitutions, laws and juridictions, which were, largely, passed by whites, in correspondence with their ideas and prejudices, and that democracies have not yet sufficiently advanced all of the various minorities in the USA, either, is a long-standing abuse, that might also be described as genuinely racist and one of a religious and ideological bias, whether it be e.g. a libertarian, a liberal or a more or less State socialist one. - Your own racial or ideological or religious preference, bias or prejudice will, under "democracy" (largely the opposite of genuine self-government for all people), count only, under the prevailing system and "standards" and ideas, if and when you manage to obtain the approval of the majority or can form at least a local majority or constitute one of the officially recognized minority groups that are "politically correct". - Equal status in the same system is attractive to many people, but not to all people. - Those quite satisfied with it, should naturally be entitled to achieve and to practise it. - Those wanting separate self-government or self-determination, by their own standards, should also be entitled to it. – (Until statist, awfully lawful and territorial egalitarianism took over in England, too, excentricity was something that was largely respected or tolerated there and allowed at least somewhat for the diversity of human nature and individual life style choices. – But complete individual secessionism and individual sovereignty were suppressed even there. - J.Z., 18.12.11.) Democracy and Republics should not have a territorial monopoly, either. Whoever thinks them ideal, has e.g. not looked at e.g. at their tax legislation, their immigration laws and their laws which make inflations, deflations and stagflations possible and likely. - According to prior hints, ethnic Hawaiians were down already to 5 % of the population. - Even if there were only one of them left, he or she would be morally entitled to full self-government or self-determination! … PIOT, John.  (Edited: J.Z., 18.12.11, 17oi.5.12.) - - C. B. replied, 1.6.05: Dear John, I only had meant that this was an extremely rare, quasi inexistent, very smallish attempt in "our" direction maybe, therefore I found this news newsworthy and worthy to be forwarded to the Grand Guru and Pope of Panarchism... ;-) One has to start somewhere, hasn't one, before becoming "rad to the max" (JDM)? After all, this proposal in Hawaii acknowledges that some people are not satisfied with the monopolistic central government, but do not want to secede territorially (like all those dumb Basks, Kurds, etc.), only want, within the same territory of the Aloha State, get their own government. Isn't that pure de Puydt? If the idea catches on, shouldn't we be joyful? After all, that is more panarchistic, as it is on the political level, not on the level of religion for instance, than "multiculturalism". You are sometimes so doggedly grim unrelenting ... :-) Wouldn't a slogan like "separate government for everyone" be as good as "panarchy in our time" and above all more understandable right away by most? - By the way, in the short excerpt (I haven't read the whole article which may contain more), they speak of Balkanization of their culture, not of Balkanization of their territory. Maybe they should have spoken more correctly of Balkanization of the political system. But they haven't understood yet. Let them go ahead without understanding. If the thing is in place everywhere, we'll tell them! ;-) - Chris – I hold that one should try to express ideals as radically and clearly as possible. Then one should try to approach them as closely and fast as one can and wants to. There is a whole spectrum of known options for doing this and more and more new ones might be discovered. They should be clearly and completely declared and published. Some are listed under START-UP OPTIONS. – All should be liberated or liberate themselves only to the extent that they wish to be liberated and shepherded only to the degrees they like for themselves. - J.Z., 18.12.11. - INDIGINOUS PEOPLE, NATIVES, ABORIGINES, RED INDIANS, ETHNIC GROUPS ETC., HAWAII

HAWBLITZEL, J. C., I am pro-freedom and not anti-anything. Others can have all the government they want. I just wish they wouldn't force it on me as I don't want it or need it. I am self-governing and will not force my ideas on them via the ballot box (or any other way)." - J. C. Hawblitzel, Canoga Park, Ca., VALLEY NEWS, March 7, 1980. Quoted in THE VOLUNTARYIST, No. 66, Feb. 1994. - Such voices in the wilderness and their addresses have still to be collected towards some kind of federation of all panarchists. - Maybe the new panarchy, polyarchy and libertocracy websites will help to achieve that. - J.Z., 28.6.01. - Will someone undertake the chore to "google-up" the contact addresses for all such "lone voices in the wilderness" towards a first small international association of panarchists, polyarchists etc.? - J.Z., 8.9.04. - PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM, ANTAGONISM, ANIMOSITY, ENEMIES, DIRECTORY OF PANARCHISTS OR STUDENTS OF PANARCHISM.

HAWKINS, ROBERT, M.D.: Santa Barbara, June 25, 1984, in reply to Peace Questionaire, 1p, 121, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PEACE PLANS 869 & 689: - Robert Hawkins, M.D., 206 WEST ANAPAMU, Santa Barbara. California 93101, 862-3967, June 25, 1984 … Dear Mr. Zube: (1) Peace, like health, is the absence of disease, disharmony, duress. - (2) Ubiquitous isonomocracy (government of unbiased law). - (3) Remove all government boundaries at all levels, i.e. If you choose to be a citizen of Rome (city), Tichino (southern Switzerland) and the USA (nation) while you live in New Zealand, this would be your tax obligation. You would owe nothing to New Zealand or its constituent political subdivisions. - The model for this structure would be the church where a person can be a Roman Catholic and live in Northern Ireland, if they so choose. - - Needless to say, governments would have to give up their monopoly services from trash collection on up and they would have to scale down their dreams of power and glory, when taxation became largely voluntary and competitive. - - When nations have no boundaries, there is no need for expansionist goals; at the same time, if citizens wish to live elsewhere, bring money or letters of credit and go wherever you can afford to go. - In addition to giving up their boundaries they should also be forced to give up their totalitarian ways, such as collecting various and sundry taxes on various and sundry people under all manner of circumstances such as the speed tax, the parking tax, the bed tax, the alcohol tax, the tobacco tax, etc., etc., etc. - Sincerely, Signed: Robert Hawkins, RH:jw. - That was one of the best replies that I got upon my short 3 point peace questionnaire. - J.Z., 16.12.04.

HAYEK, FRIEDRICH A., The Fatal Conceit.This is a quote from Liberty magazine; March 2005; article The Final Deceit; by Alan Ebenstein; page 30. The article is about Friedrich Hayek and Friedrich Hayek's book The Fatal Conceit. - "Hayek came to see whole societal systems - their webs of rules, customs, values, and governments - as competitors with one another. Just as the most efficient individuals and firms come out on top in the market, so the most materially productive society will ultimately prevail. He saw the market as the prototype for intersocietal competition." - I do not know in what books Friedrich Hayek argued this viewpoint, or if Alan Ebenstein agrees with this viewpoint, or if Friedrich Hayek called this competitive federalism, or even if Friedrich Hayek would agree with this quotation. - I agree with this viewpoint. - The lack of competition between governments/societies/communities is the most serious problem in the world today. This issue is more important than any other issue. - Hint in the links of Kenneth Howlett. - I would say that until this competition is exterritorial and quite voluntary for individuals it is not really competition, i.e. a free competition, a free-market competition. Only under exterritorialism is the individual consumer of public services a sovereign consumer, supplied by sovereign and competitive providers of such service providers, among whom he is quite free to choose, as he does now for ordinary consumer goods and services e.g. in a shopping centre or online. - J.Z., 30.9.11.

HAYWOOD, ROBERT, See: NON-TERRITORIALISM. (As yet I have not always inserted such cross-references. All these entries ought to become supplemented by entries from many others, who are interested in this subject. – J.Z., 17.12.11.)

HEAD WIDE OPEN: Head Wide Open - Panarchism: Panarchism calls for the peaceful co-existence of all political ... de Puydt in 1860, who saw panarchy as a replacement for "wasteful revolutions. ... - - 132k - Cached - One of about 387 Yahoo search results for "panarchy + panarchism", back on 3.6.08. – Minds that are too open and uncritical can easily be filled by an assortment of all too popular errors, myths and prejudices, which are still not systematically collected and refuted and encyclopedically and permamently published, as cheaply as possible, e.g. on a disced special encyclopedia, annually published and in-between updated on a website for this purpose. – J.Z., 18.12.11.

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION: Health can only be self-administered or provided by a self-chosen professional. Any government minister who believes that he can provide health to a country is a quack of the most dangerous kind. The official ministers of health can only interfere with health, health insurance, the provision of medicines and cures and increase the costs of any genuine health services that remain after their administrative interventions. Through the establishment of institutions like the FDA in the US, they can definitely slow down the progress and application of medical knowledge and the spread of new cures and medicines. Here, as well as in everything else, government is the problem not the solution. – We should build-up an every growing digital WIKIPEDIA on orthodox and unorthodox cures, medicines and health promotion possibilities. That work, online or on disc, could provide a better service than all the Health Ministers and their departments in the world. - J.Z., 20.9.00, 30.1.01, 7.12.10, 17.5.12. – The same should be done for all anti-aging information. Bureaucrats will not provide it, nor will the orthodox and alternative professional health providers, who benefit from the existing ignorance and lack of easily accessible information on the subject. As such they have a vested interested in the continuance of health and aging problems. Self-help by their victims is required in this sphere, too. – J.Z., 18.12.11. - MINISTER OF HEALTH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT

HEALTH CARE: A federally administered health care system would have all the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal Service, and at Pentagon prices." - From a Libertarian pamphlet. – Full information and free choice among all the health options offered would be best. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - MEDICARE

HEALTH CARE: people have the right to self-medication.” - View ascribed to Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, in REASON, 9/74 adv. for its Oct. 74 issue. - MEDICAL TREATMENT, SELF-MEDICATION

HEARNSHAW, F. J. C., Democracy at the Crossways, A Study in Politics & History with Special Reference to Great Britain, Macmillan & Co, London 1918,XV 511,bibl. 496-504, index 505-511, JZL. In his discussion of anarchism (263-287), he ascribes to Kropotkin the following panarchist general view: "11 ... after all, it does not involve a much greater departure from present-day ideas than religious toleration did from the ecclesiastical ideas of the Middle Ages. Religious toleration is indeed, Anarchism in the ecclesiastical sphere; and in the sixteenth century it was regarded with as much horror, by Catholic and Calvinist alike, as is political Anarchism to-day by both Constitutional Democrat and Collective Socialist. Nevertheless it came; and everywhere now throughout the civilized world religion is a matter of free personal determination, and its Organization a matter of voluntary association. It is permissible to imagine, with Kropotkin, that the time may come when the individual may be as completely emancipated from political and economic compulsion as he is from religious persecution; when he will associate with his fellows or remain in isolation as he pleases; when his taxes will take the form of voluntary contributions to causes of which he approves; when his personality will have freedom to develop in all directions unchecked."KROPOTKIN, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES

HEARNSHAW, F. H. C.: The "Ifs" of History, London, George Newness, 1929, 167pp, JZL. – Page 92: Huguenots enjoyed even military autonomy and garrisoned 75 strongholds. Assassination of enemy rulers: 87/88. Tyrannicide: 89. There ought to be more books of that type written, for significant historical periods, like the Roman Empire, the French Revolution, WW II, and, preferably, from the panarchistic point of view. - On the other hand, exterritorial autonomy and experimental freedom would largely eliminate the "ifs" of history, that might be written upon the assumed and imagined introduction of one or a few diverging factors, for it would give any idea and movement its full scope to grow or fail, largely undisturbed by wars, revolutions and terrorism, the bias of monopolistic decision-makers, chances and accidents. Progress might have become almost as fast and certain as occurred in the natural sciences after the introduction of experimental freedom. - J.Z., 4.7.82, 31.1.1999. - See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON: On Panarchy.

HEAVEN ON EARTH: To each his own "heaven" or "hell" - but always only at the own expense and risk. - J.Z., 04-11.

HEAVEN: Have your prophets and wise men, your therapists and social philosophers, taught you nothing? Is it so confusing that you just can’t begin to solve it at all; can’t work hard to build heaven on earth (*), but prefer to trust in the one after death? (**) I don’t believe it. You underrate yourself. (***) So you’ll get no rules from me. …” - Fay Weldon, Darcy’s Utopia, Collins, London, 1990, P.225. - - (*) Why only one for all? Why not as many different ones as different people want for themselves? – J.Z., 19.9.07. - - (**) Even the heavens of the different religions are described as being diverse. So why should “we” although we are all different, try for a uniform “heaven” on Earth for all, although most people have somehow different ideas about it? –-  (***) Build your own utopian adventure land or paradise for the workers, the idle and the rich, but with and for like-minded people only - and always at their risk and expense. – J.Z., 18.9.07, 17.5.12. - EARTH HEAVENS VS. HEAVENS AFTER DEATH, PANARCHISM, Q.

HEAVEN: One man's idea of hell is to be forced to remain in another man's idea of heaven.” - Dr. Laurence J. Peter. – To each true believer his own kind of “Paradise” on Earth, but always only as a result of his own efforts and at his own risk and expense. – J.Z., 17.5.12. – TOLERANCE,  INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM, HELL, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

HEGEMONIC INDETERMINACY: A panarchist term, used by JOHN GALL, in his book "Systemantics", extract, on page 9, in ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505.

HEILFRON, ED., Dr.: Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte (History of German Law), Berlin, Speyer & Peters, 1900, 5th. ed, indexiert, 870 S., JZL. Pages 25 & 357 confirmed Gibbon's observations on personal law. See PEACE PLANS No. 8, p.8. - 357: "Bei den Germanen galt das Prinzip der Personalitaet des Rechts, d.h. jeder einzelne wurde auch ausserhalb seiner Stammesheimat nach der lex originis, also nach dem Rechte des Stammes behandelt, dem er durch seine Geburt angehoerte. Daher beliess man auch den Roemern trotz ihrer Unterwerfund das roemische Recht als ihr Stammesrecht, und so erklaert sich die Entstehung des Satzes, dass die als Roemer betrachteten Kleriker nach roemischem Rechte leben. ('Ecclesia vivit lege Romana', S. 303). Wo nun Angehoerige verschiedener Volksstaemme susammensassen, ergab sich bald das Beduerfnis, die Stammesrechte, insbesondere hinsichtlich des Wergelds und der Bussen aufzuzeichnen. In solchen Gegenden (besonders in Italien) wurden spaeter, zumal bei notariellen Urkunden, auch sog. Professiones juris ueblich, d.h. Erklaerungen darueber, welchem Stamme der Erklaerende angehoert und nach welchem Rechte daher seine Erklaerung zu beurteilen ist." - S.777: Freigerichte oder Vehmgerichte in Westfalen. - S.326: Austritt aus der Kirche. - S.299: Autonomie der Kirche. - S.377: Autonomie der Staedte. - S.116: Autonomie des hohen Adels. - If the communists and socialists in East and West claimed only personal law autonomy for themselves, then nobody could rightly object and a truly peaceful coexistence with them would become possible. - J.Z. - HEILFRON, ED., Dr.: Note on Personal Law, plan 134, page 30, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. 134.)  - - PERSONAL LAW: "The relationship between the Germans and the Romans developed equally with all tribes insofar as the Romans everywhere - according to the principle of personal law, obeyed by the Germans - remained free and submitted only to the Roman law ... - - Among Germans the principle of personal law was applied. Every man, outside his tribal area, was judged and treated according to the lex originis, that is according to the law of his tribe, to which he belonged by birth. Therefore, in spite of the subjugation of the Romans, they were left their Roman law as their tribal law. This explains the development of the principle that clerical men, considered as Romans, were to live according to Roman law ('Ecclesia vivit lege Romana'). Where members of various tribes lived together a need was felt to put the various tribal laws in writing, particularly concerning indemnifications and punishments. In these areas (especially in Italy) later on, mostly concerning legal documents, the so‑called professiones juris became customary. They were declarations to which tribe a person wanted to belong and according to which law he wanted his declaration in the document judged. ..." - In other words, the "barbarians" knew more about peaceful coexistence and the prevention of civil war than most peace researchers in our time do. - J.Z.

HEILFRON, ED., Dr.: Roemische Rechtsgeschichte, 4. Aufl., Berlin, S. 26, ueber Personalitaetsprinzip, S. 91 & 95 ueber Peregrini. (JZL.)

HEINLEIN, ROBERT: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, New English Library edition, 1969, JZL. On page 230 he recommends voluntary taxation and the Golden Rule as the only law. Page 154: "Hadn't realized 'Free Luna' was going to have taxes. Hadn't had any before and got along. You paid for what you got. Tanstaafl. How else?" See also page 184-186. Forms of exterritorial voting and representation are mentioned on page 229. However, on page 279 he mentions unfavourably an extraterritorial enclave.

HEINTZ, P.: Anarchismus und Gegenwart, 1951, Berlin 1973, has some panarchistic thoughts on pages 110-113. Mentioned in "Law in Anarchism", p.46.

HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE: Difficulties and impossibilities of direct observation of astronomical and nuclear phenomena for human beings do not amount to uncertainty for most of the things or possibilities that are really important for most human beings and their free and voluntary societies, creations, productions and their free exchanges. – They need not be and cannot be Gods but they need and ought to be quite free human beings, as free as they want to be, in harmony and peace with all others, who made their own choices for their own lives. - J.Z., 7.12.10, 178.5.12.

HELP: Never give approval to a law that "helps" anyone.” - Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 9/71. – What if it is only the personal law of a community of volunteers? – J.Z., n.d. - NEEDS, CONSENT, LAWS, WELFARE STATE, PANARCHISM, OFFICIAL ASSISTANCE, SUBSIDIES, , PROTECTIONISM, DIS.

HENDERSON, HANFORD: To Find the Way Out, 10pp, in Essays on Liberty IV, 418ff: On individual and voluntary cooperation vs. compulsory mass action. But the author still thinks that this has to be done within the framework of a territorial limited government. - Really consistent thinking and writing on panarchism is all too rare still. - J.Z. (Most, if not all of the FEE publications are now online! – J.Z., 17.5.12.)

HERBERT, AUBERON & PANARCHISM: PARTIES, VOLUNTARYISM, CONSENT, SLAVERY, REPRESENTATION, PARLIAMENTARISM: What form of slavery can be more debasing than that which a man undergoes when he allows either a party of a church to lead him to and fro when he is in no real agreement with it?" - Auberon Herbert, A Politician in Sight of Heaven. - TERRITORIALISM

HERBERT, AUBERON, BUDGET, POLITICS, DEPUTIES, REPRESENTATIVES, PARLIAMENT, LAWS, SUBSIDIES, PENALTIES, COMPULSION: In his Herbert Spencer lecture in 1906: “I have often laughed and said that, as far as I myself was concerned, he spoilt my political life. I went into the House of Commons, as a young man, believing that he might do much for the people by a bolder and more unsparing use of the powers that belonged to the great law-making machine; and great, as it then seemed to me, were those still unexhausted resources of united national action on behalf of the common welfare. It was at that moment that I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Spencer, and the talk, which we had – a talk that will always remain very memorable to me – set me busily to work to study his writings. As I read and though over what he taught, a new wisdom was opened in my mind. I lost my faith in the great machine; I saw that thinking and acting for others had always hindered not helped the real progress; that all forms of compulsion deadened the living forces in a nation; that every evil violently stamped out still persisted, almost always in a worse form, when driven out of sight, and festered under the surface. I no longer believed that the handful of us – however well-intentioned we might be – spending our nights in the House, could manufacture the life of a nation, could endow it out of hand with happiness, wisdom and prosperity, and clothe it in all the virtues. I began to see that we were only playing with an imaginary magician’s wand; that the ambitious work we were trying to do to lay far out of reach of our hands, far, far above the small measure of our strength. It was a work that could only be done in one way – not by gifts and doles of public money, not by making that most corrupting and demoralizing of all things, a common purse; not by restraints and compulsions of each other; not by seeking to move in a mass, obedient to the strongest forces of the moment, by by acting through the living energies of the free individuals left free to combine in their own way, in their own groups, finding their own experience, setting before themselves their own hopes and desires, aiming only at such ends as they truly shared in common, and ever at the foundation of it all, respecting deeply and religiously alike their own freedom, and the freedom of all others.” – Quoted from: HUTCHINSON HARRIS, S., The Doctrine of Personal Right, Barcelona, 1935, p.204/05. – HERBERT SPENCER, PARLIAMENTARISM, LEGISLATION, STATISM, POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM, WELFARE STATE, REPRESENTATION, COMPULSION, SELF-HELP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

HERESY: Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought.” – Graham Greene (1904-1991) – Alas, only in an all too limited sphere, namely the religious one. – Panarchism permits heresies to be practised by all their adherents, even in the political, social and economic spheres. - J.Z., 7.12.10.

HERETICALISM: We possess appropriate terms to identify a variety of moral beliefs and the social organizations which seek to promote them - such as anarchism, communism, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and so forth. The one moral belief for which we have no appropriate term is that which emphasizes the value of personal choice and the political forms that would promote such choice-making. I propose that we call this ethics, and the politics which articulates it, hereticalism (making use of the Greek root harein, which means "to choose". - Thomas Szasz, Heresies, p.30. - HERESIES, HERETICS, HERETICISM, NONCONFORMISM, DISSIDENTS, PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE IN EVERY SPHERE

HERETICS: Neither suppress nor burn heretics of any kind - rather let them act at their expense and risk. That might teach them! - J.Z., 5/72. - If anything can! - J.Z., 3.11.02. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FOOLS' LIBERTY

HERETICS: That is the whole trouble with being a heretic. One usually must think out everything for oneself. - Aubrey Menan. - Most heretics could come to find other heretics to share their views and company. But they do get only limited freedom, so far, to practise their heresies among themselves, at their own expense and risk. - J.Z., 29.11.02. – Many to most heretics are not consistent but, rather, dogmatic, fundamentalists, zealots, dogmatists, fanatics, intolerant and one-book people. Only if they confine their activities to their own affairs are the irrational and immoral heretics tolerable for outsiders. Their adult members deserve all that they do inflict upon themselves and each other. – J.Z., 7.1.09, 17.5.12. - THINKERS, INDIVIDUALISTS, RADICALS


HERODOTUS: Under the reign of King Proteus of Egypt, in the thirteenth century, B. C, Phoenician merchants from the city of Tyre were allowed to dwell around a special precinct in Memphis known: as the "camp of the Tyrians," and to have a temple for their own worship.1 Seven centuries later, King Amasis (570-526, B.C.) permitted the Greeks to establish a factory at Naucratis, where they might live as a distinct community under their own laws arid worshipping their own gods.2 -  - LIU, Exterritoriality, p. 23/24. - - 1 Herodotus, bk. ii, ch. 112. - - 2 Herodotus, bk. ii, ch. 178. Cf. Twiss, of. cit., vol. i, p. 445; Pardessus, Collection de lois maritime antérieures ut XXVIIIe siécle (Paris, 1828-45), vol. i, p. 21. – LIU, ibid.

HEROES: Heroes exterminate each other for the benefit of people who are not heroes.” - Havelock Ellis, Quoted Evan Esar, Treasury of Humorous Quotations. - Unfortunately, they kill many others in the process. As Kant remarked, war is bad by making more bad people than it eliminates. They would do much less harm and no wrongs e.g. as heroes on sports fields or as fire fighters. With the wars resulting from territorialism panarchism will also abolish the need for military heroes in most cases. - J.Z., 19.10.02.

HEROES: To virtually serve an immoral cause is all too paradoxical.” - Hans Habe, Leben fuer den Journalismus, Bd. 4, S.59. - Habe concludes this by judging about the virtues of General Galland, who in the service of his concentration camp "Fuehrer" shot down so and so many allied planes. - However, it was not only the Nazis who classed most of these bombing raids as terror attacks by bandits against innocent civilians, thus held wrongly responsible for the crimes of the Nazi regime, on which they had very little if any say and if they disagreed with it in public they could only do so by risking their lives and those of their family. - Even WW II was not conducted by angels against devils only. - To shoot down terrorizing bombers was not wrong! These heroic bomber pilots risked their lives but did not act heroically, i.e., morally and reasonably. Most of the victims of their bombs were quite defenceless. - I was one of them as a child. - They could have achieved much more with chocolate bombs, combined with sufficientl publicity for quite just war aims and by an alliance with all kinds of rightful governments and societies in exile and by liberating deserters and prisoners of war. Arms production was reduced by the air raids of the allies only by about 12%. Most of their victims were civilians. The main targets were always the inner cities! They seemed to confirm the Nazi's propaganda that the Allies intended to exterminate all Germans and destroy all of Germany. I witnessed the effect of such raids upon soldiers, who were on leave. They did not want to fight for the ruling Nazis - but the enemies of the Hitler regime did not offer them a rightful and reasonable choice! – So they went bac to the front, more determined than before to fight on! Even now there is all too loose and thoughtless talk about attacking Iraq or Bagdad rather than Saddam Hussein, as if the three were identical. - J.Z., 19.6.92, 19.10.02, 17.5.12. – Totalitarian and territorial regimes do not deserve any heroism. – J.Z., 17.5.12. - SOLDIERS, AIR RAIDS, VIRTUE, OBEDIENCE, LEADERSHIP, TOTALITARIANISM, DES., WAR AIMS, LIBERATION, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, TARGETS, ENEMIES, TYRANNICIDE, WARFARE BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, DEFENCE

HERTSLET, Sir E.: China Treaties, 2 vols., London, 1903.

HESS, KARL, A person who describes a world in which everyone must or should behave in a single way, marching to a single drummer, is simply not an anarchist. A person who says that they prefer this way, even wishing all would prefer that way, but who then says all must decide, (*) may certainly be an anarchist." - Karl Hess. - Did he come much closer to the panarchist point of view in other statements? – (*) All must only decide for themselves, whether they are to live as any kind of anarchists, libertarians or statists. - J.Z., 19.9.11, 17.5.12.

HESS, KARL, By Mutual Consent, LIBERTARIAN PARTY NEWS, June 1990, reproduced on page 125 of PEACE PLANS 1357 and on page 463 of PEACE PLANS 13872/85. (I used to use such short pieces as "fillers".) - This is, probably, as close as he ever came to panarchism. - J.Z. - „Even though I am in complete and enthusiastic agreement with the Libertarian Party's rejection of the initiation of violence to further personal, social, or political ends, I have tried for a long time to discover a statement that is more positive, just as fundamental, and as consistent with the way I and so many of my libertarian friends want to live, day by day. - - The non-violence statement (many question that it should be a pledge) tells people, powerfully, what Libertarians are against. Many, unfamiliar with libertarianism, probably are even more interested in what we are for. - - My own short version ... is an agreement to conduct all social, economic, political, and personal relations solely on the basis of mutual consent of those involved. - - L. Neil Smith's sci-fi novel, The Gallatin Divergence, suggests a possibility that seems to me well worth considering. In his splendid novel, libertarian Smith proposes a detailed statement of unanimous consent in which signators agree to what amounts to a modern Magna Carta for sovereign individuals. - - My own short version of the statement is that it is an agreement to conduct all social, economic, political, and personal relations solely on the basis of mutual consent of those involved. - - An operating beauty of this notion is that it leaves people free to be what they and their neighbors (*) want to be, clearing the way for any kind of relationship, no matter how whacky it might seem to you or me, so long as the people involved mutually agree. - - That may seem pie-in-the-sky theory for now, of course. There's no place on earth where that form of freedom is formally available. And, certainly, you can't get away with it if you're serving in the military or at General Motors. - - But in many aspects of our life, no matter where or how we live, the idea of mutual consent has immediate, practical possibilities for libertarians. It is certainly an organizing principle that could guide any sort of libertarian group, fending off bureaucracy and hierarchy - unless the people involved mutually agreed to have or be bureaucrats and/or obey hierarchical leaders. A small business could productively be organized on the mutual consent of all involved - investors, managers, employees. In fact, many very productive businesses operate pretty much that way already. That sort of mutual consent and mutual responsibility attitude is at the heart of the so-called Y-theory, team production, and "walking around" management concepts. The Quakers "run"a religion that way. Customers are assumed to be voluntarily, mutually consenting participants in commerce. - - Of course, every libertarian, as an individual, can and should refuse to initiate violence against anyone. That is a reassurance that we should all be proud to give to our neighbors. - - The libertarian position against the initiation of violence is a keystone of libertarian philosophy. Many say that it is the basic principle of libertarianism. I can find no convincing argument to say otherwise. But the idea of mutual consent may quickly be extrapolated from that basic principle. - - Without some threat of force hanging over people, as with state law, mutual consent is an obvious subsequent operating principle to get things done in a peaceful and productive society. And mutual consent has an attractive, active, and positive ring to it. - - Moving for mutual consent in our day-to-day work, in our voluntary organizations and dealings, in our businesses and so forth can put what seems to me to be a fundamental factor in freedom to work right here and now.- - Has Karl Hess come still closer to panarchism or polyarchism anywhere else in his writings? - - Alas, although very concise and clear in a way, it still expresses them only in all too general terms - which most people might be unwilling or unable to apply except, perhaps, as he suggests, "merely" in work and personal relationships. - - There are very many other and often much shorter general statements, by many authors, that seem to imply, upon wide interpretation, the general and practical meaning of panarchism and polyarchism. Alas, they are only very rarely interpreted in this way. I did compile many of them in my "Slogans for Liberty" file and combined many of them in a long file on panarchistic slogans for liberty. - - However, it might be that short articles like the above, by much appreciated libertarians, may set some people thinking a bit further along exterritorialist, voluntaryist and personal law or panarchistic or polyarchistic lines. - One can only hope so. - PIOT, J.Z., 16. 5. 2004. - - (*) They do not have to be neighbors. They might be living on the other side of Earth or in another country, somewhere. E.g. as members of a world-wide community of Free Traders, living among Protectionists, who would also engage in their “protection” only among themselves, at their own risk and cost. He was still thinking in terms of small territorial communities. – J.Z., 17.5.12. - CONSENT, MUTUAL CONSENT, PANARCHISM, SCIENCE FICTION

HESS, KARL, I've been working with a gang of friends in Hawai to get a 'none of the above' place on the ballot. I view that as a step toward secession, as a matter of fact. Once people become conscious of how silly most political personality choices are, they may become conscious of how very silly most remote politics are in general. ... As for a national movement which, in fact, would encourage communities to act as they had seceded, I see a strong need and response. Perhaps both things go together. - Karl Hess, Letter to Martin Shepard. - INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM: SECESSION & NONE OF THE ABOVE, POLITICAS AS USUAL, TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITARIANISM, CONSENT, CHOICE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

HESS, KARL, Libertarianism is a people's movement and a liberation movement. It seeks the sort of open, non-coercive society in which the people, the living, free, distinct people may voluntarily associate, dis-associate, and, as they see fit, participate in the decisions affecting their lives. This means a truly free market in everything from ideas to idiosyncrasies. It means people free collectively to organize the resources of their immediate community or individualistically to organize them; it means the freedom to have a community-based and supported judiciary where wanted, none where not, or private arbitration services where that is seen as most desirable. The same with police. The same with schools, hospitals, factories, farms, laboratories, parks, and pensions. Liberty means the right to shape your own institutions. It opposes the right of those institutions to shape you simply because of accreted power or gerontological status. - Karl Hess' statement in Libertarian Forum

HESS, KARL, My own position is in favor of participatory democracy. ... None of this, of course, means that I would deny any other non-aggressive group of dopes the right to go ahead and have their own theocracy, representative democracy, monarchy, or what have you. It should be a matter of choice in a free society, and a free society, in turn, seems to me only possible in discrete units, communities, where a society is possible as opposed to a corporate state." - Karl Hess, undated letter to Martin Shepard. - Quoted by Richard Cummings, in his "Proposition Fourteen". - - Here he appears as a panarchist, after all, but still somewhat confused as to ends and means and closer to the collectivist anarchist than to the individualist anarchist position, i.e. without recognizing the right to individual sovereignty and to individual secession and of individuals to form new communities of volunteers. Nor does he seem to see clearly the exterritorial requirement and option. - J.Z., 15.6.92. - But then one should not judge a man by a single paragraph, far less an as important libertarian thinker as Karl Hess. - J.Z. 15.6.92, 13.1.93. & PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY & AUTONOMY

HESS, KARL, The fundamental question of politics has always been whether there should be politics. - Brad Spangler, quoting K. H. in Spangler's Libertarians vs. Pavlov's Dogs of War. Obviously, he meant territorial politics, with its party politics and pretences of representation. He did not consider or not sufficiently or clearly and explicitly enough - the alternative of exterritorial politics among the members of societies and communities of volunteers, whether these are statists, anarchists or limited government libertarians. - J.Z., 20.8.11, 19.10.11. - ANARCHISM, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP OR SUBJUGATION, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, POLITICS

HESSE, HERMANN: Self-Will, 1919, in: "If the War Goes On", Picador, published by PAN Books Ltd., 1946-1974, JZL. Page 74: "I preach self-will, not revolution." - Page 75: "If we could overcome our superstitious belief that the life or joy of life acquired by any man or people must necessarily be taken away from another man or people!" - Alas, his all too general terms did not lead him or others to make concrete proposals on how they could be realized. - J.Z., 29.1.99. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, TERRITORIALISM

HETZ, J. S.: The Bund's Nationality Program and its Critics in the Russian, Polish and Austrian Socialist Movements, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science, 14, 1969, 53-67.

HEYKING, A. A. S., L’Exterritorialite, Berlin, 1889. – With Google, I got today 41 search results. It seems to deal with consular jurisdiction and extradition, diplomatic privileges and immunities. It is available on two microfiche (not from me) and it also mentions a related text: Full text of "Die Kapitulationen der Türkei, deren Aufhebung und die ... - - Translate this page - Leipzig und Wien 1905. Heyd. Le colonie commericiali degli Italiani in Oriente nel mediö evo. Venezia et Torino 1866. v. Heyking. L'exterritorialite. Berlin 1889. – J.Z., 17.5.12.

HIERARCHIES: But it’s so easy to backslide into old patterns of behavior. Break one hierarchy and another springs up to take its place.” – Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, p.3. – “The King is dead! Long live the King!” - Yes, as long as you tolerate territorial rule. Without that there will always be some who will demonstrate to all the others the benefits of exterritorial self-management over central territorial direction and control. – J.Z., 11.9.07, 17.5.12. - TERRITORIALISM

HIERARCHIES: The basic tenet of anarchism is that hierarchical authority - be it state, church, patriarchy or economic elite - is not only unnecessary, but is inherently detrimental to the maximization of human potential. Anarchists generally believe that human beings are capable of managing their own affairs on the basis of creativity, cooperation, and mutual respect. It is believed that power is inherently corrupting, and that authorities are inevitably more concerned with self-perpetuation and increasing their own power than they are with doing what is best for their constituents.” - ZNET quotes, ascribed to Adolf Hitler. But I doubt that he ever said anything as reasonable. - J.Z., 1.12.02. – As usual, no distinction is made between hierarchies and centralization based upon territorialism, its monopoly and coercion and those, which are based upon individual consent, which amounts to unanimity for societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers only, with each of the diverse groups under personal law or full exterritorial autonomy. Several world governments and world federations are conceivable, all only for their volunteers. We do already have xyz international associations, all only for their volunteers. – J.Z., 17.5.12. - AUTHORITY, ANARCHISM, HUMAN POTENTIAL, SELF-MANAGEMENT, POWER

HIERARCHIES: The only sound foundation for any hierarchy is individual consent - which will lead to voluntary victims only and to much more and faster enlightenment among these victims, or freedom-loving pioneers, through their experiments, e.g. with some of the  monetary and financial freedom options. - J.Z., 26.7.87, 1.4.89.

HIGH SEAS: At least the high seas are not yet completely claimed by territorial States. However, the old type cannon-shot width of "territorial water" claims has been expanded to something like 200 km, still controversial in some areas, largely for the purpose of searching for oil. The continental shelf that is under water is also largely claimed as part and parcel of the land above the water level. - J.Z. n.d. – Intercontinental missiles have put everyone area on earth within the reach of modern “canon-shots” and are by their very existence wrongful threats to everyone. – The oceans are also abused to hide nuclear powered and nuclear-armed submarines, whose targets are whole cities and whole populations rather than merely criminal regimes and their supporters. – They and other nuclear weapons and their targets are among the worst instances of the wrongful application of the “principle of “collective responsibility”. – The exterritorial dissolution of territorial States tends to do away with such “targets” and the pretence that they are rightful ones. - J.Z., 18.12.11. – The whole of the ocean floor is also a land-surface, merely covered with water and more and more accessible through diving machines and robots. It should be no more territorially monopolized than any land that is above the level of the oceans. – J.Z., 17.5.12. -  EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM & THE NUCLEAR WAR THREAT.

HIGHJACKING & TERRITORIALISM: Territorialists are a generalized kind of highjackers, car jackers, highway robbers, thieves, fraudsters, monopolists, coercers, exploiters and despots, running the largest criminal protection racket of all, regardless of the colour of their camouflage, their wordings, rationalizations, popular opinions and prejudices and their forms of organization. Simply expressed: no one is good enough to rule another man without the other man’s individual consent, as an old saying has it. – J.Z., 25.1.05. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, COERCIVE UNIFIERS.


HINCKLEY, F. E.: American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, Washington, D.C., Lowdermilk, 1906, p. 183. - Quoted in LIU, ibid, page 130.

HIRSCHBERG, W. H.: Israel in Arabia, Jerusalem, 1946, 1947, in Hebrew. The latest detailed history of the Jews in Arabia down to the time of Muhammad, according to Goitein. – Already some book titles reveal flawed thinking. As a territory Israel can hardly be in Arabia, as a territory, except as an extraterritorial enclave. What he meant was, probably, Jewish communities in Arabia, or, Israelis in Arabia. – Should authors of books be as careless or exaggerating as journalists often are in their newspaper articles? - J.Z., 17.12.11.

HISHIDA, S. G.: The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, New York, 1905. - On Extraterritoriality.

HISTORY & PANARCHISM: Historical precedents for panarchism prove merely that it is not impossible for human beings. But they do not prove that it was ever fully, consistently and optimally realized. Otherwise, we would be living under panarchism now, in peace, freedom and justice for all. – J.Z., 9.1.05. - See also: HEARNSHAW, F.H.C., PRECEDENTS, EXTERRITORIALITY, CAPITULATIONS, CONSULAR JURISDICTION, MILLET SYSTEM, BERBERS, COF. - HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS & PART-REALIZATIONS OF PANARCHISM

HISTORY: A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know where it is today.” – Robert E. Lee. - A nation does not have a brain and thus no memory. It is a verbal fiction and a very misleading delusion, especially when the attempt is made to "realize" it territorially. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – We are not yet prepared and free enough to learn from all the mistakes of the past and to avoid them. – J.Z., 3.1.09. – The errors, spleens, ignorance, dogmas and prejudices are all too much embodied in territorial constitutions, legislation, jurisdiction, institiutions and politics as usual. – J.Z., 17.5.12. - KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST, HISTORY, NATIONS, PEOPLES, TERRITORIALISM

HISTORY: Accounts you need seldom come from those who make or write history. Diaries, memoirs and autobiographies are subjective forms of special pleading. Archives are crammed with such suspect stuff. – Source? - Compare the history of panarchism, monetary freedom, sensible cooperative production attempts, desertion, human rights drafts, all the false reporting on laissez faire and the Industrial Revolution, the wrong images supplied on anarchism and libertarianism. - J.Z., 7.2.02.

HISTORY: All history is little else than a long succession of useless cruelties.” - Voltaire. - And their victims were not free to secede from them and do their own things to and for themselves. - J.Z., 11.2.02. – Nor were they free and enlightened enough to arm and organize themselves for the defence of their genuine individual rights and liberties in ideal militias. [Not even among anarchists and libertarians is sufficient interest shown for such rights and militias. – J.Z., 17.5.12.] They were, rather, used as cannon-fodder and tax-slaves or for target practice by territorial governments, for the purposes of these governments. – They are still nor armed, organized, trained and informed enough for the effective defence of their individual rights and liberties. – Under panarchism instead of territorialism, they probably would be, sooner or later, if the stockpiles of mass extermination weapons are not used before that development occurs. - J.Z., 3.1.09, 17.5.12. - CRUELTIES, ATROCITIES, WARS, MASS MURDERS, TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, GOVERNMENTALISM, RULE, UNIFORMITY, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, AIR RAIDS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, WARFARE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLLY

HISTORY: But what experience and history teach is this - that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.” - Georg Hegel (1770-1831), in 1807. - A full history of freedom ideas and experiences has still to be written, as a primary textbook for those able and willing to learn from history. - J.Z., 28.6.00. - Peoples and governments may be unable to learn from history but this does not mean that dissenting individuals and minority groups could not learn from it. Even individuals should be allowed to secede and to do their own things to and for themselves, usually together with like-minded volunteers, thereby, gradually, enlightening themselves and the rest of the population as well, perhaps even some political movements, parties and governments. - J.Z., 23.8.02, 7.12.10, 18.12.11, 17.5.12. - Before libertarians become smug about such insights, as the above one by Hegel, they should ponder whether they have as yet learned enough e.g., about the history of monetary freedom, monetary revolutions, tax strikes and of exterritorial autonomy, as well as about the best experiences we have had so far with militias fighting for rights and liberties. - All too often they are not even aware of the large number of self-management schemes that have been experimented with - and of the freedom of expression and information options offered by various alternative media. Nor have they bothered, so far, to compile all libertarian ideas, a libertarian encyclopaedia, bibliography, abstracts and review compilation a comprehensive index to all libertarian writings or attempted, seriously, to put and keep all libertarian writings cheaply and permanently in print, in affordable and cheap alternative media and this in all major languages. - Such attempts could greatly abbreviate the history of libertarian struggles and movements. - They think they have learned enough from history already. Far from it! - J.Z., 29.10.02, 17.5.12. - LEARNING, EXPERIENCE, ENLIGHTENMENT


HISTORY: History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there.” - George Santayana – The history of inflations and that of legal tender and money issue monopolies is often reported separately, as if they had nothing to do with each other. The connection is not seen in most economic textbooks, either. The wrongfulness and harmfulness as well as irrationality of territorialism is still not seen by most political “scientists”. And all too many “economists” are still protectionists and few speak up against taxation and government borrowing. At least by now some historical reports are written by the victims or some objective observes of the facts. But the mess of masses of popular errors, myths and prejudices in the social sciences still messes up our lives, just like religions once and generally did and, to some extent, still do. – J.Z., 3.1.09, 17.5.12.

HISTORY: History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all alternatives.” - Abba Eban. - That is one reason why man's fate should not be confined to centralized, territorial and collectivist decision-making. Pioneers and self-thinkers, innovators, reformers, utopians etc. should become quite free to opt out and engage in their own voluntary experiments, societies, governance systems and communities. Thus the wrong roads would be explored fast, by a few only, and rapidly eliminated, while the successes would be more and more widely copied. - J.Z., 1.7.00, 17.5.12. - MAN, WISDOM, RATIONALITY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

HISTORY: Mostly a story of people who failed to leave each other sufficiently alone. - J.Z., 20.11.97.

HISTORY: The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” - Winston Churchill. – Churchill wrote much on history and, probably, learnt much from it. But did he learn enough about rights and liberties from his studies? His actions as a politician and war leader speak very much against this. – How many died unnecessarily because of his collective responsibility notions and practices and his unconditional surrender demand, which was justified only towards totalitarian regimes but not towards the victims of these regimes? – He, too, had not learnt enough from history. - J.Z., 5.1.08. As a territorialist and nationalist he did not distinguish between victimizers and victims. The only good German to him, during the war, was a dead German. He did not recognize a government in exile – or xyz of them, all panarchies - for the innocent and decent Germans and made or proposed, via rightful war and peace aims, a rightful peace treaty with them. Insofar he had learnt nothing from history. – Even the refugees from Nazi Germany were, initially, interned as “enemy aliens”! - J.Z., 8.1.09, 18.12.11.

HISTORY: The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice - their choice.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower, address, Pittsburg, Pa., Oct. 9, 1956. - A funny expression from a man who represented one of the most wide-spread power systems, which denies full freedom of choice to dissenting individuals and minority groups. All too often the denial of freedom is advocated as if it were its defence. - At most they mean: You can have my kind of freedom on my terms or that of the major opposition party, but not the freedom that you want for yourself. - I will not tolerate secessions and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers! - J.Z., 18.10.02, 18.12.11. - FREEDOM & CHOICE, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, RULERS VS. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

HISTORY: The saddest things of tongue and pen - to know the things that might have been. - J.Z., 15.3.88. - However, such knowledge, if true knowledge, can be very valuable in determining our actions in the future. If we systematically tried to learn from the past by exploring how people could and should have acted, otherwise, then we might learn how to cope much better with our own future. To the extent that we cannot agree on common actions in the future, we ought to leave each other alone, so that each can try his own path, at the own expense and risk. Territorial decision-making for others is almost always more difficult, if not impossible, and more likely to fail, for the greatest numbers, than allowing all people to go their own way by their own methods. - J.Z., 19.10.02. - MIGHT HAVE BEEN HISTORY, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, DECISION-MAKING

HISTORY: The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." - Paul Johnson (1928- ) British Roman Catholic journalist, historian, speechwriter and author. – Sent in by C.B. - We should remember that this is largely the history of territorial organizations, a form  of organization whose leaders and victims rarely learn enough from previous mistakes and whose enlightened minorities are not free to opt out and manage their own affairs better, as far as they can or want to. – J.Z., 27.12.07, 17.5.12. - AS A RECORD OF THE FREQUENTLY REPEATED FOLLIES OF MANKIND OR, RATHER, OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS

HISTORY: The writing of history is largely a process of diversion. Most historical accounts distract attention from the secret influences behind great events.” - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse Dune, p.80, The Basher Teg. - I would rather say: "are more than semi-blind to the significant causal influences behind the symptomatic 'great events'." - J.Z., 11.6.92. – Some of its greatest influences, e.g. territorialism, money issue monopoly and legal tender laws and xyz coercive but legalized interventions are not secret at all but published in laws and, nevertheless still misunderstood in their effects. – J.Z., 7.1.09. - CONSPIRACY THEORY, SECRET MANIPULATORS OR SIMPLY IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES & MISUNDERSTANDINGS?

HISTORY: They may have read or heard it ninetynine times but in a similar case they will act exactly as if it were not the hundreds but the first experience. Scholars explore the history of peoples but kings, ministers and representatives learn nothing from it. The newspapers write on one page about the regrettable resistances that a finally realized idea had formerly encountered among short-sighted contemporaries and on another pages they fight exactly as short-sightedly and foolishly against a new idea.” - Heinrich Nienkamp, Princes without Crowns. – (“Sie moegen neunundneunzigmal dasselbe gelesen oder gehoert haben, in einem aehnlichen Falle handeln sie genau so, als wenn es nicht die hundertste, sondern die erste Erfahrung waere. Die Gelehrten erforschen die Geschichte der Voelker, aber Koenige, Minister und Volksvertreter lernen nichts daraus. Die Zeitungen schreiben auf der einen Seite von den bedauerlichen Widerstaenden, die eine endlich durchgedrungene Idee frueher bei den kurzsichtigen Zeitgenossen gefunden hat, und bekaempfen auf einer anderern Seite genau so kurzsichtig und toericht eine neue Idee. …” - Heinrich Nienkamp, Fuersten ohne Krone, S.235.) - The same popular prejudices are still with us and predetermine the actions of most people. Territorialism does not give the dissenting minorities their chances to do their things to or for themselves, thus breaking the usual pattern of wide-spread ignorance and prejudice in action. - Not even a comprehensive encyclopaedia has been compiled so far that would offer the best refutations to popular errors, myths and prejudices that are obstacles to progress. - J.Z., 18.10.02. – TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM

HISTORY: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana (1863-1952), in 1906. – A more complete quote: “When experience is not retained … infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - Another version: Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.” - George Santayana. - Historic lessons have to be learnt again and again by new generations. The most rightful and harmless way to do so is via experimental freedom for volunteers. Then they can add e.g. another year of price controls for themselves, in addition to over 4000 years of previous ones. But those, who are able and willing to learn their lessons from history, should not be forced, by territorial laws and institutions, to repeat past wrongs and mistakes again and again, just because the legislators and their voters have still not learnt their lessons. Those still willing to let themselves be fooled and exploited by their “misleaders” - should be free to do so. The quite wrong thing here is only the compulsory imposition of the numerous wrongs and mistakes made during history upon the present generation of dissenters and opponents of these evils. – Let all dissenters do their own things to or for themselves! -  J.Z., 26. 11. 06, 3.1.09, 17.5.12. - LAWS, TERRITORIALISM & SECESSIONISM & PANARCHISM

HISTORY: We don't become wise by remembering the past but through the responsibility for our future.” - G. B. Shaw, but only in my rough re-translation of the German version: “Wir werden nicht durch die Erinnerung an unsere Vergangenheit weise, sondern durch die Verantwortung fuer unsere Zukunft.” - But how can one act responsibly for one's future without enough sound knowledge and judgment about the past? - J.Z., 18.10.02. – And without freedom to engage, with other volunteers , in experiments with alternative political,economic and social systems? G. B. S. merely advocated territorial State socialism and ignored its critics. – State Socialism is the opposite to personal responsibility. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - FUTURISM, RESPONSIBILITY

HISTORY: We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we make today.” - Henry Ford, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 25 May 1916. - As if we were not largely the product of the traditions of the development of the human race, the human languages, the human institutions, human thoughts and ideas. However, we are not their helpless victims and automatons, either. To that extent Henry Ford was right. New freedom traditions could and should come to start with us. - J.Z., 19.10.02. – He himself did largely start one: cheap and effective personal and commercial transport, but this was largely countered by Protectionism and immigration restrictions, both, largely due to the effects of monetary despotism. – This despotism, too, still prevailing even in democratic countries, could only be introduced and maintained through territorialism. - J.Z., 7.12.10.

HISTORY: What experience and history teach is this - that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” - G. W. F. Hegel – But people watch e.g. their neighbors more than they watch neighboring nations. Thus, when their neighbors would belong to another personal law community, their examples might attract or deter, but, anyhow, teach more than the behavior of foreigners in their foreign countries does, even when such behavior is well enough reported in the mass media. Add to this the language barrier, also the incompleteness and the prejudices and the bias in our historical records about our own past. – Not to speak of the bias in the news of our mass media. Anyhow, under territorialism most people are not free to apply the lessons, which they have learnt from history. Least of all are the somewhat enlightened minorities (among them) free to apply their knowledge among themselves, independent of public opinion, territorial laws and jurisdictions, e.g. the anarchists and libertarians. – J.Z., 8.8.08, 7.12.10, 18.12.11. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE VS. TERRITORIALISM,

HITLER: Hitler was only a good specimen of an ever-present danger. The belief that Germans everywhere owed their main loyalty to the German State leads beyond control over German minorities in other States. ...” - J. D. Mabbott, THE STATE AND THE CITIZEN, p.166. - I doubt that the Hitler phenomenon could have happened, spread and persisted for several years under Panarchism and that it would have taken a prolonged and bloody world war to subdue or isolate the first beginnings of such an intolerant and aggressive, ignorant and prejudiced movement. Probably monetary freedom alone, if it had been practised during the Weimar Republic, would already have prevented the rise of Hitler, since it would have prevented the Great Inflation and the Great Depression in Germany, as well as the rise of anti-Semitism. Individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities could also have prevented his rise to power. So could have volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 22.3. 99. - TERRITORIAL STATISM

HITLER: This is the story of a man who loved architecture, music and animals. He was courteous and well-mannered, a vegetarian and non-smoker. And he was responsible for the death of 20 million people. – An observation by ??? on: Colin Cross, Adolf Hitler. - Given territorialism, monetary despotism leading to the Great Inflation and Great Depression, under the "democracy" that followed, for a few years, also the senseless WW I and its unjust peace, and the all too numerous pand opular errors and prejudices, his appearance was almost inevitable. - J.Z., 24.2.1999, 7.12.10. Another factor was the condition that the “social sciences” were and still are in - with all their popular but wrongful ideological assumptions of e.g. class warfare, territorialism, statism, collective responsibility notions, personal, rather causal “thinking”, compulsory education by the State, pragmatism and utilitarianism etc. and ignorance of or non-appreciation of genuine individual rights and liberties, especially of full economic freedom. – J.Z., 17.12.11, 17.5.12.

HITLER’S RISE TO POWER: Once he was in territorial power no one was free to secede from him. And before, when he had still only a few followers, he was not free to secede from the territorial democratic State of the Weimar Republic. If he had then been free to secede, then his lack of positive ideas would have revealed to most people much sooner, while his movement was still only a small sect. He could have lorded it only over his own volunteers and would have soon disappointed them, too. Thus he could not have gathered millions of followers. Alas, with mere promises and assertions, the road to territorial power was open to him, even in a democracy and it was greatly facilitated by two economic crises caused by monetary despotism, each of which cost Germany as much, materially, as WW I did, and also by the unjust and territorialist peace conditions imposed upon Germany after WW I. – J.Z. 4.11.04. 7.10.07, 17.5.12.

HOBBIES & PANARCHISM: People free to engage in their hobbies are not fighting each other in the street or plant terrorist bombs. Once political, economic and social systems become no more than personally chosen hobbies or engagements, hardly any popular motive for any war will remain among somewhat civilized and educated people. - J.Z., 1.9.04, 17.5.12.

HOBSBAWM, ERIC: The Nation as Invented Tradition, in HUTCHINSON AND SMITH, Nationalism, p.77. - (Davidson/Rees-Mogg) According to SHI SHUN LIU, Extraterritoriality, the territorial nation State is a relatively new invention. Man has lived for much longer under personal laws and institutions. Why they did not prevail and why despotic territorialism has dominated us for several centuries now, deserves a closer examination. But we do not have to look very far for reasons. Just consider how dictatorships have dominated this century and some still exist. They were only opposed by "free" States that had all too much in common with them. No dictatorship or totalitarian regime has as yet been confronted by one or several quite free societies and their consistent defence, revolution, military insurrection and liberation program. - J.Z., 3.2.1999. – So far not even a consistent and complete enough declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties has been sufficiently published or compiled, not even by anarchists and libertarians. All too many do even argue against all such attempts. – J.Z., 18.12.11, 17.5.12.

HOLLEY, LEE A.: We Live in Dangerous Times. An article on autonomous juries, 116, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PEACE PLANS 870. - FREE JURIES.

HOLLING, C. S. & GUNDERSON, LANCE H., On their kind of "panarchy" see under GUNDERSON, LANCE H.

HOLST, INGAR & ZUBE, JOHN, A letter exchange and some papers by Ingar Holst on his REPUBLIC OF NINETEENEIGHTYFOUR, 106-117, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PEACE PLANS 832.

HOLT, P. M., LAMBTON, ANN K.S. & LEWIS, BERNARD, Editors, The Cambridge History of Islam, vol. I, Cambridge U.P., 1970. - I have only a few photocopied pages in my possession, with reports on the millet system (dhimmis, Arabic, in the English and French versions, djimmis, in another spelling), local tribal laws, minority rights, mixed courts, under the empire, e.g. on pp 305, 327, 330, 331, 354, 355, 357, 365 -369, 372, 373, 386, 387, 553, 558, 559, 603, 604, 618, 619, 727, 728, 752.

HOLTZENDORFF, F. J. W. P. von, Handbuch des Voelkerrechts, 4 vols., Hamburg. 1887.


HOLY PLACES: No place is holier than others. No temple, church, country or home! All places, homes, enterprises and other properties are to be “holy” and untouchable only for aggressors and other interventionists, whether these people like this or not. “My home is my castle!” “It is my property, not yours!” Sovereign individuals and their rights and liberties are involved, not divinities or holy spirits. – J.Z., 13.2.07, 25.10.07. - SHRINES, PILGRIMAGES, PROPERTY RIGHTS

HOME AS CASTLE: Those comfortable padded lunatic asylums which are known euphemistically as the stately homes of England." - Virginia Woolf. - Well, with an effort each can opt out of them and with persistent effort establish and maintain his preferred alternative. Or one can simply hire alternative accommodation from others. A free housing and accommodation market would offer many choices. And so would a free market for political, social and economic institutions, principles and systems and package deals of them. One does not have to blow up the old accommodation - which satisfies at least some, in order to build on the same spot and for all others and at huge costs and sacrifices, another castle, which will also have its garrets, cellars and dungeons or other places for fruitless arguments with relatives staff. To each his own castle, home or flat. Let all private madnesses, luxury expenses and lunatic actions be confined to them. - J.Z., 9.7.92, 6.1.93. – See De Puydt’s statement on this in his original Panarchy article. – J.Z., 17.5.12.

HOME RULE & PANARCHISM: Home Rule extended to minorities, families and even to individuals and their properties. Otherwise, under territorial, centralistic and coercive rule it remains a misnomer, like self-rule, self-government, self-determination and democracy or republicanism that grants almost all power to a few territorial politicians, not sufficiently different from monarchism, warlordism, dictatorships or aristocracies. - J.Z., n.d. & 17.5.12.

HOME RULE: Home Rule in national and territorial terms is not genuine home rule, i.e., self-rule, alone or among volunteers only, but rule over the homes of thousands to millions of dissenting others. Its territorial practices ought to be ablished in favour of genuine home rule by individuals and groups of volunteers living freely in accordance with their own ideals anywhere, on their own or hired properties and respecting the same freedom to act in others. - J.Z., 21.8.92, 18.10.02, 18.12.11.. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISTM, VOLUNTARISM, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, TERRITORIALISM

HOME RULE: Home rule or self-government in a statist, nationalist and territorial sense are misnomers but in a non-territorial and individual and personal law sense they are correct terms. - J.Z., 26.5.86. - SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDEPENDENCE, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

HOME RULE: Home rule should mean: My home, my life, my self-responsible activities, are my “castle”, not collective and territorial rule over the homes of others and their lives. - J.Z., 20.1.93, 18.10.02, 18.12.11.

HOME: One is not home where one has one’s residence but there, where one is understood.” - Christian Morgenstern, Stufen, 1918, p.163, written 1891. – Homesickness is likely to apply more to panarchies and polyarchies than to territorial countries. And since these voluntary communities can be world-wide, home-sickness, in the conventional sense, might not occur at all. A cosmopolitan feels at home anywhere on Earth – where he can be as free as he wants to be. – J.Z., 9.10.07, 17.5.12. – Another version: “Home is not where you live, but where they understand you.” – Christian Morgenstern, quoted in: Michael Z. Williamson, Freehold, p.628. – That comes much closer to the panarchistic feeling of being “at home” and among family, friends and associates. – J.Z., 17.5.12. - FAMILY & FRIENDS, HOME AMONG LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE

HOME: The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the rained tenement!” - William Pitt, the elder Earl of Chatham, speech in the House of Lords. - Henry Peter Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen Who Flourished in the Time of George III, vol. 1, p. 52 (1839). Lord Brougham notes, "There are other celebrated passages of his speeches in all men's mouths ... Perhaps the finest of them all is his allusion to the maxim of English law, that every man's home is his castle," given above. - According to Francis Thackeray, A History of the Right Honorable William Pitt, vol. 2, p. 29 (1827), the speech was delivered in 1763 in opposition to an excise tax on perry and cider. - (Perry is wine from pears. - First time I noticed this term and looked up its meaning. - J.Z.) – Other properties, earnings, individual rights and liberties and the personal law choices and associations, societies and communities of volunteers should also become untouchable for all present territorial rulers. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - PRIVACY, THE HOME IS A MAN'S CASTLE, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, ENDING TERRITORIALISM

HOMELAND: The homeland of every human being is Earth. The home country of everybody should be that which he or she have individually chosen. - J.Z., 13.10.93. - Voluntary segregation is a matter of private property contracts and personal laws, not for territorial laws. – So is voluntary integration. Only compulsory integration and compulsory segregation on a territorial basis are inherently wrong. – J.Z., 17.5.12. - WHITE HOMELAND IN SOUTH AFRICA? FREE MIGRATION, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, COUNTRY

HOMSY, BASILE: Les Capitulations & la protection de chretiens au Proche-Orient aux XVIe, XVIIe et XVIIIe Siecles, Harrissa, Libean (Libeau, Lileau?), 1956, 420pp.

HONEST MONEY: There ought to be full freedom to provide honest money, i.e. money that is soundly covered by wanted goods and services, in daily demand, soundly valued with a freely chosen value standard and competitively issued, optional, that is without monopoly or exclusive currency status, without legal tender, i.e. one that may be freely refused or market-rated or readily accepted at par and which only the issuers themselves - and by contract their debtors - would have to accept at any time from anyone at par in all payments due to them. Publicity, note exchanges, clearing, local circulation areas, limited time periods for their validity, voluntary acceptance, the possibility of a discount and a sound distrust towards all suspicious and unknown and not easily evaluated or checked means of exchange and value standards, would contribute to keep such money or clearing certificate issues limited and un-inflated. At the same time, freedom of issue and clearing would keep exchange media well enough supplied to serve to bring about all desired and possible exchanges of goods, services and labour. - The dishonest, monopolised, paper money of the government, with a mere paper value "standard" and nevertheless the power of compulsory acceptance and a forced value for every creditor, ought to be done completely away with, for all remaining territorial States. Likewise the legal or juridical "right" of creditors to demand e.g. gold coins or legal tender in the settlement of debts, rather than any honest and full settlement by acceptable forms of clearing. Only within the panarchistic or merely exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, when they are true believers in monetary, financial and other despotism, should such abuses be allowed to be continued, at the risk and expense of their adherents only. They still have to learn their lessons from these despotic and dishonest practices. - J. Z., 3.7.93, 25.4.97, 18.12.11,18.5.12. - HONEST MONEY BY PRIVATE & COMPETING ISSUERS VS. DISHONEST MONEY BY GOVERNMENTS

HONESTY: Let us raise up a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.” - George Washington. - Can many, if any, territorial politicians honestly make such a proposal? - J.Z., 17.11.02. – G. W. certainly was not always honest. His territorial State was not honest and decent towards all minorities. – If he had introduced panarchism then this would have made him a much more honest politician. Also a much more successful general. The royalists could have retained their king for themselves and their property. And the effects of inflation would have been confined to those foolish enough to engage in it. – J.Z., 7.1.09.

HONESTY: We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity.” - Theodore Roosevelt – Territorialism puts and keeps more dishonest men than honest ones in office. – We can no longer afford to stick with territorialism. At least not since it is armed with ABC mass murder devices. - J.Z., 3.1.09. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, LIES ON DETERRENCE & DEFENCE, PUBLICITY, WAR AIMS, HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION


HONG KONG: The Hong Kong population should have been free to decide its fate, individually or by its voluntary groupings, i.e., whether to stay with Great Britain, join Mainland China under communist rule, or to become independent. Short of that self-management solution, any decent country should have opened its borders to refugees from Hong Kong and and any wise country would have allowed those refugees, who preferred it, to set up another Free Trade and Free Enterprise Hong Kong - within its borders, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, not just for a period of 99 years. To collectively decide the fate of millions of people and deliver them to a dictatorship was a major crime. - J.Z., 26.11.93, 18.10.02. – It was done in accordance with “international law”, which, at least to that extent, and, largely, with its laws on warfare, and on “territorial integrity” is still, to some extent, a criminal legislation or treaty law, at least from my point of view. – J.Z., 18.12.11.

HOOKER, M. B., Legal Pluralism, an introduction to colonial and neo-colonial laws, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975, 601pp. - I saw this title in Macquarie University, Sydney.

HOOKER, M. B., The Personal Laws of Malaysia, an introduction, Kuala Lumpur, N.Y., Oxford U.P., 1976, XXXIV, 276pp, indexed, with bibliography. - JZL.

HOOKER, RICHARD, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.Furthermore, the doctrine of contractual relationship as the basis of all the political institutions in society had very early in England far-reaching consequences. Thus, the theologian, Richard Hooker, in his work, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, published in 1593, maintained that it is unworthy of a man to submit blindly, like a beast, to the compulsion of any kind of authority without consulting his own reason. Hooker bases the doctrine of the social contract on the fact that no man is really able to rule over a large number of his fellowmen unless these have given their consent. According to Hooker’s idea such a consent could only be obtained by mutual agreement; hence, the contract. In his dissertation concerning the nature of government Hooker declares quite frankly that ‘in the nature of things it is by no means impossible that men could live in social relations without public government’.” This work later served John Locke as a foundation for his two celebrated treatises on Civil Government, from which the germinating liberalism drew its main nourishment.” – Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, 140. - ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT, CONSENT, SOCIAL CONTRACT:

HOPPE, HANS-HERMANN, Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. - [November 2002]  - An interesting paper by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Winter 1989) - Link at - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security (pdf) - JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES, Vol. 9, Num. 1, 1989. - DIS.

HOPPE, HANS-HERMANN, The Myth of National Defence, Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production, ed. by H-H. H, The State is the enemy of peace: $25. - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - The Myth of National Defense (Introduction)  - Ludwig von Mises Institute, October 24, 2003

HOPPE, HANS-HERMANN, The Private Production of Defense. 1998. JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES14 (summer): 27– 54. - Also offered as a 16 pages online essay at the Mises Institute. Among the most popular and consequential beliefs of our age is the belief in collective security. Nothing less significant than the legitimacy of the modern state rests on this belief. And yet, the idea of a collective security is a myth that provides no justification for the modern state. Private-property owners, cooperation based on the division of labor, and market competition can and should provide defense from aggression. - - Hoppe on Defence, some comments by J.Z., 19.11.04: My second attempt, since the first reply got lost during my most recent computer troubles. ... - I do stress that I do agree with Hoppe on many already classical libertarian points, without having always stated this agreement. - But his article would be much better still without its remaining flaws. - Page 1 a: Territorialist attempts to provide collective security have certainly failed. In an age of mass murder weapons in the hands of governments they have, instead, led to the greatest insecurity ever. To that extent I agree with Hoppe. - Hobbes made the mistake of blaming the “state of nature” for the effect of either still predominant barbarism and later of the organization of territorial powers. Natural law was a relatively late discovery for man and most people are still unacquainted with all individual human rights so far discovered or deduced and with the nature of territorialism, regardless of how disastrousness it affects them. - The territorial States in their “security” provision attempts produced so much “security” with their arms races that most of the arms races, about 99 %, led to war. - I listed a reference to this in an early PEACE PLANS issue. - Their millions of well-armed and trained soldiers did not produce security or too much of it, but, rather, a persistent insecurity, all too often breaking out into wars. - Even when their efforts were defensive, e.g. against totalitarian regimes, they were enormously wasteful of human lives and property. Classical instance: the “good” war: WW II. - A & B do not require a third party to keep the peace but merely the agreement to leave each other alone. Mostly they do already. There is only one policeman for several thousand people. - Going to court against each other is still not the rule but the exception. - Government laws, regulations, courts and lawyers promote such juridical arguments. In that respect the “primitive” Islamic “instant justice” system as described by Rose Wilder Lane, was much superior, also the original system of quite free juries. - Monopolizing justice services is one of the greatest wrongs and absurdities. - Wherever private arbitration arrangements were permitted they proved to be faster, cheaper and more just. - The unjust decisions we get from government courts are largely due to what H., too, calls, regarding the State, “a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection”. - Page 1 b: Here H. might have mentioned that Sociologists, starting with Herbert Spencer's sociology writings, reported about 50 primitive tribes that had no wars. Human nature is certainly operative in their members, too. But the territorial State is not. - “Given man’s nature as a rational animal …” - That presumes already too much. Rational animals would not war against each other. Even irrational ones have developed instincts for submission, eliminating much senseless slaughter. A wolf baring his throat is left alone by the stronger wolf. Soldiers asking for pardon on the battlefield are not always instinctively or rationally spared. Not even civilians, children and babies are. - The readiness of supposedly mature and rational adults to let themselves be sacrificed upon command for the aims and purposes of men in power does not characterize most men as sufficiently moral and rational animals but, rather, as religiously territorial statists, granting the "sanction of the victims". - Even tax victims do not, in most cases, treat tax slavery rationally. - Their status, as territorial subjects, does not make them more but less moral and rational in this respect – and they have so far provided all too little moral and intellectual resistance against this status, preferring to submit under prejudices and delusions, that are sponsored by their political and religious leaders. - All the remaining flaws of men do, obviously, become even worse when they appear in their territorial rulers. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” - Hoppe rightly points out that the main expropriator is hardly the best protector. He represents the largest protection racket. - The State’s top rulers may be protected as well as the State can – and still they are often assassinated, more often than their subjects are (by others than their own and foreign rulers). - Ordinary citizens get very little preventative protection and at most subsequent retaliation. - Insofar I go along with H. - Page 2 a: Alas, the foremost protection racked is still going on, based on numerous prejudices and delusions – just like any church or sect. - A break in this attitude will only occur once individuals are given their individual free choice about the kind and degree of protection, if any, which they want to buy with their own money. (Or once they know and appreciate their genuine individual rights sufficiently to organize themselves into an ideal volunteer militia for the efficient protection of these rights and liberties. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - Once one man, like Luther, can successfully secede from the Catholic Church then millions can also do so, not much later. - Millions have, collectively, although not individually, given "their consent" to the burdens and benefits of the “Welfare State”, even though this “social contract” objectively costs them more than it is worth. - Likewise, most do not favour the abolition of State police and military forces, no matter how much they suffer e.g. under the “drug war” policies and “anti-terrorism” measures and involuntary involvements in wars not of their own choice. - However, when and to the extent that people are free to do so, they have already extensively hired the services of private security firms or firms have their own security guards, sometimes down to security guards for shops and swimming pools as in the U.S., thus also indicating that States do not provide sufficient security, no matter how much they spend on their police forces. - Millions do complain about the tax burdens but still believe, collectively, that taxes for “public services” are justified and necessary. They haven’t bothered to explore the voluntary taxation options sufficiently. Not even most libertarians have. - If individuals were free to opt out of compulsory taxes and welfare benefits and to finance only those services that they do really want, for themselves, then radical changes might come relatively fast, introduced for one person after the other, at the speed they prefer. Alas, at least about one half entitled to the present territorial, statist and collectivist vote still believes in it as “the” vote, as a free vote, no matter how far it is from an individual being free to decide his own affairs. - Hobbes as well as Hoppe made no distinction between territorial States or societies and their fights for turf domination and a-territorial ones. The a-territorial (exterritorial and extraterritorial, personal law, capitulations, consular jurisdiction etc.) experience is largely ignored by them, as it is in most of the history books. This in spite of the fact that e.g. the monopolistic and territorial police force and even the monopolistic court system are both a relatively recent invention and that personal law has a very long tradition, longer than that of territorial nationalism and preceding the first laws and constitutions in written form. - People with exclusive territorial claims for the same territory, e.g. in Israel or in Ireland, will always be more or less at loggerheads, at least the radicals or fundamentalists among them will be. Just like the Catholics and Protestants had their long turf wars for territorial domination. - Some religious wars continue even into our times. In the other countries religious tolerance or religious freedom has solved this problem – a-territorially. - Is there really a historical tendency toward political centralization and global rule? I see it only under territorialism. - Our time has seen also the contrary development even regarding the territorial models. Several empires have disappeared or have been reduced or contracted voluntarily. (England gave up ruling India.) That of the Nazis  collapsed very fast but also all too bloodily and destructively, for all sides and that of the Soviets all too slowly and incompletely. All are under attack or threat by other territorialists, now even "armed" with ABC mass murder devices, still all too widely considered as "weapons". - More and more new territorial “nations” have appeared and were recognized although only by other territorial governments. (The last count that I remember, for the world, was already above 200. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - What would be the trend under a-territorialism? It might then go in both directions at the same time. There would be more peacefully competing local governments, in the same territory, possibly even several local governments in the same local area, all competing to satisfy their customers, just like local shops try to outdo other local shops in their services. Compare e.g. the Sof or Cof system of the Berbers. Also competing local security firms. - These local governments would tend to become limited governments and societies and would no longer get State or Federal subsidies for a wide range of services. - The nation States would in some respects be reduced – by losing those who do not really want to belong to a nation-State with which they have too little in common. But, on the other hand, the remainder could come to grow by voluntary membership from all over the world into world-wide empires – but these would embrace only their volunteers in the world, like the Catholic Church does its world-wide followers. - We would not only get one world government or world society but several ones, all peacefully competing with each other, somewhat like Microsoft is with Linux and the Apple system. - Australians, Germans, Englishmen, Irishmen, Russians, Poles, Indians and Chinese, etc. are now largely spread world-wide, by the millions. Given the individual option, at least some might wish to associate with their motherland or fatherland, provided these are sufficiently free - by their standards. Or they might set up a-territorially autonomous communities in the countries they are now living in, independent of the home country. - How rapidly would e.g. the current Chinese Empire collapse if the theories and practices of full monetary and financial freedom, not only some fragments of free enterprise capitalism, could be introduced there and thus dozens to hundreds of millions Chinese could easily get ever better paying jobs? (Also, if each present subject could freely secede and exterritorially re-associate with like-minded volunteers? Naturally, that option should also exist for the remaining faithful communists and State socialists, in all their varieties, as long as none of their associations would have a single involuntary subject, who was not, by the best judicial standards, a genuine criminal with victims or aggressor against any peaceful communist or socialist society or community made up of volunteers only, doing their own things only to themselves.) - Libertarians should put blueprints for such changes onto the IN. The Chinese Red Army is already largely an industrial and trading force. Presently all people in mainland China are still dependent upon the Chinese Central Bank and upon international commercial orders, also expressed in exclusive and forced national currencies. In the recent past in China there were up to two hundred of millions of unemployed and under-employed, which always indicates revolutionary change possibilities. - - In yesterday’s e-mail of a libertarian feminist newsletter there was a hint that unemployment in Afghanistan has reached nearly 70 %. When it goes above 20 % the chances of revolutionary changes increase greatly. Alas, without awareness and practice of the full monetary and financial freedom options, usually only more bloody revolutions occur and dictatorships arise and the economic, political and social conditions are not improved but worsened. - An international statistical historical survey correlating degrees of unemployment, either due to deflation or rapid inflation, with political upheavals, would be very instructive. But it would help only if combined with references to blueprints on how to avoid the monetary and financial mistakes of most revolutions and military insurrections and other resistance and liberation attempts. - Page 2 b: Hobbes and Hoppe speak here uncritically of “anarchy” between territorial States. That is only correct insofar as there exists no super-power or super-state lording it over both of them - and assuring their own kind of wars and civil wars. Compare the U.S.A.'s Civil War. - It is wrong insofar as it omits the territorial archy attempts involved between them. Most try to dominate or disadvantage the other or others by government actions, if not military ones then by “economic” ones like “protectionism” or blockades. - Anarchies, between them, would be characterized by the same peacefulness that can even exist now e.g. between Canada and the USA, England and France and also by Free Trade, Free Migration and Free Investment flows between them. - However, Hoppe does at least points out that the private dealings between foreigners appear to be significantly less warlike than those between their governments. - How much of these remaining private disagreements are due e.g. to privileged religions, compulsory schooling, government propaganda and censorship? - Hatreds can be whipped up - as every war showed e.g. by atrocity reports or accusations. Wars conducted by territorial governments or movements lead to many atrocities. - He speaks of the “natural human aggressiveness” of State agent S. How much natural human aggressiveness is there? Over 50 tribes are on record that do not know war. And yet they belong to the human race. - Territorial States, even democracies, assure that the worst tend to get to the top (Hayek: The Road to Serfdom), i.e., also the most aggressive ones. Even emperor Marc Aurelius and Frederic II of Prussia, the “Great” conducted some bloody wars. - Without a territorial monopoly for them being any longer recognized, Catholics and Protestant Churches do no longer fight each other as such. - Naturally, as long as a potential aggressor can tax and conscript people into his wars, decided upon by him, not by his internal victims, he is less restrained in his aggressive impulses than he would otherwise be. - Actually, mere taxation has not sufficed to finance most modern wars. Almost all were accompanied by large inflations and increases of the public debt. The latter laid the costs upon future tax-slaves. Inflation only seemingly financed the war better. In reality it taxes or partly expropriates the creditors and reduces the economic potential of a country. This in spite of increasing, with its inflated notes, temporarily, its ability to pay, somewhat like a forger does, but with the difference that the forger does not forge and multiply his own notes but the notes of someone else. - “… bring about, as the ultimate result of interstate competition, world government.” - Well, it has not happened as yet. And a good term like “competition” should not be abused to describe the attempts to enforce and expand monopolies, which really happen between territorial states. Territorial States are Warfare States rather than competing States. They are competing monopolists. Each of them has monopolized a territorial resource, including all its population, as if these people were their mere “resource” or property. - Only a-territorial States of volunteers can form truly competing governments. Then decision-making would be taken away from the top and and placed down to the grass-roots level, to individuals and their voluntary membership and individual secession option. Only then would the “consent” and “representation” requirement be realized and only on that basis would a genuine "mandate" exist. - With mankind as diverse as it is and the individual aspirations as different as they are, any attempt to establish a single world State for all people will arouse an overwhelming resistance, stronger than the resistance which the Hitler- and Stalin regimes experienced. - Even now the US Hegemony has aroused strong dislike and resistance against itself, world-wide, although it is still somewhat democratic and republican. - Even within each territorial nation-state the hatreds between the major parties are rather many and strong. - The trend of territorial States towards a world State will also be cut short by their ABC mass murder “weapons”, which will assure that there are few if any survivors. - There is still insufficient awareness of how unjust, irrational, un-democratic and anti-republican such mass-murder devices are. I often compare them to cheap, scientific and portable extermination camp devices, which even democratic regimes keep in “readiness” – against whom? Also: for whose genuine protection and defence? - Objectively, the whole case for territorial governments collapses with them. - Page 3 a: “… the myth of collective security is as widespread as it is consequential.” - Here Hoppe is right concerning collective security as supposedly assured by territorial States and their alliances. But collective security can also take other forms. Not only private protective associations and their federations but also the old model of either compulsory militias of all able-bodied men or of volunteer militias of the best kind, at least somewhat informed on their rights and liberties and prepared to fight for them in accordance with them. - That model of “collective security” interests me most and I have somewhat dealt with it in my two books. - Admittedly, the flawed notions on “militias” still predominate and all kinds of authoritarian, prejudiced and even totalitarian groups and mass murderous movements have misused this term. - Exclusively representative or openly and officially imposed “defence” or “collective security” arrangements are certainly not sufficiently protective for individual rights and liberties. - Generally speaking, no military or police force that does not uphold all individual rights and liberties is justified. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. - The UN forces are very far from upholding individual rights and liberties – and so are any of the official national ones and most of the unofficial “freedom fighters”. - Alas, the libertarian movement has so far failed to offer, publish discuss and accept a much better defence and protection program as well as a war prevention program and has shown all to little interest in such alternatives. Hoppe and a few others have at least tried to provide one alternative model, one based upon insurance companies. - “Was the American experiment in protective statism a success?” - Here, too, H. does not distinguish between territorial statism and a-territorial statism and societies. The territorial States did not sufficiently protect minorities like e.g. Red Indians, Negroes, Chinese – or nowadays libertarians in their libertarian aspirations for their own lives. - What could, instead, a-territorial States and societies have achieved in North America, for the majority and also the diverse minorities? We do not know. This was not tried or not sufficiently. It was not even consistently discussed. - The numerous small utopian colonies and intentional communities and the various private and cooperative arrangements were not sufficient substitutes. The powers of territorial warfare States or, rather, of their federation, prevailed and they are still insufficiently recognized as wrongful and war-promoting and as obstacles to rapid and rightful progress. - A Christian fundamentalist, “inspired by God”, was still permitted to get to and remain at the top to conduct his “crusade” and look after his financial interests and to multiply the number of enemies of “Americans” in the world, due to collective responsibility notions and all too wide-spread territorialist beliefs and practices. - At the bottom Hoppe should have pointed out that the State’s official and legalized robberies confiscate more than private protection rackets do plus all the damages than all the crimes do, which are privately committed by individual criminals. - Page 3 b: “… the substitution of government paper money for gold, …” - Here he sees only gold as an alternative to the government’s force and exclusive paper money currency, with compulsory acceptance and compulsory value. That is certainly a very limited view of monetary freedom alternatives. Not even silver and platinum weight units are here considered as alternative value standards and coins, far less gold weight units merely as standards of value rather than exclusive and demandable means of exchange. - (Platinum has in recent years become unsuitable due to strongly increased industrial demand for it, which has greatly driven up its value.) - I do agree with his stand against “ever higher mountains of laws …” - “And as members of associations we are not permitted to enter into whatever restrictive covenant we believe to be mutually beneficial. As Americans, we must accept immigrants we do not want as our neighbours.” - Here his anti-immigrant bias and rationalization in this “nation of immigrants” shows. - Firstly, he equates the national barriers against immigration with private covenants, as if the US were a private company, club or corporation. That is certainly not true. E.g., most libertarians in the US do not consider their State to be their club, association or corporation. He is quite wrong in speaking of “we” in this connection. - E.g., the ca. 20 million black people in the U.S. MIGHT, theoretically, be in favour of 200 million black immigrants from Africa and in favour of forming a black but a-territorial nation there, free of all the restrictions and “favours” (like minimum wage laws and the Federal Reserve System) now imposed upon them. - That HE does not like certain “foreigners” becomes clear. That they might not like him as a neighbour, either, is not pointed out. That he should be become free to voluntarily segregate himself with like-minded people under private restrictive covenants does not seem to be sufficient for his ambition. Apparently, he wants the whole country to be racially or otherwise “pure” or pure enough by his standard, not realizing how authoritarian and despotic this ambition is. - He over-extends the concept of “neighbour” to all people in the US, which is absurd. - He also ignores the great variety of people already naturalized as Americans. Or would he want to deport many of them? Or fix quotas for them? - He does not want to live in the same State or society with them – but does not explore the possibility to become a-territorially exclusive and independent from those people that he dislikes. - He has also not explored how much more “Americanized” all foreigners would become under full economic freedom, including full monetary and financial freedom, i.e. under the “globalization” effect when carried, voluntarily, as far as it would go. Would he want only exclusively white US defence or police forces or protective agencies? Or would he merely be satisfied with being able to subscribe to a white one, while being tolerant of black, red, yellow and mixed ones? - I fully support his opposition to enforced integration in private spheres – although under freedom to do so, I would not mind but rather join voluntarily integrated societies. I would also prefer them to voluntarily segregated ones along e.g. religious, ethnic or racial lines. But I would tend to join a voluntarily segregated one on an ideological basis like the most radical libertarianism. - I have no objections to a whole city block or country village becoming exclusively white, black, red or yellow, under self-rule. But I would object against a whole suburb or city or country or continent becoming so monopolized. - Compare: “Africa to Africans”, as if white people or Arabs, Jews, Indians, Chinese and others, living there already for decades or even hundreds of years, and as if all living people, if the human origin theory regarding Africa is correct, were not also “Africans”. - In short, territorial statism is a failure, even in “internal” territorial affairs. It is even more so a failure in “international” affairs. Alas, Hoppe does not distinguish between territorial and a-territorial policies, between States with compulsory membership and subordination and States and societies with voluntary members only, although such a distinction should be obvious to a radical libertarian. But at least he discusses competing insurance and protection services, quite unregulated by territorial States, which is not a bad beginning. - Page 4 a: One minor objection is typographically. At least in my download there is often no spacing between words. Probably not Hoppe but his editor should be blamed for this. - While not denying many wrongful actions committed by the US governments, I cannot subscribe to his wholesale condemnation. - It was inherent in the territorialist and constitutional flaws of the USA that it developed a strong territorial and centralized power. - It was also the result of even greater flaws in other territorial States that it became the world power that it is. If he had experienced Nazism, Stalinism or one of the few surviving totalitarian regimes, as a victim, he would not consider the USA to be the worst empire. - Monopoly decision-making power on war and peace, armament and disarmament, international treaties and currencies and financial arrangements lead almost inevitably to the past wrong policies and to the present situation. - When there is such a large power should one expect it never to be used against open or subversive or territorialist aggression? - That its own and foreign territorialism, combined with collective responsibility notions and the results of still suppressing major economic liberties, have led to the present situation should be clearly recognized. - In subscribing to these monopolistic and repressive aspects the USA stands not alone but is merely an accomplice. - It is also a quite unusual accomplice to numerous crimes in that its internal and international and very extensive charity attempts, as well as its attempts to protect or introduce and spread what it, wrongly, considers to be ideal, namely the democracy of majority voting, shows at least a degree of good will – although it is often as clumsily applied as if a good-natured elephant "acted" in a china- and glass-ware shop. - The territorialist and collective responsibility mentality leads to such wrongs and mistakes as e.g. more or less indiscriminate air raids. - How many people, even among libertarians, are as yet quite free from such notions? - All protection and liberation and reform attempts of a good-will “imperialist power” tend to fail due to territorialism and all that it implies. At best it produces mirror images of itself, regardless of how many and how large minorities do not consider these images to be ideals for themselves. - It does not help that within them, even in democratic territorial States, the worst types tend to rise to the top. - To cut the roots of such developments we should become aware of them and remove e.g. compulsory membership, territorial sovereignty, centralized decision-making, monetary and financial despotism and introduce safety valves like individual and minority group secessionism and exterritorialy autonomous communities so that, ultimately, each can get the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice – as long as he or she is willing to put up with it. - That option would deflate all aggressive and despotic territorial regimes and make revolutions, insurrections and freedom fights largely superfluous and prevent them after it is fully introduced, including most terrorist actions. - Naturally, it could not introduce full sanity, including full exterritorial tolerance for diverse beliefs, principles, actions and institutions, all tolerantly practised, into all heads. - But it would greatly reduce mass murderous insanities, actions, institutions and opportunities and motives for them and the number of their adherents. (The remainder might become manageable, like private criminals once their victims are quite free to act against them. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - Thus, ultimately, wars could become reduced to limited and quite rightful police actions against the remaining and real criminals with all too many past and potential victims. That includes all those who would posses WMDs or attempt to acquire them. - The first to be unilaterally disarmed in this respect are the democratic States for they, like e.g. the Pope, have least excuses for such “weapons”. Also least need of them. But that is another and long story. See my second peace book on this subject: An ABC Against Nuclear War, on, in a version somewhat updated frommy self-published and self-printed edition. - Should there have been no resistance against the Hitlers, Stalins and Maos of the past and present? - How should libertarians organize, initiate or support such resistance, given the opportunity and the will to do so? - “… there exists no greater danger to our life, property, and prosperity than the US government, and the US president in particular is the world’s single most threatening and armed danger, capable or ruining everyone who opposes him and destroying the entire globe.” - Well, I believe that Hoppe is still alive and actively criticizing this government. That the entire globe might be destroyed is somewhat doubtful, unless an unlimited chain reaction would occur, which is more likely to happen for a sun, turning into a supernova. At least the cockroaches would have a good chance to survive. - Moreover, it is not so much the US government and the US president that are such threats but the territorial nature of the US government and the constitutional or unconstitutional legal powers granted or usurped by its presidents and by any other territorial leader. - Decision-making on war and peace, armament and disarmament, war and peace aims and warfare methods as well as peace-promoting measures should never have become or remain so monopolized – anywhere. Such powers, remnants of absolutist monarchism, still universally practiced, should be eliminated a.s.a.p. - Whoever still approves of them is morally just as guilty as the top leader who has them and is willing to apply them. He just lacks the opportunity to do so. WMD’s do not belong in anyone’s hands. - In the last paragraph he does, once again, fail to distinguish between territorialist statists and socialists and a-territorial ones. At least a libertarian should be interested in the voluntaristic and non-territorial alternatives and willing to explore and then explain them, rather than merely blaming the consequences of territorialism, as if they were merely the result of bad intentions, conspiracies or power addiction. - To a territorialist nuclear mass murder devices are powerful and effective weapons, even defensive ones, just like for a private terrorist! - The fixed ideas on “collective responsibility” are closely associated to territorialism. - Page 4 b: The decisive distinction is not between “real” and “ideal” or “true” socialism but between compulsory and voluntary socialism and statism, or between territorial and a-territorial socialism and statism. - Under territorialist and collective responsibility notions even the best leader will become extremely corrupted and ready to make human sacrifices by the millions, all “in good conscience”. - He mentions only one of hundreds of definitions and forms of socialism. That is hardly a scientific approach, although it does cover the most widely known version. - It is my conviction that the best forms of voluntary socialism are practically the same as the best forms of capitalism. - A proper comparison of all the different forms and of their opposites as well as their analogies does not seem to have been made as yet. Here is just space, time and energy for one hint: Ownership in a businesslike private productive cooperative is also a private ownership and it extends profit and loss incentives to every member. But I do admit that under the banner of “cooperatives” there exist or are proposed many counter-productive organizations, whose operations are far from businesslike but rather driven e.g. by fixed ideas on “equality”. - He speaks of the need for “monetary calculation”. I admit that need. But one should distinguish between the monetary calculation under monetary and financial despotism and its consequences from the monetary calculation under full monetary and financial freedom, consistently realized. E.g. the ability to pay, to clear, to obtain credits and to repay them and to chances to achieve sales and employment would be quite different. - Much more is required than “a common medium of exchange” or even a common value standard, at least for libertarians aware of the alternatives to this kind of monopolism. Under full freedom not only the “Microsoft” and the “Linux” type of exchange media and value standards will peacefully “slug it out” among themselves, achieving different market shares upon whatever merits they have to offer. - Page 5 a: Rothbard, too, it appears, has not made the distinction between a compulsory and territorial State and a voluntary and a-territorial State or society sufficiently clear in his writings. (See under ROTHBARD.) - “Given the principle of government – judicial monopoly and the power to tax – any notion of limiting its power and safeguarding individual life and property is illusory.” - Much more is involved then merely these two aspects of territorialist power. E.g.: The power to conscript, the power to decide on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties, monetary despotism, censorship and the constitution, legislation, jurisdiction and administration monopoies. Naturally, without the two powers that he mentions the other powers would be weakened. - “A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms and will lead to ever more taxes and less protection.” - Even here one should not apply a-priori reasoning. As a matter of fact, many democracies have rather neglected defence preparedness, although they were neighbours of dictatorship with a growing military power. - According to newspaper reports the US government had insufficient voluntary and professional soldiers and had to resort to National Guard ones, with dated and flawed equipment and was unable to supply it with sufficient spare parts and personal armor. The welfarist demands upon the common trough were, obviously, stronger even for this supposedly greatest imperialist. This enormous power is, apparently, too weak to conduct and conclude, fast and effectively, two minor campaigns, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, at the same time. - There are many territorial States (e.g. Japan) that spend only a small fraction of their tax revenue upon defence and police forces. - Some small ones have even abolished their armies. - But e.g. for the Soviet Union the arms race did become too expensive. - I do agree that a rightful protection agency should not be tax-financed as a rule. But all the alternatives for libertarian defence and protection finance have not yet been sufficiently discussed or publicized. Hoppe discusses only the option of protection via insurance companies and does so as if it were the only and a quite sound and sufficient alternative. - I do agree with him that protection and jurisdiction should not be monopolized. - Page 5 b: Only the abolition of territorial States and territorial socialism are required. - “… defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as non-coercive against non-invaders as are all other suppliers of goods on the free market.” (Rothbard quote) - Here he expresses himself somewhat but not clearly enough panarchistically, speaking only of “firms and people” instead of e.g. communities of volunteer, which offer whole package deals for protective (including police, juridical and defence) services. - Whether these would run them like a business or like a charity or mutual aid society or otherwise would be quite up to them. Formally, these volunteers might impose a tax upon themselves to finance such expenses. Others might charge each member for each service supplied. Others might contract out all protection and defence services, while concentrating on what they consider to be their main business or commitment. - The special protection association of an ideal and voluntary militia for the protection of all genuine individual rights and liberties and e.g. its Anglo-saxon tradition and Swiss tradition (however incompletely realized there, too, and the possible and desirable improvements upon them) are not considered by him as alternatives. Ideal militia, as opposed to robber bands, would not primarily act to achieve financial profits, no more so than the historical “minute-men” were or Cromwell’s “Ironsides”. They considered their associations as self-help and self-defence efforts. - I welcome his concession to individual secessionism: “… and one could at any time unilaterally discontinue any such cooperation with others and fall back on self-reliant defense, or change one’s protective affiliations.” - He claims to offer “the” positive case for private security and protection – although he explores only the insurance company option. I would have agreed with him if he had said: “a positive case” and at least hinted at the fact that there are or ought to be considered some other options. - Page 6 a: “… the most likely candidates for offering protection and defence services are insurance agencies.” - They may run their own security employees or hire a security service for the protection of their offices – but how many of the numerous present private security services have they established or do they hold, as a holding company? - I do not know but I do know that there are numerous private protective, watchman and guard service companies already and their number is probably larger than that of insurance companies. - The market, to the extent that it is free, did not associate protection services with insurance companies in any obvious way. - The mere fact that one could define the State, at best, and any protective agency also as an insurance company, is certainly not enough to conclude that it is insurance companies upon whose shoulders should rest our future protection – apart from indemnification claims, claims to age pensions etc. - Hoppe demands quite unregulated insurance and protection services. Under that conditions perhaps some would develop as he suggests. - How would a really free market for all services and dependent upon individual consent and customers develop in this respect? - Insurance companies might also run protection services in their own interest and that of their insured. Or they might hire protection services supplied by other companies. Or they might give special discounts to those of their clients who have arranged for what their insurance company considers to be sufficient protective services. But so far the insurance companies seem to have shown little initiative in this direction. Have their representatives ever met in congress to propose to take over the financing and running of police and court services? - Have they published any blueprint on the subject? (So far they do not even present a united front towards territorial governments when it comes to demanding monetary and financial freedom, as well as competition in juridical services and exemption from governmental regulation of the insurance business. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - Thus to me this proposal resembles somewhat the statist notion of letting "Big Brother" do it or the more popular notion of “let George do it!” - The insurance industry, to my knowledge, has not even tried to protect their clients and the own investments from inflation, deflation and stagflation crises, by attacking and trying to remove all the laws that establish monetary despotism and make such crises possible. – [Is there even a single insurance company that stood up, in its publicity attempts, for voluntary taxation? – J.Z., 17.5.12.] Seeing that they are so little concerned about an as important aspects of their own business, is there any good reason to entrust them with e.g. policing services and or jurisdiction - much more so, than entrusting such services to local bakers, greengrocers or butchers? The latter would rather hire a local guard service, apart from installing their own good locks, grids, plate-glass and electronic checkouts against thieves and shop-lifters. - Page 7 a: “… any known aggressor and provocateur would be unable to find an insurer, and hence, would be economically isolated, weak, and vulnerable.”- As long as crime pays, i.e., criminals with victims are too rarely caught, convicted and imprisoned or fined and forced to pay indemnification, it does not matter to them that they and their victims are not insured. I remember a case of a car thief, who had stolen and disposed of almost 500 cars before he was caught and sentenced to a few years in prison, most of them spent almost under motel conditions, at the expense of taxpayers, also providing a better conventional education for them, but not a moral or ethical one apart from the ethical scraps offered by religions. - Released, out in the community again, he would be anonymous, with others unaware of what risk he imposes upon others, all in the interest of his “privacy” and assuming that he had “paid” his “debt to society” already and would be reformed. - (The car thieves whom I encountered in my profession, who considered their own imprisonment to be the real crime, were unaware of the fact that by stealing an expensive car they were, in effect, condemning their victim to a degree of unpaid and forced labour - the cost to them of that car - for several years. If a car insurance company paid for that theft, then it merely means that this unpaid and forced labour was simply distributed among many co-victims of that theft, the members of and contributors to that insurance company. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - Admittedly, in the institution in which I encountered this particular thief, recidivism was down to 10–20 % in the average, while the average recidivism was then around 66 % for all NSW penal institutions. - For insurance contracts, if his past convict status would not be kept secret, this would mean that at first he would have had to pay a higher premium and in later years (without any further conviction) rapidly declining premiums. But I doubt very much that the insurance premiums upon him would very much affect his behaviour. Most of the damage he had done would still have to be born, under the present system, by the car insurance premiums to be paid by the innocents he victimized with his car thefts. The price of a good car being about the average annual earnings of an Australian, each car theft would, in practice, have condemned each victim to a year of hard and unpaid labour. The car insurance merely distributed this imposed burden among the insured. Thus this thief alone imposed the equivalent of almost 500 years of forced labour upon innocents. He opposed the sentence imposed upon him but not the sentences he had imposed upon others. - Capture, conviction, penalty and indemnity must be almost certain to sufficiently affect behaviour that considers “crime as a business” - Will insurance companies provide such a service? I doubt it. - For the reduction and prevention of private crimes with victims I would rely much more on the factors I list in PEACE PLANS 15. "Some thoughts on how a libertarian society would tend to reduce crime", pages 12–20 of that issue. (I offer PP15 as a zipped email attachment upon request until is appears online or on a CD. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - For more effective deterrence and rehabilitation and for greater conviction rates I would rely on private and profit-making prisons, as described by me with some precedents in PEACE PLANS 13. (Now also available from me via e-mail attachment.) - Curiously enough, many of the convicts that I came in contact with, professionally, largely agreed with me on my prison reform and crime prevention ideas, more so than my superiors in the Department of Corrective Services. They were more in touch with the realities whilst the higher officials were more interested in upholding the status quo or committing themselves only to more or less trivial “reforms”. In my times e.g. the uniforms for prison officers and prisoners were changed several times, as if they really mattered. - For the reduction and prevention of international aggression, as well as for libertarian successful revolutions, military insurrections and liberation campaigns under policies pursued by ideal militias and by panarchies, I refer to in my two peace books ( and to my ON PANARCHY series, 24 PEACE PLANS issues so far, also digitized, and some other relevant books in my series. - Hoppe explores none of these options in this essay but merely relies on his speculations on insurance companies that might come to offer satisfactory protective services as well, merely to obtain financial profits. - I do not find his case convincing – but do admit that so far almost nobody found my own case convincing, either. - In my opinion he is engaged in utopia building or castles in the air drafts that are far removed from existing realities and future rightful possibilities and likely developments. - But I do admit that as a “debater” he scores quite a few “logic” points that seem to support his framework or hypothesis. - His proposals should and would certain also be tried by people free to do so. - I do also admit that so far only very few have subscribed to peace-promoting ideas that I collected and published in my series. - None of the “secret services” was efficient enough to discover them and utilize them to support their government’s better intentions and policies. They seem to be looking only for information that is not published. - Once crime and international aggression are truly minimized then many people would no longer want to rely for their remaining risk protection upon some professional companies and pay them for this service but would, instead, rely on private self-protection or organized local mutual-protection, perhaps in form of a local volunteer militia or even simply accept the risk, without insurance cover, as they do accept the risk like e.g. that of being eaten by a shark or struck by lightening or a meteor. - The risk is presently large only due to the inefficiencies of territorial and monopolistic police forces, courts and prisons as well as defence forces and through the numerous conflicts caused by territorialism. Victim disarmament certainly did not help the victims but rather the criminals and the aggressors. - Page 7 b: Everyone, by virtue of buying protection insurance, would be tied into a global competitive enterprise of striving to minimize aggression …” - Alas, he does not clarify a) what really is aggression, b) what causes it and c) what could reduce it to a minimum. He merely hopes, expects or predicts that protective insurance companies would achieve the minimum of it. - I do not think that he sufficiently examined the main causes of wars and all rightful and realistic peace-promoting options. - Since territorial governments monopolized and preempted this sphere, not sufficient people have sufficiently pondered the alternatives to territorial government protection and defence policies. - His insurance model – or the model of those whom he quoted, did not convince. - While the war risk remains as large as it is today, it cannot be covered by insurance. - This risk would certainly go down very much with the abolition of territorial States. - That may be his intention but he does not distinguish between them and a-territorial States and societies and does not explore the reasons why the latter would tend to be peaceful and protective, even without insurance companies acting also as protection agencies. He only considers the profit and loss incentives of insurance companies and their customers. - It makes no sense to compare natural disaster insurance arrangements with insurance arrangements against wars. - The latter have man-made causes and can be just as unlimited in their destructiveness as natural catastrophes can be. - Actually, over the last few decades or even centuries the natural catastrophes may have killed and destroyed less than the man-made ones. - We can limit the effects of natural catastrophes like floods and forest fires, storms, tidal waves, droughts, hail, frosts, avalanches, meteor strikes and earthquakes only to a limited extent and could cover the rest by insurance arrangements while we could not do the same for the present risks of man-made wars or, rather, wars caused by territorial States. - But we would have at least a chance to do away almost completely with most man-made catastrophes, e.g. by de-monopolizing the decision-making power on war and peace, armament and disarmament, war and peace aims and warfare. - Confinement to voluntary members and to a-territorial autonomy and voluntary taxation would be among many peace-promoting steps towards completely abolishing the warfare State, i.e., the territorial State. - After this abolition little need for defence and protection would remain. - All of the peace-promoting tendencies and energies would become released. - Many of the still remaining risks of crimes and aggression, already reduced to a perhaps irreducible minimum (those due to the imperfection of human nature), could be provided against by rightful, sensible and well-organized self-help efforts, without any paid for help from professionals (some professionals like medical doctors and psychologies, architects and builders excepted) and profit-making firms. - Everyone to be a disarmament inspector e.g. regarding WMD, in his own interest. We certainly would not want them for our “protection”, least of all in our own neighbourhood. We need no monetary incentives to oppose them and to help dismantle them, given the opportunity. - Page 8 a: “… only accidental – not intended – disasters are insurable.” - There exists insurance cover against theft, robberies, arson and murder, certainly intended disasters from the point of view of the victimizers. - Even self-caused medical disasters, due e.g. to smoking or drinking, are covered by insurance. - They should require higher premiums though, than for non-smokers and non-drinkers. But they are certainly not merely accidental disasters. - All too often Hoppe is quite dogmatic in his statements and does not consider the exceptions from his “rules”. - “… every producer must be insured individually. …” - While there is much that is true about this statement: Individual workers are producers, too. Voluntary group insurance for them saves often that much in commissions to insurance agents that it is very competitive in its premium charges. - The insurance risk and the difficulties of raising the premiums depends also on the means of payment used and the ways in which indemnification is paid. - When payment is in cash then e.g. the risk of arson is greatly increased in times of peace and goes down in times of war. The rate of suicide, in case of life-insurance, is greatly increased in times of deflation and goes down when the economy booms. (Young men’s suicides in Australia form an exception. But the rate of suicides among them may be related to the rate of unemployment among them.) - When insurance companies can pay indemnities in their own kind of currency, accepted by them in payment of premiums, then indemnity payment is easier for them and premium payment is easier for their insured than it is under deflationary conditions. - Insurance reserves: Against current risks like man-made high unemployment sufficient reserves cannot be accumulated and invested and mobilized when needed without causing more unemployment. Natural catastrophe insurance can also not be optimally realized on the premium principle. It requires the levy principle and payment of the levies in clearing certificates usable against the premium payers. See the writings of Ulrich von Beckerath on earthquake insurance and unemployment insurance. - The highest unemployment rate that I heard of was 80 %. Such a disaster cannot be indemnified out of reserves. Reserves are invested and would have to be mobilized. And the remaining 20% employed could not bear the levy costs required, either. The only “insurance” would here be the prevention of such unemployment or its rapid abolition, which has nothing to do with “insurance” in the common meaning. - But protection against it or prevention of it or rapid ending of it is possible and desirable via monetary and financial rights and liberties. Merely legalizing gold - as an optional exchange medium and value standard - would not suffice. - What kind of insurance could cover us against the risk of a nuclear holocaust? Not even all the risks involved in a single but large nuclear reactor accident can be sufficiently covered by insurance. - Nor can the disasters of a conventional war. My home-town, Berlin, was destroyed to over 50 %. Could the house owners have covered, with their premiums and reserves, the cost of rebuilding all destroyed houses and they and the tenents the life insurance for e.g. 3.5 million civilian victims of the air raids alone? - Most of the insurance funds of the survivors and most of their savings were destroyed either by inflation or by compulsory investments in government “insecurities”, with the returns from the latter largely wasted upon and destroyed in form of arms and ammunition. - Page 8 b: “… an aggressor can discriminate and deliberately target specific victims …” "- "Can this “can”! (He should not be an aggressor in the first place. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) Most aggressions at least since the 20th century were all too indiscriminate. The number of civilian victims had risen to up to 80 % of all war victims. Sometimes to frequently even the fighting soldiers were and are safer than the civilians. - The civilian and unintended victims of the war in Iraq and, recently, in Falluja, do probably far outnumber the deaths among the soldiers on the side of the Allies and, possibly to probably, the number of deaths among the Iraq “freedom fighters” or fanatics or fundamentalists. - Who gets “protected” when a city is flattened? - The soldiers, too, are also often quite indiscriminately attacked and killed, although they may be merely conscripts and involuntary cannon fodder, without a sufficient chance to desert or professional soldiers, who may have been sent against their will for aims not their own. Rightful separate peace treaties should be offered to them, ignoring their governments. - However, the war in Iraq was unusual for our times in that at least an attempt was made to target the main war criminal and now the remaining terrorists and fanatics. - But without quite rightful and attractive war and peace aims, and as a result of conventional military warfare, the fighting or the subsequent oppression and prosecution might be going on and on there, as it has already for many decades - whether the US and Australia and the UK and others are involved or not. Territorial democracy is not the ultimate answer, there, either. - “Political Borders And Insurance.” - Let me make a dogmatic statement: Political borders cannot be insured. Only borders around individuals and voluntary associations and their properties can be somewhat insured and even this only under conditions of at least considerable degrees of freedom and security. - Hoppe rightly points out how fluctuating borders are. But he states that Germany, until 1871, was composed of nearly 50 separate countries. - According to my Enc. Brit. ed. of 1958 the new Reich consisted of 4 kingdoms, 5 grand duchies, 13 duchies and principalities and 3 free cities. I make that a grand total of 26. In school I learnt that about 30 political units were then formally “united”. - The two greatest wars and the greatest inflation and depression were among the consequences for Germany. - Page 9 a: “… an aggressor-invader can and does discriminate. He does not attack or invade worthless locations and things, like the Sahara Desert, but targets and things that are valuable. Other things being equal, the more valuable a location and an object, the more likely it will be the target of an invasion.” - A few years back, according to newspaper reports, India and Pakistan fought a short but sharp war – for possession of a desert area between them! - IG Farben industrial plants in Germany, in which US people had heavily invested, were largely and intentionally spared in air raids during WW II. – In previous wars with Turkey, Venice was largely spared serious attacks – because Turkish investors, including officer of its army and navy, had heavily invested in it, which they often could not safely enough do at home. - Only protectionists would want to invade, conquer and monopolize markets. Free Traders would realize that they still will have to pay for the goods in foreign countries, even once these have been conquered. They would also realize that much of the productive capacity and the wealth of the conquering and the conquered country would be destroyed in the process. - How many of all wars were money-making enterprises, apart from the careers of a few officers, bureaucrats and politicians and the profits of some arms manufacturers? - The relatively developed countries established colonies, in severely underdeveloped countries, with less riches and less per head productivity and income than in the conquering or usurping countries. Even G. B. Shaw had to point out that colonialism did not pay but rather cost the colonialist countries, in balance. They spent more on their new possessions than they gained from them. - They could have greatly profited from Free Trade with them and even with enemy “countries”. - “… and attacks are in any case never indiscriminate…” - Was that true regarding air raids in Germany, Korea and Vietnam? - I do largely agree with him on non-arbitrary borders as being those around private property. But for much of the private landed property originally vast government grants were involved to favourites of governments. Such land grants went on even in my time in Australia. I remember a newspaper report on a coastal strip in Queensland, about 40 km long, which was sold to a developer for a few hundred-thousand dollars, even with the promise that the government would help him in raising development costs. A single small block in the city or even in a village like Berrima, like mine, can now cost more. Probably much more than this “price” was passed under the table to the decision-maker. - We had once a liberal prime minister in NSW who was involved in several local crooked land deals or deal attempts, for his own financial advantage. At least he failed in one of them, when it became public. One involved a house that can be seen from my place, on the same street. - How rightful are private properties so acquired? - The land monopoly is not as absolute and important as some land reformers assert it to be but a monopoly factor is involved. - How to reduce that to close to zero is still contested. - Tolerance for different land reform experiments, all at the expense and risk of their supporters, is here also the most just and rational solution. - Any imposed land-tenure system is unlikely to be the optimal and most just one. - The worst imposed land tenure is the national or State-wide one. It does not represent “private property” in the best sense even while Hoppe does think so, with regard to at least some immigrants, considered by him to be the same as invaders. - Is he willing to evacuate America, alone or with his family, because he or his ancestors were immigrants, not wanted by all of the natives? Who, in their turn, were merely earlier immigrants. - Australia, too, and its natives were once “appropriated” by a representative of a foreign king. Should such appropriations be recognized? - What rights can natives not be deprived of, even if they are merely tribal nomads? They have certainly no natural right to monopolize a continent for their preferred lifestyle. - By now they have, in a reverse policy, acquired more land per head than the “white” etc. later immigrant population, and this without paying for their land grants. That has not solved all their problems, either. If, instead, they had been granted complete a-territorial autonomy, including tax exemption and monetary and investment rights in their properties, quite independent from the “protection” offered by the Australian governments, they might by now be the richest Australians. - Page 10 a: “… or own a laser gun that can kill an aggressor thousands of miles away?” – Has he read too much science fiction? How many straight lines between shooter and target exist on Earth, which are thousands of miles long? Is he considering space wars? - “… every aggression-insurer must hold sufficient capital reserves.” – That is not possible against certain degrees of aggression. E.g. when Sydney or New York would be wiped out by a single large Hydrogen bomb or rocket. - The only safety lies here in prevention. He does not say enough on that. - “As aggression is never indiscriminate but selective and targeted, so is defence.” - Alas, that has not been true in all too many cases. It is untrue with regard to indiscriminate air raids and nuclear bomb attacks, which are, by their very nature, indiscriminate. So is carpet-bombing and are artillery raids on areas merely suspected of holding terrorists or guerillas. - Breath-tests to discover drink drivers are also indiscriminately applied. So are security checks at airports. Minor aggressions, indeed, intended to prevent larger ones, but also aggressions. - “… a state is an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of protection.” - (I largely agree. But private and competing protection services employ already more people than the government’s police force does. - J.Z.) and the power to tax,” - (Monopolistic trade unions and professional associations and privileged boards etc. have also been given taxation powers associated with their monopolies. - J.Z.) and any such agency will be comparatively more aggressive because it can externalize the costs of such behavior onto its subjects.” - The power urge is often greater than are financial considerations. Possession of power can often also grant immunity from prosecution and indemnification claims. - “The existence of states, and especially of democratic states, implies that aggression and defense – war – will tend to be transformed into total, undiscriminating, war.” - On this subject he should consult not only the references quoted by him but e.g. the extensive statistics of Rudolf Rummel, who makes a strong case not for absolute peacefulness of democratic States but for their lesser degrees of aggressiveness and mass murder. However, they have also engaged in total and indiscriminating warfare, also at the expense and risk of their own soldiers and citizens, thereby and without justification prolonging and intensifying wars and without providing sufficiently better war aims than their authoritarian, totalitarian and terrorist opponents. As territorial regimes they have all too many features in common with authoritarian and tyrannical regimes. - Not only warfare is involved. Millions died e.g. because DDT was outlawed and so they became victims of Malaria. Naturally, that was done and is being continued “with the best intentions”. - Nor is the territorial State the exclusive culprit - e.g. in the indiscriminate war by parents against their unborn children, with the help of medics. - These victims are even more numerous than the millions who died as war victims. And although they are often called “little strangers” they are hardly foreigners to their parents and they do have a natural rights claim to discriminating protection from them. - Some abortionis extermination “camps” are financed also out of tax revenues from anti-abortionists. Seeing the numbers of victims involved one can somewhat understand the fanaticism of some of the anti-abortionists. But assassinations and arson are not the solutions, here, either. - The "pro-lifers" and “pro-choice” advocates and practitioners should not have to live under the same government. They should, rather, each have their own – until at some future date, probably still far away, when finally and generally we will could consider these pre-birth killings of children as unfavourably as we do now, generally, consider the post-birth killings of children. - Page 10 b: In his assumed case, experienced safe crackers might tackle the “capital reserves” primarily - and in relatively safely for themselves. At least now most criminals risk all too little and most indemnification is paid for out of the pockets of the insured crime victims, rather than out of the property and forced labour of the criminals. - So far the “economically powerful professional defence agencies” by territorial monopoly States have not revealed themselves as very efficient towards professional private criminals. (Nor against professional official criminals in the "own" country and in other countries. - J.Z., 31.8.11.) - I do admit that freely competitive protective and defensive agencies with voluntary membership and subscribers only - would tend to become cheaper and more efficient. I just doubt very much that insurance companies will provide these better services. - A lot of private ethics and community spirit is involved, as is indicated e.g. by low crime rates in Switzerland and in orthodox Jewish and Chinese communities. The criminality rates among them are different, although these people do also live in territorial States. - Assuming a faith in property rights and the right to life would spread as widely as is now the belief in great leaders and in “the” vote: How much crime and aggression would then continue? - On the other hand, a wide-spread conviction that total non-violence is obligatory might encourage the remaining criminals and aggressors. - How highly rated are now genuine individual rights and liberties among most people, even among all too many anarchists and libertarians, especially among the majority of people inclined towards the Welfare State mentality and its “rights”? - While their States rob so much “for the common good”, one should expect a considerable minority to be prepared to rob much for its own advantage. - “… an attack by all Americans with all of their resources….” - Thus, according to Hoppe, the tax slaves of the US government are responsible for everything that is done with the proceeds of this robbery! - At most they can be blamed for not having considered the alternative of voluntary State membership, voluntary taxation of voluntary budgeting sufficiently, including their exterritorialist alternatives. But since this attitude is presently a common failure of almost all of mankind, this is not a really obvious crime that would lead to a conviction in most courts. - Here he applies collective responsibility notions – but at a later passage he speaks of innocent civilian victims. He cannot have it both ways. - “Second, just as the attacker is a state, so is the attacked, Iraq.” - Were the allies really attacking all of Iraq, not only its despotic regime and its followers? Are they attacking now all the minorities there or only those persisting in armed aggression and terrorism against the occupying force that at least attempts to establish, for the first time in many decades, some peace, freedom and security in that country, although only in form of a conventional democracy, rather than another dictatorship? - Indeed, a democracy is not the ideal solution for this country and its very diverse and antagonistic people, either. But then what alternative does Hoppe propose as long as he still thinks and writes in terms of Iraq, USA etc.? - He confirms his basic error by speaking of Iraq draftees as also being “implicated” in “their” - government’s defence. - Thus the military slaves are to be held responsible for the actions of their slave master? - “Thus, the war becomes a war of all Americans against all Iraqis, i.e., a total war.” - If that were really the case, how many Iraqis would still survive? - Much nonsense has been uttered from all sides about this war – and other wars. I had hoped to hear better statements from top libertarians. - What he could rightly say is only that territorial governments try to involve as many of their subjects in their policies, with or without their consent, as they can and that therefore territorialism is not longer to be tolerated. That would also lead to the best solution for a country with as diverse and intolerant people as the Iraqis. - Page 11 a: “… the aggressor has little or no incentive to avoid or minimize collateral damage.” - It is doubtful whether the Allies in Iraq are really defenders or aggressors. Both terms are still insufficiently defined. - That the democratic governments at least try to avoid unfavourable publicity and do not explicitly target innocent civilians – as happened with bomb raids in WW II - is obvious. - It is also obvious that larger military operations against well armed and determined minorities, for whom democracy is not a good enough option, because they know that they would be outvoted in it, are usually not conducted like well restrained policing operations are, in which often more words are exchanged than bullets and few houses are blown up. - “To the contrary, since the entire population and national wealth is involved in the defensive effort, collateral damage, whether of lives or property, is even desirable.” - Obviously, H. is unaware of how little his description applies to the remaining clashes in Iraq. The Allies there do not fight a single and unified nation in arms as defenders of such a nation but merely militant minorities driven to their fight by religious, national or ethnic intolerance and a hatred against “foreigners” daring to interfere with their infighting and mutual oppression attempts, with these “invaders” trying to promote peace, freedom, justice and security as they see it. - (In Iraq not even religious liberty has been widely recognized and secured.) - That this latter attempt is far from fully just and rational is obvious. - But that freedom, justice, peace, tolerance and security are not the main objectives of the diverse Iraq “freedom fighters” is obvious, too, from their actions. - These “freedom fighters” would indeed welcome as much “collateral damage” as possible, when inflicted by the Allies, among innocent Iraqis, because that would rally more Iraqis to their flags. These “defenders” try also to inflict as many intentional deaths and wounds among innocents like Red Cross and Foreign Aid workers etc. as possible, again to invite strong retaliation with more innocent “collateral damage” victims and thus escalate this war. - “No clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants exists. Everyone is an enemy and all property provides support for the attacked government.” - This was one of the excuses for the atrocities on all sides during WW II. Hoppe still thinks in such terms, all too often. - “… seemingly indiscriminate destruction and devastation – is exclusively a feature of a statist world.” - (Private terrorist organizations have also become all too proficient at that. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - As if all wars by all territorial States had always been conduced in this way. - E.g., the glorious Revolution in England was not conducted in this way. The “invader” was largely welcomed as an invited liberator and only more or less accidentally a skirmish still occurred in which about 300 people were killed. - Mussolini was at one stage almost bloodlessly overthrown and was temporarily reinstalled only by Hitler’s military forces. - Many other such instances could, probably, be quoted. (However, I have no ready access to a complete list. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) One should not malign even the “devil”. - That he applies this charge to the war in Iraq, in which the Allies had shown much more restraint and discrimination in their military operations than is usual, is absurd. Especially since by his standard all people on all sides are fully guilty of all the atrocities or “collateral damages” that happen there, even if they are victims themselves. - “… just as all property is private, all defense must be insured individually by capitalized insurance agencies, very much like industrial accident insurance.” - This is another of his dogmatic statements which he believes to be a reasoned statement. It just indicates that he has not explored all alternative defence options. - Industrial accidents can often be minimized and, in most cases, e.g. large nuclear reactor accidents excepted, be insured against. There is no insurance option against the risk of total war of the kind he seems to think to be inevitable and justified, at least within a statist framework. - Page 11 b: “… a tendency toward the migration of people and goods from high risk and falling property value areas into low risk and increasing property value areas.” - Here he seems to take free migration for granted for all people who want to improve their chances. Also a competition between protection agencies. But he still thinks in terms of territories or areas rather than in terms of different types and degrees of protection, anywhere, by different and a-territorial protective agencies, voluntarily hired and financed. - The drive towards secured blocks or residential areas or streets is presently strong in South Africa only because the territorial government is unable to sufficiently reduce the crime rate. (See e.g. Rory Carroll in Johannesburg: Apartheid creeps back to rich areas, in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Oct. 30-31, 2004, - Hoppe expects e.g. wealthy neighbourhood protection agencies not only to be able to protect themselves against the threat posed by private criminals but also by whole criminal States in other countries, engaged in a conquest and looting expeditions. - As sensible businessmen most of them would rather flee in time, taking as much as they can of their possessions with them, provided they do not encounter the immigration barriers that Hoppe seems to favour, or the emigration barriers that their own State may have set up. - How many “free States” welcomed e.g. Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany? Could these refugees, and other victims of the Nazis, have formed an effective resistance against the Nazis by a voluntary tax or insurance contribution upon themselves? - Indeed, they and the Social Democrats and other democratic opponents of the Nazis and the Communists should have armed and organized themselves against the totalitarians, at least as well as these totalitarians did, quite illegally, long before the Nazis rose to exclusive power. But they legally disarmed themselves – and left the field to the armed totalitarian thugs and then and thus became their victims. - It was the Hitler regime that raised money, for its criminal and aggressive purposes, and quite wrongly, e.g. by charging Jews about 100 000 RM per head for official permission to escape the Nazi regime. (*) Naturally, only a few Jews in Germany could afford that “fee” or fine. And this offer was not upheld for long. A later offer of Jewish lives for trucks was declined by the Allies, although these saved Jewish lives could soon have produced more than the values of these trucks, quite apart from all humanitarian considerations. (*) (Apart from looting e.g. the old age insurance funds, replacing their sound investment certificates with the Nazi State's debt certificates. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - More importantly, the opponents of the Nazis - and of the other totalitarians of the Left - should have explored the monetary and financial freedom options that would have avoided the financing of WW I and II by inflation, the following Great Inflation and the Great Depression, which made the rise of the Nazis possible. Merely a return to “the” gold standard would not have sufficed. - Moreover, should there have been any “defence” by Germans in Nazi Germany against the Allies – if the Allies had proceeded quite rightfully? - Would there be any defence of any Iraqi group if the Allies had proceeded quite rightfully there? - Is it really so difficult to envision a libertarian platform that would have led to the welcoming of the Allied forces in Iraq as liberators by all except the real political criminals and religious fanatics? - Were the public assets of this dictatorship mobilized to finance its overthrow or merely the tax slaves of the Allies? - Were all opposition forces recognized and liberated? - Or did most of the very diverse peoples in Iraq feel threatened by the imposition of a territorial democracy in which they might become an outvoted and legally oppressed and exploited minority? - Page 11 b: What he hopes to achieve via insurance companies acting as protective agencies can, probably, only be achieved by firstly reducing the risks of wars, revolutions, civil wars, military insurrections and dictatorships via a-territorially autonomous communities of volunteers replacing territorial States and then covering the remaining and relatively small protection and defence costs via e.g. some insurance-protection agency or in some of the other possible ways, from self-defence steps to ideal militia forces. - However, while territorialism prevails – partly with his aid as an advocate of immigration barriers – and also compulsory taxation and monetary despotism, conscription, compulsory schooling, monopolistic decision-making on war and peace, forced loans via more or less worthless public debt certificates with compulsory acceptance, insurance companies will tend to remain, likewise, victims rather than becoming protectors of themselves and their insured. - Voluntary communities, only a-territorially autonomous, will offer most of the competition advantages that he expects his insurance-protection companies to provide. - The urge to become a member in a community of like-minded people is still stronger, as a rule, than the urge to subscribe to insurance and some protection agency. - Libertarians should explore and exploit that community urge by advocating corresponding voluntary communities that are only a-territorially autonomous. - Man is a social being not only one driven by profit and loss calculations and bargain hunting. - A-territorially autonomous communities would combine individual bargains with community inclinations. - Their first successful establishment of a voluntary and a-territorial community, e.g. as one alternative and rightful governments in exile, would already provide a great defensive and liberating strength – and greatly diminish the strength of any enemy dictatorship. - The foreign “invasions” that might then occur might be likened to the protection and liberation attempts of the international volunteers that “intervened” in favour of the Spanish republic in against the insurrection and usurpation attempt of the Franco regime, but without all the wrongs and mistakes of these territorialist republicans towards their dissenting minorities. - Insurance companies are certainly and so far not the only, sufficient or best ones to provide moral, ideological and financial incentives against aggressors and for upholding individual rights and liberties. - That view is as limited in favour of “capitalism” as is the view that ascribes all wars to “capitalism”. The one says capitalist investments or subscriptions will ensure peace or defence while the other says it will assure war and exploitation. - The use of the word and of the practice of insurance cannot sufficiently assure and insure, protect and defend us against all too well organized and financed territorial statism until all the problems associated with territorial warfare States are sufficiently dissolved by abolishing their territorialism, and not upholding it by, e.g., immigration and emigration barriers and exclusive currencies, even when they are “gold covered”. - Page 12 b: He thinks in terms of describing the risks in neighbourhoods. - I think in terms of: How many hoods and how many honest people are in most voluntary associations? - Any crime syndicate or gang of bandits would, naturally, find itself in a state of war with all relatively honest communities, doing merely their own things to and for themselves. - That governmental statistics are not honest and complete is nothing new. - Page 13 a: Wealth redistribution on a voluntary basis would continue, like e.g. in form of charitable contributions and last wills and testaments. There would also be likely, at least for a time, many and various communist and many and various socialist communities of volunteers. - Who can rightfully complain if they redistribute only the property of their voluntary members? - When the costs of wrong decisions and of aggressions are always brought home to those responsible, then wrong decisions and aggressions will inevitably be diminished. How this can be achieved most effectively is still open to questioning and discussions. - Hoppe keeps thinking in terms of good neighbourhoods. I keep thinking in terms of good, rightful, tolerant, peaceful and self-responsible associations, otherwise quite regardless of their religion, ideology and race or ethnic background. The former is more a collectivist notion and practice. The latter is more an individualist idea and practice. - Typically, here he thinks in terms of neighbourhood” problems and then over-extends them to the whole country and its neighbours, as if the right of cooperative owners of a block of flats, who agreed with each other not to accept members of a certain type, could be rightfully and practically extended to a whole country, covering much of a continent. - Which kind of people were the greatest killers in the 20th century? I believe the “white” people were. Thus all others would, in Hoppe’s terms, be entitled to consider them as an “undesirable potential risk” and would thus be entitled to exclude them as undesirable immigrants and even to deport them. - “Rather than being allowed to rid themselves of crime through the expulsion of known criminals from their neighborhood, they are forced by their government to live in permanent association with their aggressors.” (Here he classes even the vast majority of peaceful and productive immigrants as aggressors! - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - Was deportation ever a good solution to the crime problem? As far as I know, deportation either to New World, then to Australia and also Russian deportation to Siberia were failures as far as crime control is concerned. - Under South African compulsory Apartheid the “undesirables” there were deported to their homelands, or located in special reserves, at least after working hours. - That the crime rate in S.A. has increased after “liberation” is due to many other factors than the abolition of coercive Apartheid. E.g.: The political liberation heightened expectations but did not offer any better economic and social results. "Deportation" into conventional prisons, most of them under State legislation and control, as a special form of Apartheid, in all countries, was and is also to a large extent a failure. - What makes him believe that the dumping of trouble-makers, rather than convicting them and rendering them harmless, in some cases even killing them, is a good solution? What rights do the people have upon whom he would dump these people? - Does he perhaps want to repeat the example of the numerous stateless persons? - Does he want to increase the number of refugees and displaced persons, now somewhere between 20 and 30 million? - Does he want to establish new penal colonies or the kind of “Coventry” societies that Robert Heinlein discussed in one of his SF stories? - The Nazis had the same notion when they considered Jews and Gypsies as trouble-makers. - In principle and practice the main aggressors would be those who to coercively deport others, or keep them out, of whole countries, merely as “undesirables” or suspects or formerly convicted people – or who would simply attempt to wipe them out. - Notions on what constitutes crime are also very different. - The fundamental distinction is still between crimes with involuntary victims and “crimes” with voluntary victims and "crimes: with no victims. - Private and a-territorially autonomous communities would be free to exclude all kinds of people that they do dislike, from their membership and protection, e.g. people of other religions, races, political, social and economic beliefs, different life-styles, with drug, smoking and alcohol habits, abortionists, anti-abortionists, monarchists, republicans, communists, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, child molesters, you name it. - They would not have the right to deport them, because they would not possess a territorial monopoly. - But they would be entitled to arrest, convict and penalize aggressors and hold them responsible and also relocate them in the process, at least temporarily, i.e. in a prison, but not necessarily in another country or continent unless some people there are willing to sell land for such penal settlements. But they might, temporarily, sell them as forced labour. In some cases for life – if there are willing employers for them. - I have not seen his article “Free Immigration or Forced Integration”, CHRONICLES, July 1995, referred to in the footnote. Perhaps he expresses himself more sensibly there on this subject. So far I doubt it. - When he discusses good or bad neighbourhoods he speaks in terms of local governments being in control over considerable local territories, not only over some of the local real estate. - To the extent of “gated”, “walled in” or otherwise “secured” private zones of like-minded people I do agree with him. But when it comes to territorial monopolies I disagree with him. - Much of the area around the city of Washington might be considered an undesirable slum area, inhabited by undesirable people - from the point of view of some “white” people. - Many of the e.g. anarchists and libertarians in the U.S. would rather consider the government centre of Washington as an undesirable neighbourhood, inhabited by undesirable people, with undesirable powers and the inclination to abuse them aggressively. Should they deport these people or merely deprive them of their territorial powers? - With his notions Hoppe seems to be close to favouring a compulsory Apartheid there and e.g. in NYC towards Harlem. - To claim exclusive territorial control over whole suburbs or city districts or villages or towns goes too far from my point of view, unless there is unanimous consent of all the local residents, comparable to that in voluntary monasteries and nunneries. - Whilst there are other people around they do have to tolerate them, as long as the other people remain peaceful. - Many of the rich people have to be tolerated only as long as they are not legalized monopolists or get subsidies at the expense of taxpayers. - If they are monopolists or recipients of their form of State Welfare or bailouts or subsidies to the rich e.g., for not growing wheat on thousands of acres, then these privileges should be taken from them. - All such things would be automatically sorted out under voluntary State membership and voluntary taxation, which would also lead to voluntary budgeting or State expenditures. - Known and unreformed criminals should be caught and convicted rather than expelled. - Imagine either were attempted towards all abortionists and also towards the numerous people who still do not know, care about and respect some fundamental individual rights, starting, perhaps, with minor offenders like litterers and lastly to all those who live off the tax slavery of others or who threaten others, directly or indirectly, with their WMD, which are, naturally, primary targets for the WMD of other governments. - “Insurers would want to expel known criminals not just from their immediate neighborhood but from civilization altogether, into the wilderness or open frontier of the Amazon jungle, the Sahara, or the polar regions.” - As if there were no people living in the wilderness of the Amazon jungle, who are already all too much threatened by their “civilized” “countrymen” and as if the few inhabitable areas of the Sahara, the oases, would not already be occupied. As for the polar regions: They might as well put them in their own freezers, saving the transport costs and then compost the bodies. - Deportations and death penalties are not always solutions. What gave Hoppe the idea that they are? - Page 14 a: How many people did take the threats posed by the Nazis and by the Soviets serious, early enough? - How many people take the threats posed by most territorial governments serious enough? - Or the threat posed by monopolized and centralized decision-making on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties? - Or the threat posed by “nuclear strength” and “nuclear deterrents” even in the hands of democratic governments? - Or the threats posed by monetary and financial despotism, by protectionism, compulsory schooling and conscription? - Have insurance companies taken e.g. the risk of inflation, deflation and stagflation under monetary despotism serious enough? Or the rules requiring them to invest in government securities? - The known foreign government agents are obviously a lesser security risk than the unknown ones. They are already discovered and can be kept under observation. They can also be expelled, as is often done by governments. - But foreign government agents are no great threat when quite rightful libertarian defence, revolution and liberation steps are taken. They might then even become significant defectors or agents in the overthrow of an enemy regime. E.g., there were numerous defectors from the Soviet regime. - Genuinely free societies are not best protected by border guards. They would rather break down all borders except those around individuals and their properties. - Defence expenditures should not only be reduced but largely made unnecessary by a reconstruction of Warfare States into inherently peaceful societies, all of volunteers only and without a territorial monopoly. This would require replacing the State’s territorial hierarchy with compulsory membership or subjugation by numerous and diverse as well as a-territorially self-governing communities of volunteers. - Mere insurance companies, even those with protective ambitions and some protective abilities and enterprises, are not very likely to bring about this transformation. They haven’t even, so far, sufficiently transformed their own basic business. Expecting them to solve some major of our remaining problems is expecting too much of them, in the same way as it would be to expect such solutions from life saving clubs at the beaches, from night watchmen services, park rangers or from the Salvation Army or from medical people or from lawyers and judges. - Inflation, unemployment, war and nuclear war threats are not something that one can effectively insure against. - Not even most radical libertarians have sufficiently pondered causes and cures for wars and revolutions or the libertarian alternatives to them. - Why should we expect the insurance industry to make it its business? That is comparable to the statist fallacy that the solution to all problems lies in transferring it to specialists, like politicians and bureaucrats. On a large, i.e., a territorial scale, they do “compete”, too. How wrongful and inefficiently their "competition" is, that is rather obvious by now. - Are there private bureaucrats in the insurance industry, in its corporations, from which we could expect a much better service, in those spheres, which they have so far ignored? - By all means, throw open this field to a-territorial competition among voluntary associations, INCLUDING insurance companies. They should certainly not be EXCLUDED. But we should not expect miracles from them, either. - No more so than parliaments should expect miracles from appointing another committee or setting up another bureaucratic board. - Let ANYBODY set up alternative States, societies and communities anywhere, but always only with voluntary members, who remain free to secede and with these associations being all only a-territorially autonomous. THEN we would soon find out whether insurance companies are the most suitable bodies for the purposes that Hoppe has in mind. - As one of the initial steps I would expect more from a federation of the already existing private security services. - “Furthermore, owing to the comparatively lower economic productivity of statist territories, governments would be continually weakened by the emigration of their most value-productive residents.” - Well, at least he seems to favour free migration for these. But for the future of free society the free migration or desertion of conscripts and forced labourers in ammunition factories and in other state monopoly “enterprises” might be even more important. - When dictators send millions of the conscripts as conquerors into foreign countries then these countries, and their diverse voluntary societies, if economically quite liberated, could, largely, dissolve these armed forces by offering these millions immediate productive and peaceful jobs, in which they do not have to risk their lives at limbs, and this at an earned pay that is a multiple of what they receive as soldiers and officers or as private employees in their home countries. The arms, which they bring with them, should be paid for, too, at market prices. - They could thus and soon gain much more than they could win by plunder and possibly save their lives and limbs in the process. Not only rich and peaceful foreign investors and specialists should be welcomed. - Assume that 5 million deserters and refugees arrived suddenly in Australia, with only their uniforms and weapons in their possession. But they are able-bodied and willing to work, mostly harder than Australians are. (Judging by the examples set by millions of new citizens.) They would constitute a potential market for the housing, cars, clothing, furniture and all other possessions normal to most Australians and willing to work to acquire them, as fast as possible, given the chance for free, unexploited and well-paid work. - With what means of payment could and should their extra labour be immediately paid? With assignments upon the ready for sale goods and services in Australian existing businesses, granted in short term loans, for wage and salary payments, to their employers. - There is certainly no shortage of ready for sale goods and services. Often they are offered as interest-free credits for 6 months to 2 years. - These five millions would then soon make large and peaceful inroads upon the existing stocks and service capacity, as paying customers – and they would produce more goods and services between them, either while being employed by Australian employers or in productive associations of their own. - Their input would increase the division of labour and thus productivity and living standards – under full monetary and financial freedom that would fully utilize their additional productive potential – instead of putting the illegal criminals into concentration camps, expensively and wrongfully filled and maintained. - They would not object to doing shift work and double shifts. They would then get their chance to proceed from rags to riches rather fast, as many Australian immigrants have done, in the past. Even much faster under full economic freedom as an option for them, too. - If they were freed to repay debts on a stable value basis then the refugee capital of the world would be at their disposal. - Even more so, if they were freed from compulsory taxation and regulation. - Do insurance companies think in such terms? Would even those associated with some security services think in such terms? Are such terms sufficiently considered in military academies and in the defence literature? - “Who and what would one attack? There would be no state opponent. Only private property owners and their private insurance agencies would exist.” - That would pose no problem to another Napoleon I. His enemies were dispersed and altogether more numerous. But he was more mobile and managed to assemble locally almost always numerically superior forces. Thus he defeated them one by one. - On a very small scale the analogy is that of a house-owner trying to defend his house against invasion by the police force of a police State. What chance does he have in most cases? Compare the numerous mass media reports about such cases and their descriptions in movies. - I met one gun enthusiast, bill of rights advocate and science fiction writer some years ago. He imagined that he could successfully defend himself, his wife and his baby with two guns against a police force breaking down his doors! Most likely all three would have ended up dead and a few of the police officers also dead or wounded. If that is the result of such efforts, it is not much of a defence. - A rightful and effective defence against a well-organized aggressor requires much more forethought, organization and training. - The history of the spread of absolute monarchies is also instructive. They overpowered the resistance by local lords and somewhat free cities one by one. Not to speak of the resistance of some peasants in their cottages. Should these victims have waited until insurance companies were invented and sufficiently wedded to effective protective associations? - When insurrectionist German peasants were offered the military skills and alliance of a professional mercenary leader they declined, saying that we needed no help in plundering the rich people! It did not take long to defeat the unskilled and badly led and armed hordes of insurrectionist peasants. But in Switzerland and Holland armed citizens were somewhat successful, also in North America. Why and how? An interesting topic still insufficiently explored and developed, as far as I know. - In Asia unarmed combat skills were developed as a part-answer to the statist weapons monopoly. - At least since Gandhi there were also attempts to develop effective non-violent defence and liberation methods. - Here, too, the grains have not yet been sufficiently separated from the chaff. - I believe that a combination of some non-violent methods with some rightful armed methods might be most effective. – A large topic and project, still in the pioneering stage. - Among the non-violent methods are: individual secessionism, mass desertions, open-arms policies towards deserters and refugees, well-organized tax strikes and monetary and financial freedom techniques and exterritorialy autonomous communities of volunteers: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice. - Page 14 b: “… how could the state justify an attack? - There is already a long and successful practice of "manufacturing" “justifications” for attacks. The supposedly surprise and unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour is just the most famous of such cases. - Some even believe that the Sep.11 terror attack was “arranged” for by the government. Indeed, by hook and crook territorial State governments, intending to go to war, get all too many of the public on their side, with each side succeeding, for all too long and towards all too many, with their assertion that on their side the war is a just war. - The problem remains how to effectively motivate and organize sufficient and effective disobedience and resistance among all kinds of citizens against any criminal government. - That task, too, cannot be left to insurance companies on the old “principle” of “Let George do it!” Or by the new and revolutionary underground government organizing another “Committee for Safety” for this purpose. - I collected, combined and explained a few ideas on this subject in my two peace books. - But the problem to bloodily maintain strict military discipline has already been largely solved by governments, for a long time. The problem of how to dissolve or negate this discipline and neutralize enemy soldiers - or win them over as allies, has not yet been sufficiently solved or the possible and proposed solutions have not yet been widely enough discussed and spread. - Page 15 a: “… a neighboring free territory? In this case the aggressor would not encounter an unarmed population." - Many good weapons in individual hands do not yet make an effective military defence or liberation force. Military organization and training are required and for the purposes of protecting liberties this would require some radical changes, in which e.g. election and recall of officers and the duty to disobey wrongful orders would be merely significant parts among many other aspects that cannot be discussed in an article of merely 15 pages, which Hoppe used for his insurance-protection proposal. - Were Hitler and Stalin frightened that their actions might lead to vast indemnification claims against them? - The mass murders in e.g. Bosnia and in East Timor have led only to very few prosecutions and to my knowledge to no indemnification at the expense of the offenders. - So far most criminals are not deterred by the possibility of indemnification claims against them. - Clubs of paedophiles have been operating "successfully" for decades. One of them in the city of Wollongong, N.S.W., not far from where I live. - Private and political crimes are all too often still good business for the offenders. (By now, the official "protectors", government courts and police, often act severely against those, who dared to effectively defend their rights and liberties, especially if they used arms. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - Insurance companies, all too readily, put the burdens upon the insured rather than upon the aggressors. - Just like States put the burdens of crimes upon tax payers and let unmarried people and married people pay for illegitimate children rather than holding their natural fathers responsible. - The Hansa was one of the few cases in which mutual insurance by traders and mutual defence were sufficiently combined. - Alas, it, too, was dominated by monopolistic thinking and efforts. It strove for privileges rather than rights and liberties for all. - The Holy Hermandad was supposed to have played a similar role in Spain. But I only found some hints towards it in the writings of Ulrich von Beckerath. - The invention of cannons gave merchants finally their chance against the robber barons in their stone castles. - The history of free cities and their founding, sometimes, supposedly, by escaped slaves, is also worth exploring. - But some men were somewhat free long before insurance companies were invented and so far insurance companies have not been in the forefront of the libertarian movement. - Libertarians cannot pass the buck to them, either. - “… in free territories … insurers would be ready to expel, capture, or kill every invader while at the same time trying to avoid or minimize all collateral damage.” - Why did he not consider the possibility of inviting and welcoming deserters, or of arranging for mass fraternizations, or initiating military insurrections on the other side or revolutions against the enemy regime, or of negotiating separate peace with all of the diverse and desired governments in exile, all only formed by and intended for their volunteers and invite the soldiers of an aggressive dictator to join their self-chosen rightful governments against their dictator? - Already Caesar pursued similar policies successfully. - Even some wrongful, despotic and totalitarian governments provided at least puppet regime alternatives. - Libertarians should be much more imaginative than merely thinking about militarily defeating every enemy soldier in uniform, especially in an age of conscription, i.e., of involuntary soldiers used as cannon fodder. - I read only today that the new government soldiers of Iraq, supposed to act as allies of the US forces in the re-occupation of Falluja, deserted rather than fight. - Where could unwilling US soldiers safely desert to there? Or unwilling members of the Iraq fundamentalist “freedom fighters”? - However, at least at the end of page 15 a and in the beginning of 15 b did Hoppe take up the old idea and practice of tyrannicide. Even the Bush government has done so already. - Alas, he concludes that segment with: “… incite the liberation and transformation of the state territory into a free country.” - Geographically every country is already free, as free and natural as nature, with the changes by man’s actions, does make it. The term free can only apply to its population. And if its population is as diverse as the individual plants in a forest are, then the term freedom does also apply mainly only to the diverse individuals and groups in a country, never to “the population” as if it were a single plant in a single pot. - (To that extent Hoppe is still potty or hoppingly mad! - To play with some words. - J.Z., 1.9.11.) - Although he is one of the formost radical libertarians of our time, he is still all too much a territorialist and as such a statist and not a libertarian or at most a “limited government” advocate. - Page 15 b, continued, from his conclusion, headed: REGAINING OUR RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE. - I largely agree with his summary but would say that he merely tried to make a case for private profit-loss insurers as effective minimizers of aggression, whether by private criminals or States, and to promote a tendency towards civilization and perpetual peace. - He has not considered all the other alternatives already advanced and his favourite has so far shown all too many flaws and omissions. - He has not yet combined all the ideas, which would lead to the implosion of powerful governments and the evaporation of their powers. - However, like him, I do favour unregulated insurance companies, too, in their proper sphere. I would not load other difficult tasks upon them, for which they are not suitable or prepared. Division of labour is required in this sphere as well. - Unlike him, I also favour militias that are not regulated by the government, as e.g. the US National Guard is. - A voluntary and self-managed militia committed not only to the flawed in incomplete Bill of Rights Amendments to the US Constitution, and not at all to the much worse Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, but to all genuine individual rights and liberties so far discovered and published, would, in my opinion, come to play a much larger role in liberating man and maintaining his liberty than profit-seeking private insurance companies. However, I would welcome further discussion of such topics – among others. - … His bibliography looks interesting but is far from listing all relevant titles, just like all libertarian bibliographies so far. - PIOT, John Zube, - (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice. – Not only free choice among insurance and protection enterprises!) - I made a few editiorial changes in this text today. - J.Z., 1.9.11.

HOURANI, A., Minorities in the Arab World, London, 1960. - Merely descriptive or somewhat prescriptive from a libertarian point of view? - J.Z.




HOWARD, BOB & SINGLETON, JOHN, Rip Van Australia, 1977, Cassell, Australia, 397pp. It has 4 pages on secession, alas only territorial secession: 228-231. Page 40 it speaks at least up for communes, not e.g. for “proprietary communities” as recommended by Spencer Heath MacCallum: “However, this is supposed to be a free country, so if some people want to live in communes, why shouldn’t they? After all, communes aren’t as crazy as the Flat Earth Society, or the Associated Chamber of Manufacturers, or the Australian Mining Industry Council, and we tolerate them! - This book is one of the many A-Z books on libertarianism that ought to become combined towards a libertarian encyclopedia. Widespread in Australia it is still virtually unknown in other countries. – J.Z., 10.1.05.

HOWLETT, KENNETH, A Proposal for a Constitution Based on Competing Governments: I intend this to be a constitution for a world government. However, this constitution would also work well for a multinational organization like the European Union, or for a large nation like America. This proposed constitution would probably not work well for a small nation. - - The government is divided into a central government and competing governments. The competing governments are subordinate to the central government. The power of the central government is very limited. The competing governments have more power than the central government. - - The competing governments may be called states, provinces, departments, prefectures, arrondissements, counties, cities, lands, nations, or anything else. Some people are opposed to the concept of a world government. The resistance to a world government might be reduced if the competing governments are referred to as nations. - - Competing governments may have any form. Some competing governments are regional governments. Other competing governments may consist of an industrial park, or a road. Competing governments may have no citizens. Competing governments may have no territory. (Bold print by me! - J.Z.) Competing governments may have any form of government, including republicanism, dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy, and anarchy. Competing governments may be controlled by the central government. - - The boundaries between competing governments are not fixed. The boundaries between competing governments change frequently. - - There are three kinds of competing governments: non-participating competing governments, non-voting participating competing governments, and voting participating competing governments. - - Non-participating competing governments are places, which do not accept the central government, do not pay taxes to the central government, and do not obey laws made by the central government. The central government imposes economic sanctions on the non-participating competing governments, but otherwise the central government ignores the nonparticipating competing governments. - - Participating competing governments are competing governments, which do accept the central government. Voting participating competing governments vote in central government elections. Non-voting participating competing governments do not vote in central government elections. - - The central government is divided into three parts: the president, the political parties, and the competing governments. To pass a law or enact a policy, the central government must have the approval of a majority of the political parties and a majority of the competing governments. - - The president does not vote on laws or budgets, and does not appoint any government officials. The president has very little power. The only power the president has is the power of setting a good example, the power of persuasion, and a small budget. A good president will look for problems, publicize the problems, and convince other people to solve the problems. - - Central government elections occur once per year. Every citizen of the voting participating competing governments may vote. - - The president is elected in two steps. First, thirty days before the election, the political parties vote for president. The two people who receive the most votes become candidates for president. Then the citizens choose between the two candidates. - - Every person votes for one political party. The results for the five most recent elections are averaged. A party, which receives five percent of the votes of the people, has five percent of the votes. This is like a legislature elected through proportional representation, where a party, which receives five percent of the votes of the people receives five percent of the seats in the legislature, and thus five percent of the votes in the legislature. But this system is more efficient because there is no legislature and no seats; the votes in the government are allocated directly to the political parties. No political party may have more than ten percent of the votes. - - The competing governments are like another legislature, like the original American constitution where the senators were chosen by the state governments, except there is no legislature and no seats. The votes are allocated directly to the competing governments in proportion to population. No competing government may have more than five percent of the vote. - - History shows that in governments where power is divided between the central and regional governments, the central government uses its power to transfer power from the regional governments to the central government. The power of the central government tends to increase and the power of the regional governments tends to decrease. This constitution gives the competing governments power to resist power grabs by the central government. This is an important part of the checks and balances. - - The competing governments make their own election rules, and may be elected in any manner. The competing governments do not have to be elected. The central government does not make any laws about competing government elections. - - The central government can meet and debate laws, but does not have to. Anyone can propose a law by registering the proposed law with the government. Any political party or competing government can vote on any proposed law at any time by registering the vote with the government. The law passes when enough votes are registered. Any political party or competing government, which does not vote on a proposed law is assumed to be opposed. All proposed laws, which have not passed and the votes for those laws expire at the next election. - - If you want the central government to enact some law, first you register the proposed law, then you attempt to convince the political parties and competing governments to register votes in favor of the law. Meanwhile your opponents will try to convince the political parties and competing governments to not register votes in favor of the law. If you can convince more than half of the political parties and more than half of the competing governments to register votes in favor of your law, the law is enacted. - - The central government votes a budget once a year, soon after each election. Each political party and each competing government vote the maximum size they think the budget should be. Political parties and competing governments are assumed to approve of a smaller budget, but not a larger budget. Political parties and competing governments, which do not register a vote are assumed to be voting for a budget of zero. If the budget is less than one tenth of the money in the treasury, fifty percent of the political parties and fifty percent of the competing governments must vote for the budget. If the budget is between one tenth and one half the money in the treasury, two thirds must vote for the budget. If the budget is between one half and all the money in the treasury, three fourths must vote for the budget. If the budget exceeds the money in the treasury, eighty percent must vote for the budget. The budget, which is approved, is the largest number, which passes. - - For example, suppose twenty percent vote for 5, fifteen percent vote for 4, ten percent vote for 3, ten percent vote for 2, ten percent vote for 1, and thirty-five percent vote for 0. The budget is 2, the largest number approved by fifty percent. - - Three fourths of the budget is given to the voting and nonvoting participating competing governments. The money is allocated to the different competing governments, based on the population of the competing governments, with more for competing governments with more children and elderly, and more for poorer competing governments. The competing governments may do whatever they wish with this money. The central government may not withhold the money for any reason. - - History shows that in governments where power is divided between the central and regional governments, the central government has a larger tax base. This allows the central government to tax regional governments, then threaten to withhold services from insubordinate regional governments. Regional governments have an incentive to shift government programs to the central government because this shifts the costs onto other regional governments. This results in excessive centralization. This constitution requires the central government to make unconditional payments to the competing governments in order to limit the power of the central government. This is an important part of the checks and balances. - - One percent of the budget is given to the president. The president may spend the money as the president wishes. - - The rest of the money is divided among the political parties in proportion to votes. A party with five percent of the vote will receive five percent of the money. The political parties may spend the money however they wish. - - Every person and organization has the right to pay any tax to any public service organization instead of to the central government. Taxes may also be paid to a competing government, political party, or to the president. - - Most presidents will attempt to convince taxpayers to allocate more tax money to the president's favorite projects (and to allocate less tax money to all other projects). Most taxpayers will ignore the president's pleas. This is an important part of the checks and balances. - - According to these rules, there will probably be no central government budget. I think this is good. This is a limitation on the power of the central government, an important part of the checks and balances. For example, if one taxpayer thinks that not enough money is being spent on road maintenance, that taxpayer will probably pay all taxes to public service organizations, which perform road maintenance. If another taxpayer thinks that not enough money is being spent on veterans' benefits, that taxpayer will probably pay all taxes to public service organizations, which provide veterans' benefits. So the central government will set the tax rates, but individual taxpayers will decide what to spend the money on. - - In elections, all people are equal. But taxpayers have more control over the central government budget than non-taxpayers. The more taxes you pay, the more control you have over the central government budget. - - The central government may create government departments and delegate powers to those departments. The central government dissolves previously created departments and reclaim powers delegated to the departments. Most departments should be small and should have a specific job to do. Most departments should be run by committees. An act of government, which creates a department, should include the names of the people who control the department. These people control the department indefinitely and may appoint their successors. The people who control a department can be replaced by the central government at any time for any reason. - - Since the central government probably has no budget, the budget of each department is whatever individual taxpayers allocate to that department. If taxpayers allocate no money to a department, that department has no budget, and all the employees of that department must work without pay, and must pay all expenses themselves. - - Most central government departments do not provide services. Most government services are provided by public service organizations, by competing governments, or by political parties. Most central government departments are courts. The primary function of the central government is to judge disputes between competing governments. - - Sometimes the laws passed by the central government will be vague. Central government departments, which are charged with enforcing vague laws, will have to interpret the vague laws. Therefore central government departments should have the power to make regulations, which clarify vague laws. If the central government does not approve of the actions of a central government department, the central government can replace the people who control the department or dissolve the department. In practice, this means that laws passed by the central government are only guidelines. Central government departments can make their own laws and do whatever they want until the taxpayers stop funding the department and the central government dissolves the department for abuse of power. - - The central government is supposed to be gridlocked most of the time. This is an important part of the checks and balances. The central government departments should be independent enough to function normally even when the central government is gridlocked. - - The central government has the power punish people, but the central government should not exercise this power directly. Instead the central government should delegate the power to punish to central government departments. The central government should delegate the power to prosecute criminals to one department, and the power to sentence criminals to a different department. - - The central government must get the approval of the competing government before searching anyone or anything, or arresting anyone, or confiscating any property, or imposing any punishment on anyone or anything. If the suspect is physically present in the jurisdiction of one competing government, but the suspect is a citizen of a different competing government, the central government must get permission from both competing governments. - - Every competing government may nullify any law, regulation, tax, court order, etc. from the central government. However, competing governments should remember that excessive defiance of the central government will lead to a declaration of non-participation, economic sanctions, and poverty. This is an important part of the checks and balances. The central government's power to declare nonparticipation balances competing governments' power to nullify. - - The central government imposes economic sanctions on all nonparticipating competing governments. All imports and exports of goods and services are taxed at two thirds of the value. This includes tourism, gifts, remittances, and aid. There is a tax on all persons and vehicles, which cross the border. Investments from participating competing governments into non-participating competing governments are taxed at three percent per year. Investments from non-participating competing governments into participating competing governments are not taxed. These sanctions will make both sides poorer, but the side with the less diverse economy will become much poorer, while the side with the more diverse economy will become only a little poorer. The central government economy is much more diverse than the economies of the non-participating competing governments, so these economic sanctions make the non-participating competing governments much poorer without having a large effect on the central government economy. - - The economic sanctions give non-participating competing governments a very large incentive to become participating competing governments. If a nonparticipating competing government refuses to become a participating competing government despite the economic sanctions, then the non-participating competing government must be strongly determined to avoid becoming a participating competing government. If the central government attempted to militarily force the nonparticipating competing government to become a participating competing government, then the non-participating competing government would probably resist fanatically, and the central government would have to give up, kill all the people in the non-participating competing government, or put all the people from the non-participating competing government into concentration camps. Therefore, if economic sanctions fail to convince nonparticipating competing governments to become participating competing governments, the non-participating competing governments should be left alone. - - The non-participating competing governments will be too poor to support a large army, so the non-participating competing governments will not be a threat to the central government, so the central government does not need an army. - - If the people in a non-participating competing government are divided, and some of the people want to join the central government and some do not want to joint the central government, then the central government should encourage the people who want to join the central government to secede from the non-participating competing government and become a new non-participating competing government. Then the new non-participating competing government can join the central government and become a participating competing government. The central government should neither support nor oppose secessions from nonparticipating competing governments if the secessionists do not want to join the central government. - - All the land of the central government is divided into parcels, and each parcel is controlled by a person or organization. The central government keeps records of all the parcels of land. These records include the size, location, and value of each parcel, and who controls each parcel. - - The controller of each parcel has the power to decide which competing government has jurisdiction over that parcel and all the people who live on that parcel. The controller has the right to secede from the competing government and join a different competing government, or create a new competing government. The controller has the right to split the parcel into multiple parcels, and the right to merge adjoining parcels. The controller has the right to sell or give control to any person or organization. - - All control of land is for sale at all times. The controller must declare the price to the central government. If a controller does not want to sell control, the controller should declare a high price. The central government should tax the control of land to discourage controllers from declaring excessively high prices. - - No parcel of land, which is larger than one hundred acres may have a price larger than ten million dollars. - - Most competing governments will consider secession to be undesirable. Therefore, most competing governments will seek to control as much land as possible. The rule that all control is for sale and the rule against large, valuable parcels make secession easier. - - Secession is very important for preventing human rights abuses by competing governments. (Bold print by me. - J.Z.) The only other way to prevent human rights abuses by competing governments would be for the central government to control the competing governments. But then the central government would be too powerful, and there would be nothing to prevent human rights abuses by the central government. - - It requires a three-fourths vote of the political parties and of the competing governments to declare a voting participating competing government is a non-voting participating competing government or a non-participating competing government. - - It requires a fifty one percent vote of the political parties and of the competing governments to declare a nonvoting participating competing government is a voting participating competing government or a non-participating competing government. - - A newly created competing government is a voting participating competing government. For one year after a new competing government is created, the new voting participating competing government may be declared a non-voting or non-participating competing government with a vote of fifty one percent. After the first year, three fourths is required to change the status of the new voting participating competing government, same as other voting participating competing governments. - - A participating competing government may secede from the central government and become a non-participating competing government. Secession from the central government requires a vote of the people, and the vote is judged by the central government. This is an exception to the rule that central government does not get involved in competing elections. If the vote to secede is successful, the central government will propose a secession from the seceding competing government. The central government will propose dividing the seceding competing government into two parts, one part to secede and become a non-participating competing government, and one part to remain a participating competing government. The central government will choose a boundary. The central government may choose to place the boundary anywhere. The second vote must occur two months after the first vote. The second vote must pass by more than the first vote. - - A competing government may disown any territory. Any disowned territory becomes a new participating nonvoting competing government. - - Competing governments may have any form of government, any kind of legal system, any kind of economic system, and any kind of culture. Some competing governments are very different from other competing governments. People may choose which competing government to be a citizen of. If people dislike all existing competing governments, people may start new competing governments. - - The right to choose what competing government and what kind of competing government to be a citizen of is the most important and the most fundamental human right. The right to choose what competing government and what kind of competing government to be a citizen of is the only human right. If you think that freedom of expression is an important human right, then you can choose to be a citizen of a competing government, which guarantees freedom of expression. If you think that property rights are an important human right, then you can choose a competing government which guarantees property right. The right to choose which competing government to be a citizen of is the only human right because all other rights are guaranteed by the right to choose which competing government to be a citizen of. - - But it is not enough to have the right to choose which competing government to be a citizen of. There must also be a variety of different competing governments to choose from. If all competing governments are the same, then there is no choice at all. There must also be the right to create a new competing government if you dislike all existing competing governments. - - In traditional governments, the central government attempts to achieve uniformity. The central government attempts to force all parts of the competing government to be exactly the same as all other parts of the competing government. All parts of the competing government have the same laws, the same taxes, the same social programs, the same system of local government. Citizens may choose which part of the competing government to live in, but there is not a real choice because every part of the competing government is the same as every other part. This is wrong. This is a violation of human rights. This is a crime against humanity. This is what the central government must NOT do. - - The various competing governments should be different so that people will have a choice of different competing governments. The central government should not attempt to encourage diversity because a central government program to encourage diversity will probably fail and result in less diversity. The central government should do nothing to reduce diversity. The central government should not regulate competing governments because any regulation of competing governments will reduce diversity. The central government should not make rules or standards for competing governmental elections, or police or court procedures, or human rights. If a person wants to file a lawsuit against a competing government, the person must file the lawsuit in the courts of the competing government. The central government courts will not accept such lawsuits. The exception to this rule is that competing governments must allow citizens to leave or secede. If a person thinks that a competing government has violated the person's right to leave or secede, then the person may file a lawsuit against the competing government in the courts of the central government. - - For example, the government of America requires state governments to hold regular elections according to rules made by the central government. The central government requires state government to accept charters and licenses issued by other state governments. The central government requires state governments to follow rules made by the central government when searching, arresting, or punishing suspects or criminals. The central government forbids state governments from restricting citizens from trading with citizens of other states. The central government does none of these things. - - As long as competing governments allow people to leave or secede at will, the competing governments may treat their citizens any way the competing governments want. The competing governments may restrict the freedoms of the people, restrict immigration, punish people for no reason with no trial, seize property for no reason with no compensation, prohibit political opposition, allow slavery, or anything. If people choose to not leave and not secede, then people have approved of whatever the competing government is doing. - - National government cannot violate human rights because if a competing government violates human rights, the people will leave and secede. The competing government will become smaller and will eventually disappear. The competing governments, which violate human rights, will disappear, and only the competing governments, which do not violate human rights, will remain. - - Competing governments compete for citizens, and also for territory [? – J.Z.] and for investment. Successful competing governments expand, unsuccessful competing governments contract, failed competing governments disappear, new competing governments appear. There is a capitalist free market in government. - - Competition makes the competing governments more efficient. The central government has no competition. The central government is less efficient than the competing governments. The central government should have as little power as possible. Government programs should be run by the competing governments, not by the central government, if at all possible. - - The best government policies are discovered through competition between the competing governments. - He has still some central territorial governmentalism in mind, however limited or minimized. Why only one such constitution? Possibly for a world government or word federation? Why not as many as different people are willing to subscribe to? Moreover, does one really have to subscribe to any federation - or to any government or any society? Can one not be an individual subscriber or customer to ANY service or goods supplier, in a really free market? - I think that he has not yet explored the exterritorial options for competing governments, societies and communities or not sufficiently. - J.Z., 30.9.11. – To me he seems to neglect the fundamentals of truly competing governments of volunteers only, all exterritorially autonomous, under personal law, in favor or the particular details of his supposedly ideal federal constitution. – If he can find volunteers for it and does not make any territorial claimes, he should be free to set up his kind of federation and competing governments together with them. - J.Z., 17.5.12.

HOWLETT, KENNETH, Kenneth Howlett's writings about government, competitive federalism, decentralization, freedom. There should be multiple competing governments, and people should be able to choose which government to live under. - revolution, how to overthrow the government - Alas, he has still a minimal or limited government in mind, country- or world-wide, over all the decentralized competing governments, as a supposedly necessary federation. I emailed him, asking him to explain his remaining territorialism. - He points to and supplies some other links of some interest to panarchists. - J.Z., 30.98.11. - "panarchie, by Paul Emile de Puydt, Revue Trimestrielle, Brussels, July 1860 is the earliest appearance of the idea of competitive federalism that I know about. Here is an english translation. Paul Emile De Puydt's ideas seem incomplete because he does not say who controls the Bureau for Political Membership, or who judges disputes between people who are subject to different governments. Paul Emile De Puydt says what should happen when people disagree about the form of government, like monarchy versus a republic; but does not say what happens when people disagree about government policy, like war versus peace. Paul Emile De Puydt's basic ideas are that people should be allowed to choose their government, and that people should be allowed to choose a government, which is different than the government chosen by their neighbors; this is competitive federalism. More people with similar ideas can be found at". - - - - His (in my opinion) flawed analogy: Imagine a restaurant. The customers debate and vote on what ingredients the food should include and how the food should be cooked. How much beef? How much chicken? How much corn? How much lettuce? How much basil? How much paprika? Boiled, fried, or baked? At what temperature? For how long? Then the ingredients chosen by the customers are mixed together and cooked in the manner chosen by the customers. The result is served to all the customers. - Would you eat at such a restaurant? I would not. I predict that food at such a restaurant would be awful. - But that is how government policies are chosen in most nations. If that is such a good way to chose government policies, why don't we choose restaurant food that way? If that is a bad way to chose restaurant food, why do we chose government policies that way? If this method results in awful restaurant food, why are we surprised that this method results in awful government policies? - In real restaurants, we have a choice of meals. Instead of choosing the ingredients and cooking methods, we choose what the cooked meal should be like. We let the restaurant staff decide how to achieve that cooked meal. And the restaurant customers do not have to order the same meal. Each customer is free to order a different meal. Competitive federalism is a system of government based on these principles. - In competitive federalism, there are many competing governments. You chose one of the competing governments based on overall quality of life, and let the government staff worry about details like whether the economy is based on capitalism or communism. You chose a competing government based on actual results, which the competing government has achieved in the past, instead of choosing a politician based on promises the politician will not keep. And every person can choose a different competing government. You are not required to accept the government which you do not want, but which was chosen by other people. - Didn't he realize that a panarchy, polyarchy, multigovernment or free society choice was always a package-deal, program subscription or restaurant and menu choice, not a dictate of an individual to others to supply him with a detailed individual order? Naturally, individually ordered goods and services can also be competitively supplied and often are, on a free market. But panarchies, competing governments etc. always meant something different than this kind of detailed choice, which can be very laborious and time-consuming, also very costly. - J.Z., 30.9.11. - - On communities and voluntarism he stated: In the Vermont Burlington Free Press; May 3, 2005; page 8A; there is an editorial titled Ownership works with cooperation by Ronald Brownstein; reprinted from the Los Angeles Times; agreeing with a recent essay in the online journal by Mark Winston Griffith. - The editorial criticizes President George W. Bush's ownership society proposals because "when a man's home is his castle, sometimes the first thing he builds is a moat" and "vouchers that allow parents to send their children to private school invite them to flee a shared investment in public schools". The editorial says that allowing people to own their own little piece of society destroys communities and promotes social isolation, while forcing people to participate in community institutions strengthens community. - Now suppose that I beat you up, threaten you, and force you to give me a large sum of money. I use the money to build a statue of myself. Since you paid for the statue, you have an incentive to take care of the statue and you would help prevent other people from vandalizing the statue, right? I say no. I think you be angry at me, and would be happy to see someone else vandalize the statue, and would probably vandalize the statue yourself. - When people are forced to participate in community institutions against their will, they will become angry and resentful. They will think that the community institutions are a symbol and form of oppression. They will hate their neighbors for collaborating with their oppressors. Forcing people to participate in community institutions weakens communities. - If we forbid school choice, then we are forcing people to attend schools, which they do not want to attend. The school is the equivalent of a prison. People will feel powerless to control their own lives, and will make no effort to study because they feel nothing they do makes any difference, and will probably attack and vandalize the school because they are angry at how the school has enslaved them. - Community institutions need to be voluntary. - So called liberals like Ronald Brownstein and Mark Winston Griffith complain about the loss of community, but the loss of community is their fault, because they are in favor of forcing people to participate in community institutions. Their proposed solutions to the loss of community will result in more loss of community.

HUDSON, ALAN, Beyond the Borders: Globalisation, Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality. 25pages, online. Alan Hudson, Department of Geography University of Cambridge, CB2 3EN, United Kingdom, Tel: 44 (0)1223 333364, Fax: 44 (0) 1223 333392, E-mail: - Published in GEOPOLITICS (1998), Vol.3, No.1, pp.89-105. - Until recently however, scholars, particularly but not exclusively in International Relations, have tended to take ‘sovereignty’ - the bounded territorialisation of power and social relations - as an adequate description of the spatial organisation (spatiality) of regulatory authority, falling into the ‘territorial trap’. 3 (3 J. Agnew, ‘The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory’, Review of International Political Economy, 1/1 (1994) pp.53-80.). … Discourses and practices of sovereignty mark out territories in space and confer the power to regulate what takes place within them. But, as history shows, other spatialities of power and social relations are possible.5 As social processes change, the spatial organisation of power and social relations may be expected to change too. It is important not to accept sovereign state territoriality as an unchanging principle of the international political economy. As Ruggie complains: ‘it is truly astonishing that the concept of territoriality has been so little studied by students of international politics; its neglect is akin to never looking at the ground that one is walking on’.6 ... Secondly, it takes a leap of faith to view states as unified actors with clear bundles of preference and values." - Alan Hudson, Beyond the borders [August 2002] - - An interesting essay about globalization, sovereignty and extra-territoriality. - GPdB reference. - [document not any longer available] - Not even available on the Web Archive? -J.Z., 18.9.11. – TERRITORIALISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, POLITICAL SCIENCE

HUEBERT, J. H., Free-Market Justice Is in the Cards. -

HUGUENOTS: See: MANOURY, KARL: Reverend, lecture on 15/4/1955 (notes in JZL) on the Huguenots in the Mark Brandenburg (Prussia). Among many other interesting details was the following: "The tradesmen were exempted from the guild restrictions and allowed freedom to work. This brought them immense advantages." - "With the farmers treaties were concluded, exempting them from serfdom and statute labour." - See also the book by Hugo Erbe. - File: Pan Hugenotten in Brandenburg - 15.4.1955 - - Die Hugenotten und die Mark Brandenburg. - Vortrag von Herrn Pfarrer Karl Manoury, veranstaltet von der Landesgeschichtlichen Vereinigung für die Mark Brandenburg im Vortragssaal der Amerika-Gedenkbibliothek. - (Text stichwortweise nach stenographischen Aufzeichnungen von Otto Glodde.) (J.Z.: Herr Otto Glodde, einer meiner Vorgesetzten im oeffentlichen Dienst Berlins, sehr interessiert an Lokalgeschichte und Stenographiesystemen, verschaffte mir einen Durchschlag seiner Aufzeichnungen.) - - J.Z.: Die Einwanderungspolitik fuer Hugenotten erscheint hier nicht im rosigen Licht sondern eher objektiv. Die Auswanderungsfreiheit und die Einwanderungsfreiheit fuer Hugenotten war beschraenkt und sie wurde aus Autarkiemotiven befoerdert, nicht aus Anerkennung von Menschenrechten, insbesondere wirtschaftlichen Menschenrechten. Aber die Einzelheiten dieses Berichtes waren fuer mich sehr interessant. Mein Grossvater, muetterlicherseite, stammte auch von Hugenotten ab. Sein Name und der Geburtsname meiner Mutter war noch Canon. Ich suchte damals und suche immer noch nach historischen Beispielen, wie immer beschraenkt, fuer panarchistische Freiheiten. - Ich legte diese Aufzeichnungen Ulrich von Beckerath vor und er bemerkete dazu: “Sehr interessant!! Sollte publiziert werden.” - Bth., 16.7.55. - Irgendwo in meiner Mikrofiche Serie habe ich diesen Bericht auch verfilmt, aber ich kann ihn jetzt nicht in meinem Inhaltsverzeichnis fuer meine PEACE PLANS Serie finden. - - (Die Autonomie der Hugenotten in Frankreich war, wahrscheinlich nur territorial und fuehrte deshalb zu Buergerkriegen und, schliesslich, zur Flucht der Ueberlebenden. - - Das beste Buch zu diesem Thema, das ich gesehen habe, war von Helmut Erbe. Titel, nach dem Gedaechtnis, aehnlich: Die Hugenotten in der Mark Brandenburg. Danach erhielten die Hugenotten dort Steuerfreiheit fuer 20 Jahre und kommunale Selbstverwaltung in einem absolutistischen Koenigreich, mit ihren eigenen Schulen und Kirchen. - Ich besitze und fand interessant: A. J. Grant, The Huguenots, London, Thornton Butterworth Ltd., 1934, with bibliography and index, 256 pages. - J.Z., 8.12.04.) - - Die Geschichte der Hugenotten war zuerst selbstverständlich Kirchengeschichte, aber nur für die Zeit, da es sich um die Kaempfe in Frankreich handelte. Dieser Geschichtsteil war der interessanteste. - - In Brandenburg war ihre Geschichte Wirtschaftsgeschichte im Zeitalter des Frühkapitalismus (besser wohl: Merkantilismus. – J.Z.), in Berlin etwa von 1700 bis 1800 andauernd. - - Dann ist ein wesentlicher Teil der Hugenottengeschichte auch ein Teil der brandenburgischen Bauerngeschichte. Ueber dieses Gebist ist leider nur sehr wenig gearbeitet worden, obgleich beachtliche Ergebnisse zu erwarten sind. - - Dann gehören die Hugenotten auch zur Militärgeschichte Preussens. Auch auf diesem Gebiete sind nur wenige Erkenntnisse gesammelt worden, und dann muss man die Geschichte auch unter dem Gesichtspunkte betrach­ten, wie die Franzosen hier unter den Deutschen lebten, wie sie sich einfügten. Dieser Gesichtspunkt ist vielleicht der aktuellste. - - Zunächst einige Geschichtszahlen. Reformation 1517. Luthers Lehre kommt 1533 zuerst nach Frankreich. Calvin gab dieser Lehre eine besondere Prägung, 1536 von Genf aus. Im Jahre 1549 sind die Anhänger so zahl­reich, dass man sich zu einer Kirche zusammenschliessen kann. Ab 1562 herrschen die Hugenottenkriege, die man dem Dreissigjaehrigen Krieg In Deutschland gleichsetzen muss. In dieser Zeit entstand auf katholischer Seite der grosse Hofadel, auf hugenottischer Seite der Landadel, der sich aus den minderbemittelten Kreisen zusammensetzte. Dieser Landadel stellte vor allen Dingen das Offizierkorps. Durch die Auswanderung der Hugenotten verlor daher Frankreich sehr vielen Landadel und damit gute Offizierskräfte. Vorher war es aber zunächst zum Edikt von Nantes ge­kommen, in welchem ewige Glaubensfreiheit zugesprochen worden war. Aber nach einer Zeit verhältnismässiger Ruhe kam dann eine neue Verfolgungswelle. Zuerst ging es um Grund und Boden und um die Gebäude. Kirchen, die nicht im Grundbuch standen, mussten abgebrochen werden. Dann ging man gegen die Berufe vor. Es waren im Grunde dieselben Massnahmen, die man in unserer Zelt mit Nürnberger Gesetze bezeichnete. Diese damaligen Massnahmen unterschieden sich von denen des Jahres 1935 nur insofern, als sie nicht so hart angewandt wurden wie In Deutschland. - - Selbst in der Zahl der Auswandernden herrschte noch ein Gesetz, die Zahl (J.Z.: Anzahl) der hugenottischen Schuhmachermeister durfte nur in einem gewissen Prozentsatz zur Gesamtzahl der Hugenotten stellen. Nun waren unter den Hugenotten gerade sehr viele Meister. Um auswandern zu können, mussten sie als Gesellen gehen. Als dann aber die grosse Auswanderung kam, gingen zwar dem Buchstaben nach die Gesellen weg, im Wirklichkeit aber waren es die besten Meister. So kam es, dass ganze Fabriken auswanderten, man verlegte, ohne dass Frankreich es ahnte, auf diese Weise ganze Betriebe nach England und Deutschland. Darüber hinaus nahmen diese Leute die wichtigsten Fabrikationsgeheimnisse mit. Bei den Hutmachern war das Mitnehmen dieser Geheimnisse so komplett, dass die französischen Kardinaele ihre Huete von da ab aus England beziehen mussten. Durch die Auswanderung wurde auch der Kaufmannsstand hart bedrängt. Zur grossen Auswanderung kam es, als 1685 das Edikt von Nantes nun auch in aller Form aufgehoben wurde. Wieviel Personen auswanderten, laesst sich schwer feststellen. Im übrigen begann die Auswanderung im kleinen Umfange schon früh, denn die nach England gegangenen Hugenotten feierten kürzlich das 400. Jubiläum, zum mindesten den 400. Jahrestag einer Privilegerteilung. Und wie viele Menschen nun wirklich in der Zeit von 1552 bis etwa 1700 davon gingen, darüber Auf zeichnungen zu machen hatte man zunächst unterlassen, well niemand die später entstandene Lawine voraussehen konnte. Ausser nach England wanderte man auch nach der Schweiz und nach Deutschland aus. Und die einen retteten ihr Hab und Gut, den anderen Auswanderern ging es verloren. Auf jeden Fall aber ist damals viel Vermögen aus Frankreich weggegangen, die Menschen folgten dem Vermögen nach. - - Bei uns in Preussen hat die grosse Einwanderung mit dem Jahre 1686 begonnen, sie lässt sich bis in das Jahr 1725 hinein verfolgen. Man spricht davon, dass 200.000 Hugenotten hierher kamen, doch duerfte dies eine Mindestzahl sein. Davon gingen nach der Provinz Brandenburg rund 20.000 Personen. Über die Einwanderer unseres Provinzialgebiets liegen im Französischen Dom zu Berlin genaue Listen vor, ausser für Offiziere und Soldaten. Da die Listen schon über 10.000 Personen ausweisen und dazu ein erheblicher Tross von Soldaten und Offizieren kommt, darf die oben angegebene Zahl 20.000 der Wirklichkeit nahe kommen. - - In Brandenburg und Berlin war die Geschichte der Hugenotten Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Berlin hatte damals 18.000 Einwohner, Paris da­gegen schon allein 22.000 Häuser. Was war zu jener Zeit in Paris schon alles gebaut worden, wenn man nur an die Schlösser denkt, und wie wenig ist bei uns vor 1700 gebaut worden. - - In Frankreich hatte man sich um die Autarkie bemüht, alles Geld sollte im Lande bleiben. Auf diese Weise waren in Frankreich fast alle denkbaren Industriezweige entwickelt worden. Und für alle diese Gebiete gab es ausgebildete Leute. Als nun die Auswanderung kam, bemühten sich die umliegenden Länder um die Aufnahme dieser Betriebe und Arbeiter. Auch der Kurfürst von Brandenburg war damals bestrebt, die Autarkie einzuführen, also das Geld im Lande zu lassen. Da kam ihm die Auswanderung wie gerufen, denn aus all seinen Briefen und Anforderungen von Kräften kam es ihm immer wieder darauf an, solche Leute zu haben, mit denen er die wirtschaftliche Autarkie für Brandenburg durchführen konnte. Man kann dabei sogar verschiedene Gruppen unterscheiden. - - Da war das Militärtuch, das man bisher im Auslande bezogen hatte und nunmehr von den Einwanderern hergestellt werden konnte, ferner kamen dazu die Militärstiefel, deren Einkauf im Auslande sich nun auch erübrigen konnte. Sehr wichtig war auch die Beschaffung von Strümpfen, nicht der kurzen Socken, sondern der langen Strümpfe bis zum Knie. Unsere Frauen konnten zwar schon Strümpfe aus Wolle stricken, aber bei diesem Männerbedarf wollten die Herren feineres Material haben, es sollte glatt anliegen, es sollte nach Möglichkeit aus Seide sein und auch zur Festkleidung passen. Bei der Wichtigkeit dieses Artikels darf es nicht verwundern, dass der Kurfürst sogar eine Prämie von 100 Talern aussetzte für denjenigen, der ihm in Berlin derartige Strümpfe auf der Maschine herstellen würde. Ein Richter erhielt jährlich 300 Taler Gehalt, also war die Prämie schon ein Viermonatsgehalt eines hohen Beamten. Und tatsächlich hat sich schon Im Jahre 1687 jemand diese Prämie geholt. Es war ein ausgewanderter Hugenotte, der unmöglich seine Maschine mitnehmen konnte. Er rekonstruierte sie aus dem Gedächtnis. Bald waren 120 Strumpfmacher einmarschiert. Man bediente sich dabei des Anforderungssystems über die sogenannten Flüchtlingsaufnahmestellen, die es u.a. in Frankfurt am Main und in Amsterdam gab. Im allgemeinen waren es kleine Zahlen, die man anforderte, man wollte von jedem Berufe einige Vertreter haben. So hören wir von 4 Aerzten und 8 Apothekern, die der Kurfürst anforderte, auch von Musikern. Die grosse verwertende Industrie war dagegen mit grösseren Zahlen beteiligt, so die oben erwähnten Strumpfmacher. Auch die Stoffindustrie benötigte groessere Zahlen, So brauchte man über 100 Tuchmaoher, dazu Wollkämmer und Sergemacher. Zu dieser Kategorie gehörten ferner die Färber, man forderte etwa 20 Personen an. Verhältnismassig gross war auch die Zahl der Schneider mit 93. - - Dann gehörten zum Militär noch andere Posten.  Die Offiziere hatten schoene Stickereien in Gold und Silber an den Knopflöchern, auch gold- und silberbestickte Achselklappen. Alle diese Dinge kamen bisher auch aus dem Ausland. Nun konnte man sie hier herstellen. Dazu kam der zu erwartende Mehrverbrauch durch die Heeresvergrösserung aus Anlass des spanischen Erbfolgekrieges. Im Jahre 1708 gab es für Berlin bereits 900 Gold- und Silberwirker. Diese Zahl setzte sich allerdings nicht rein aus Hugenotten zusammen, aber die meisten leitenden Arbeiter stammten aus Frankreich, die anderen wurden angelernt. - - Zum Heere gehörte auch das Herstellen von Gewehren. Daher schuf man eine Gewehrfabrik zu Potsdam. Die Zahl der angeforderten Waffenmeister weisen die Listen mit 20 aus. Diese Meister unterwiesen Einheimische in der Kunst der Waffenherstellung. - - Auch die Herstellung des Eisens war von Bedeutung, man ging zuerst in Heegermühle dazu über, dann in den Eisenhammerwerken zu Peitz und Kottbus. - - Es sind bei der Einwanderung natürlich auch unerfreuliche Elemente hierher gekommen. Vielen gab man Geld zu einem kleinen Betriebe, dann aber waren die Herrschaften durchgebrannt. -- Der Mann, der für die grossen Eisenwerke verantwortlich war, hiess Cordier. - - Auch Handschuhmacher waren nötig. Gewiss gab es das Gewerbe hier schon, aber nicht solche Leute, die das Glaceleder herstellen konnten. Man hat auch eine ganze Anzahl von Gerbern aus Frankreich bekommen. In diesem Berufszweige ist es sogar geglückt, grosse Feinlederbestände über Amsterdam mit nach Deutschland zu bringen. Gerade auf dem Gebiete der Handschuhmacher kam ein ungeheures Gewerbe in Gang. - - In Berlin hatte man damals noch die Zünfte. Diese wollten nicht, dass man von der Regel abginge, ihnen war die Einwanderung ein Dorn im Auge. Der Kurfuerst liess daher die Handwerker aus Frankreich, insbesondere die Handschuhmacher, nicht unter die Zunftgesetze stellen, sie konnten frei arbeiten. Das brachte ungeheure Vorteile mit sich, denn während in Deutschland nur die Männer sich auf dieses Gewerbe verstanden, schnitten die Franzosen zu, ihre Ehefrauen aber nähten mit den feineren Händen. - - Reibereien zwischen deutscher und französischer Arbeiterschaft blieben dabei nicht aus. - - Das Militär brachte natürlich auch eine gewisse Luxusindustrie mit sich, denn man brauchte feine Lackarbeiten für die Pferdegeschirre, man brauchte Lackierer für die Kutschen selbst, man brauchte Leute, die die Wappen auf den Kutschen anbringen konnten. Man liess sich sogar Uhrgehäusemacher verschreiben, damit man den Schweizern Konkurrenz bieten konnte. - - Die Hugenotten waren bestrebt, die sonstigen Verhältnisse ausserdem zu verbessern. Auf sie geht auch das Weissbier zurück, denn sie brachten gute Brauer mit. Wir lesen da, dass sich Brauer und Zimmerleute immer wie 30:26 verhielten, was die Einwanderungszahl betraf. Sehr bekannt geworden ist aus aus dieser Zeit Landres Weissbier. Den Hugenotten wurde eingeräumt, Herrenlogements einzurichten für die Unterbringung der Herren vom Adel, die hier durch Berlin reisten. - - In Berlin fehlte es damals an Cafes. Also bekam ein Hugenotte die Erlaubnis, inmitten des Lustgartens, wo jetzt der Dom steht, eine solche Schankstätte einzurichten. Er nannte sich "Meister des Cafe's seiner Majestät". Durch die Hugenotten wurde auch der Saenftenträgerberuf eingeführt, man nannte diese Leute die Portechaiseträger. Es wären auch sonst noch Dinge anzuführen, die am Rande lagen, die aber beweisen, dass die Einwanderer ihre Ziele weit zu stecken suchten. So wissen wir, dass sich die Hugenotten auch mit der Einrichtung von Leihbuechereien befassten in einem Umfange, wie man ihn heute modern nennen wuerde. - - Dagegen gelang nicht die Herausgabe einer franzoesischen Zeitung. - - Auf dem Gebiete der Kaffeehäuser hat ein Hugenotte unter den Linden das erste Conzertcafé fuer Berlin geschaffen. Man konnte in dieser Staette auch Weintrinker sehen, es spielten vor allen Dingen einige Geigen. Das Konsistorium der französischen Gemeinde war allerdings dagegen, es fand es unpas­send, dass den Gaesten beim Trinken des Weines auf der Geige vorgespielt wurde, denn das Geigenspiel sei ein kirchliches Spiel. Gegen den "Weinverkauf wolle es nichts einwenden, aber das Spiel müsse unterbleiben. - - Die Kirche kam auch mit Behinderungen fuer andere Gewerbe. So durften die Schneider zwar Maskenkostüme herstellen, doch war die öffentliche Ausstellung derartiger Masken, selbst im Laden des Schneiders, untersagt. - - Es würde zu weit führen, noch von sonstigen Kleinigkeiten bezw. von kleinen Betrieben zu sprechen, doch soll noch die Papierfabrik in Prenzlau und die Spiegelglafabrik in Neustadt an der Dosse ermahnt werden. - - Die Raveneés, um nur einen Namen der Hugenotten zu erwähnen, haben als kleine Eisenleute angefangen, dann sind sie die grössten Eisenmagnaten unter den Einwanderern geworden. In Magdeburg machte sich die Firma Cruzot (Gruson? – handschriftliche Anmerkung von?) auf, die später einen bekannten Namen hatte. - - Lassen Sie mich nun von den Bauern sprechen, von denen, die in die Uckermark einwanderten.  Auf 100 Bauern kamen dabei 69 Tabakspflanzer, nicht gerechnet die Frauen und Kinder als Gefolge. Dazu kamen noch Tabakshändler, die Tabaksarbeiter und die Tabakspinner. - - Man wundert sich, dass diese Einwanderung so verteilt war, aber auch hier bei den Bauern und in dem Tabaksgewerbe ging es nach genauen Anforderungen, um ein Ueberangebot an Kraeften zu vermeiden. - - Zu jener Zeit wurden auch Kaufleute angefordert, aber im im Gegensatz zu heute wollte man keine jungen Leute, vielmehr alte und erfahrene mit Familiensinn. Gerade der Kurfürst zeigte sich in seinen Auffassungen begabter als mancher Staatsmann heutzutage. Man bot ihm immer wieder junge Leute an, er lehnte aber immer wieder ab. Schliesslich musste er aber auch jüngere Kräfte mitübernehmen. Die Tatsache aber bleibt, dass er in erster Linie die alten erfahrenen Kaufleute wünschte. - - Mit dem Bauern schloss man nun Vertraege ab, auf ein ein Pergament gesetzt. Nach diesen Pergamentsurkunden waren sie frei von Leibeigenschaft und Frondienst. - - Man hat jetzt noch derartige alte Urkunden aufgefunden, sie sollen in das Museum der französischen Gemeinde genommen werden. Der Minister für die bäuerlichen Angelegenheiten der Hugenotten war der Herr von Dohna. Das war erforderlich, dass es eine solche Aufsichts- und Beschwerdestelle gab, denn die uebrigen Bauern waren teilweise wegen der Vorrechte der Hugenotten nicht gut auf sie zu sprechen, selbst kurfuerstliche Beamten wollten von den Eingewanderten nichts wissen. - - Hatte doch da der Amtsmann von Chorin den Hugenotten einen Befehl durch einen Diener geschickt, der zudem noch mit einem Säbel ausgerüstet war. Die Hugenotten trieben diesen Diener vondannen und die Bauern beschwerten sich bei ihrem hugenottischen Bauernminister. - - Und nun überlegen Sie einmal die Schnelligkeit, mit der damals bei Behörden gearbeitet wurde. Schon 14 Tage später hatte der Amtmann zu Chorin einen groben Brief seines Ministers, in welchem es hiess, dass er sich sofort nach den Bestimmungen des Königs zu richten habe, andernfalls er sofort fliegen würde. - - König Friedrich I. von Preussen hat in der Geschichte immer eine so schlechte Note erhalten, insbesondere wegen seiner Prunkliebe, ausserdem well er nicht für genügend Soldaten gesorgt hätte. Die Hugenotten dagegen halten ihn für den besten König, denn er sorgte am besten für die Hugenotten, wenn auch zwar nicht in eigener Person, so doch aber durch die Bestellung ausgezeichneter Minister für die Angelegenheiten der Hugenotten, Minister, die den Willen des Königs durchzusetzen verstanden. Anders wurden die Verhältnlsse schon unter Friedrich Wilhelm I., und Friedrich der Grosse hatte für die Hugenotten sehr wenig übrig. - - Friedrich Wilhelm I wollte die Freiheit von den Frondiensten aufheben. Wieder entstand in der Uckermark eine Unruhe. Und da der Koenig auf seinem Standpunkt verharrte, began schliesslich eine Auswanderung nach Daenemark bezw. Der Verkauf der Grundstuecke an andere Bauern. - - Das Konsistorium der Franzosen zu Berlin schrieb darauf in wuerdigen Worten an den Koenig, dass alle freien Leute, falls der Koenig nicht endlich Einhalt gebiete, wieder ihren Stab nehmen würden, um ihn in ein anderes Land zu setzen. - - Erst dann wurde der König einsichtig, er nahm alle Massnahmen zurück. Ja, dieser so energische König verfällt dann ins Gegenteil, er lässt eine hugenottische Gemeinde zu Potsdam gründen. Aber schon nach kurzer Zelt geht er wieder gegen die Hugenotten vor, ja 1730 sogar zum dritten Male. Aber schliesslich blieb ihm doch nur übrig, ihnen im Jahre 1735 endlich die Befreiung von den Frondiensten zuzugestehen. - - Der König war ein merkwürdiger Mann. Aus Archivakten weiss man es, dass fuer ihn in erster Linie nur die Steuereinnahme kam, ganz gleich, ob ein Tuerke oder Heide auf dem Grundstueck sass. Die Zugestehung besonderer Rechte an die Hugenotten muss ihm daher grosse Ueberwindung gekostet haben. - - Die Hugenotten hielten aber auch zusammen. Der Vortragende erzaehlte aus der Zeit vor 1735 Einzelheiten ueber das Zusammenhalten der Einwanderer. In Doerfern der Uckermark haben Lehnschulzen die Saaten der Hugenotten durch Schafe abgrasen lassen wollen, doch seien sie dabei immer auf die geschlossene Abwehr der hugenottischen Bauern gestossen. Und selbst als die Schulzen und Amtleute Recht bekommen haetten, seien die Bauern bei der Weigerung verblieben, haetten sie Schaefer und Schafe verjagt. Es haetten eben Zustaende geherrscht, wie sie um 1700 zur Zeit des Ministers Dohna nicht moeglich gewesen waeren. - - - Und nun zu den Hugenotten in ihrem Verhältnis zur preussischen Militärgeschichte. Einer der letzten Obersten des Schwedter Dragoner-Regiments war Marquis Duveine. Wie kommt ein Mann mit solchem Namen an eine solche Spitze? Wer aber die Geschichte dieses Regiments kennt, der weiss, dass es einstmals in Ansbach und Bayreuth aus hugenottischen Soldaten zusammengestellt wurde. Und diese hugenottische Tradition hat sich bis heute, fast unbemerkt, fortgesetzt. Zu jener Zeit, da man in Ansbach und Bayreuth ein solches Regiment aufstellte, stellte man innerhalb Brandenburgs auch andere französische Heereseinheiten auf. Selbst die Kürassiere in Brandenburg an der Havel sind ein französisches Regiment. Auch das 1. Garde-Regiment zu Fuss hat unter den Stammtruppen viele Franzosen gehabt. Es hat sogar viele Infantrieregimenter gegeben, die mit ihrem französischen Bestandteil sogar kriegsmaessig gegen Frankreich eingesetzt wurden. Um 1700 war der französische Prozentsatz bei der Kavallerie sogar ziemlich hoch, er betrug damals 30%, was die Offiziere anbetraf. Im Laufe der weiteren Zeit ist der Prozentsatz allerdings geringer geworden. An bekannten Namen aus der preussischen Kriegsgeschichte seien nur erwähnt Oberst Forcade, der im Berliner Dom der französischen Gemeinde beerdigt liegt, dann Marquis Varenne, vor allen Dingen aber aus dem Kriege 1806 Coarbière. Wer da weiter forschen will, der braucht nur das Kirchenbuch der französischen Gemeinde zu Berlin durchzublättern. - - Schliesslich wohnten die Franzosen unter Deutschen. Darüber nachzudenken ist gar nicht müssig, denn unseren deutschen Fami­lien in Brasilien geht es heute genau so, sie haben mit den gleichen Problemen zu kämpfen. Die hier in Berlin eingewanderten Franzosen hielten ihre Sprache bei. Die Gottesdienste und der Konfirmandenunterrioht wurden in der französischen Sprache abgehalten. Die Kirchenbücher begannen erst im Jahre 1835 mit deutschen Eintragungen. Das Verhaeltnis zwischen Franzosen und Deutschen ist zunaechst nicht gut gewesen. Die Streitigkeiten gingen sogar bis ins kleine Offizierskorps hinunter, denn die Hugenotten wollten immer etwas besseres sein. Es kam zu dauernden Duellen. (J.Z.: dauernd zu Duellen.) In Berlin waren die Verhältnisse allerdings nicht so schwierig, weil man sich durch das enge Wohnen schneller kennen lernte, auch der Verkehr mehr pulsierte als auf dem Lande. Hier in Berlin haben die Franzosen bald auch deutsche Maedchen geheiratet und umgekehrt. Es kam teilweise dahin, dass in manchen französischen Familien die Kinder nur noch die deutsche Sprache beherrschten. [Nur noch? Nur die Kinder noch? In Mischehen? – J.Z.) Aus dem Jahre 1780 sind uns Listen über die Potsdamer Sprachverhältnisse erhalten geblieben. Hiernach wurde in dieser Stadt der Konfirmandenunterricht schon deutsch gegeben, man forderte zu dieser Zeit auch den Gottesdienst in deutscher Sprache, und das Konsistorium wollte nicht, denn es stand auf dem Standpunkt, dass der reformatorische Glaube der Hugenotten mit der französischen Sprache zusammenhange. Die französischen Gemeinden haben sich im Laufe der Zelt aber zu dem Standpunkt durchgerungen, dass die Sprache damit gar nichts zu tun hat. Wir sind nach alt-französischer Art reformiert, anders als bei Luther und den deutschen Reformierten, also nach der alten Kirchenordnung von 1559, und in diesem alten Glaubensbekenntnis wird heute nooh das Wesentliche der Tradition gesehen. Noch um 1800 war man der Meinung, dass Glaube und Sprache zusammenhaengen. Geben wir die Sprache auf, geben wir auch den Glauben auf, hiess es damals. Aber schliesslich musste das Konsistorium doch dem Draengen der Gemeinde nachgeben, und heute ist man genau so gut wie damals Hugenottengemeinde ohne französische Sprache. - - Die Deutschen in Brasilien stehen vor dem gleichen Problem, denn dort ist man der Meinung, dass die portugisische Sprache umgekehrt mit dem Katholizismus zusammenhängt. Würde man also die deutsche Sprache aufgeben, würde man von Luther abweichen. Und daher das Bemühen der dortigen Gemeinden, aus unserem Kreise die Erfahrungen zu hören. Wir aber können nur immer wieder sagen, dass die Religion mit der Sprache nichts zu tun hat. - - Das Konsistorium zu Berlin, um noch einmal auf die Angelegenheit zurückzukommen, hat allerdings bis in das Jahr 1850 hinein trotzen wollen, ja das Protokoll wurde noch bis 1880 in französischer Sprache abgefasst, aber die Verhältnisse waren schliesslich stärker. Die Gemeinde in Berlin - auch das muss erwähnt werden - ist heute noch genau so gross wie bei der Einwanderung. Gottesdienst in französischer Sprache wurde letztmalig 1914 gegeben, man stellte ihn aus patriotischen Gründen auf die deutsche Sprache um. - - Die grösste reformierte Gemeinde der Mark existiert heute noch in Bergholz i.d.Uckermark, 360 Seelen. In den anderen Dörfern ist die Seelenzahl geringer. Der erste Weltkrieg hat sehr dezimierend gewirkt, denn nach ihm setzte die grosse Landflucht ein, verstärkt durch den zweiten Weltkrieg. Forschungen in den Gemeinden Gross- und Klein-Ziethen hinter Eberswalde haben ergeben, dass die Beständigkeit der Bewohner doch mit dem Landbesitz zusammenhängt. Vier Hufen Land haben die beste Aussicht des Verbleibens auf der Scholle. Die Schaffung von Bauernhoefen mit einer Hufe Land hat sich immer wieder als wertlos erwiesen. Bei einer Hufe Land fehlt auf jeden Fall die Basis der eigenstaendigen Ernaehrung. - - Kleine Gemeinden heute noch in Potsdam, in Angermuende, Schwedt, Gramzow, Strasburg i.U. - - Bei der Einwanderung bestanden 27 bis 30 sogenannte Kolonien, heute sind ausserhalb Berlins nur noch 8 Pfarrstellen vorhanden. - - gez.: Otto Glodde - - - Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Huguenots:  "Still later in French history, this political rather than religious determination of policy is clear in the case of Cardinal Richelieu; for if  (J.Z.: when?) he made war on the French Protestants, it was not to destroy their religious freedom, which he left untouched, but to draw the teeth of the political and military privileges allowed them by the Edict of Nantes, privileges (of private armies and fortified towns) which had made them a state within the state, the rallying-point of feudal disaffection, the major obstacle to Richelieu's policy of strengthening the central government of the Crown. It was perfectly in accord with this policy that Richelieu subsidized the Protestant armies of Gustavus Adophus of Sweden in the Thirty Years War, for in doing so he was weakening the Hapsburgs, the most powerful enemies of France." - R. M. Crawford: Historical Aspects of the Problem of Recurrent Wars, in: Paths to Peace, edited by V.H. Wallace, Melbourne University Press, 1967, p.6.

HÜLSMANN, GUIDO, Mehr Sicherheit durch den Staat? - eigentümlich frei - Nr. 9 (1/2000), - STATE, SECURITY

HUMAN BEINGS:  The varieties of living made possible by panarchism should interest the anti-globalization people but I have so far not seen any sign of such an interest in any of their protests, in which they merely opposed Free Trade and multinationals and governmental "Free Trade" treaties and what they consider to be "capitalism". - J.Z., 16.9.04. What is to me significant for the globalization trend is its voluntarism and the way it cuts across artificial and legalized frontiers. – J.Z., 18.5.12. – ANTI-GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT

HUMAN BEINGS: Mankind is at its best when it is most free. This will be clear if we grasp the principle of liberty. We must recall that the basic principle is freedom of choice, which saying many have on their lips but few in their mind.” - Dante (or Durante) Alighieri (1265-1321), Monarchy (1309), Book I. - All such sayings ought to be expanded to the utmost, to their rightful and rational consequences and natural limits. - J.Z., 26.11.02. - MAN, MANKIND, CHARACTER, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, INSTITUTIONS, CHOICE, LAISSEZ FAIRE, CONTRACTS, CONSENT, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

HUMAN BEINGS: The higher on the evolutionary scale, the more freedom to reorganize. An ant lives out a destiny; a human being shapes one.” - M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, 184. – Territorial States have reduced us to ants, in their coercively assembled and maintained heaps. Panarchism can humanize us again in our thinking, actions and development. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 3.7.89. – ANT STATES, FATE, FREEDOM, DESTINY, PANARCHISM, HUMAN BEINGS OF ALL KINDS & ALL KINDS OF THEIR VOLUNTARY SOCIETIES UNDER PANARCHISM

HUMAN BEINGS: We are human beings.” - Arafat. - He is one of the leaders of territorial terrorists. Thus one should reply: Then act like them! Human beings are only those who treat others, who disagree with them, as human beings, i.e., by respecting their individual rights and liberties. Alas, by that standard the world is still very severely under-populated. - J.Z., n.d. & 18.10.02.

HUMAN BEINGS: Your primary duty is to yourself as a rational being, to grow and develop as a fully matureand enlightened human being, exhausting your potential in living your own life, alone or with like-minded people only. And this implies that you leave everyone else alone to do the same, alone or with his associates. – J.Z., n.d., 18.5.12 - MAN, OBLIGATIONS, DUTY, SELF-DEVELOPMENT, RATIONAL BEINGS

HUMAN NATURE: As already pointed out, the opinion that prolonged operations of mass slaughter, i.e. wars, are the inevitable products of a fundamentally aggressive human nature, fails to take account of some important aspects of the matter, in particular that: 1.) Human nature is not a frozen monolithic reality but a series of potentialities and attitudes, many of which have nothing to do with violent behaviour. Consider, for instance, the widespread presence, at all times, of peace-loving human beings, some of whom even find the courage to openly oppose war, refusing to carry out criminal orders, deserting and being court-martialled by the organizations waging the war. - 2.) An aggressive human nature is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the mass carnage that is war. The other requisite, already stressed, is the existence of an organization intent on and expert in waging wars, having the power to coercively mobilise huge military resources in terms of men and means. - 3.) Human nature, apart from pathological and uncommon cases, becomes (or might become) aggressive only in response to something perceived as an offence or an injustice. In other words, there must be a real or presumed grievance in order to activate violence (attack, reprisal, resistance). … In the presence of subjectively felt unpleasant individuals or negatively felt experiences, the usual and sensible human reaction is that of leaving, moving away. - However, if this is not possible, the remaining option and the likely reaction is one of going against in order to overcome that specific situation. - - "If the activity of breathing be interrupted by accident or a deliberate act of another individual, the immediate reaction to it is a violent struggle to remove the obstacle or to overcome the human act of aggression. Kicking, biting, pushing immediately start; a fight ensues which has to end with the destruction of the suffocated organism or the removal of the obstacle." - "... the impulse which controls aggression is not primary but derived. It is contingent upon circumstances in which a primary biologically defined impulse is being thwarted." - Bronislaw Malinowski, An Anthropological Analysis of War, 1941. - - In fact, it is human nature to strive for the satisfaction of needs and to fight when the realization of physiological needs (for food, water, shelter, etc.) is imperilled and that of personality needs (for autonomy, creativity, mobility, self-esteem, etc.) is suffocated. These are the grievances that are likely to generate violence. - By contrast, mass violence (i.e. war) starts when the rulers have satisfied all their needs and have resources in excess (arms, provisions, shelters, etc.) which they can use for the satisfaction of their pathological delusions of grandeur or compulsions of revenge. - - "War is essentially the playground of the psychopath in society." - Alex Comfort, Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State, 1950. - - All this means that we have to distinguish clearly between limited, localized and episodic acts of violence by individuals and small groups because they are prevented from satisfying certain human needs, and large scale organized violence, i.e. war, carried out through proxies of the state who will bear the brunt, and aimed essentially at conquering territories, expanding influence and dominating people. - - Considering that many human beings, following their human nature, have opposed the inhumanity of war in so many cases where it was possible to do so (e.g. being conscientious objectors, by leaving the army, by denouncing the carnage, etc.), we would do better to focus attention not on the violent individual but on the organization waging war if we want to locate the source of mass slaughters and protracted violence in general. - - As previously pointed out, an organization eager for war and expert in how to wage it must rely on: territorial sovereignty: the organization must have the power to place under its sovereignty all those who live within a certain territory (compulsory ascription) - monopolistic rule: the organization must have the power to impose its exclusive laws on everybody under its territorial jurisdiction (compulsory submission); - pervasive power: the organization must have the power to make use of the life of the individual for the maintenance of the territorial organization itself (compulsory conscription). - - In modern times this organization has been the territorial nation state and that is why the coming to full dominance of this kind of state by the end of the 19th century also led to the biggest mass slaughters in the history of humanity. This is not an accidental correlation of events but a precise and documented conjunction of cause and effect. - Gian Piero de Bellis in his "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - AGGRESSIVENESS INBORN? TERRITORIALISM, MAN FORMED & MOTIVATED BY THE INSTITUTIONS IN WHICH HE IS FORCED TO LIVE, STATISM, POWER, REALPOLITIK, NATIONALISM, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, GOVERNMENTS

HUMAN NATURE: Human beings are easily satisfied. Just give them what they want." - From film: "Black River". The "give" is here still problematical and all too often wrongfully practised. "Let them have it!" is a somewhat better expression but with this “principle” one still does not allocate scarce resources quite rightfully. Or it expresses the usual violence or compulsion. One may let a robber get away with his robbery rather than resisting him actively and taking a risk. But that would not make the robbery right.  "Let them produce, let them exchange! (The best translated meaning of "laissez faire, laissez passer!") expresses rightful human relationships much better. Deviations from this rule amount to more or less forcefully taking from others their values or defrauding them, rather than freely making and exchanging values. Panarchism introduces the laissez faire, laissez passer policy into the political, social and economic spheres, without imposing even e.g. laissez faire, laissez passer economics upon those who are, for religious or ideological motives, opposed to it. They get the choice, but remain free to reject it and free to adopt, for themselves, other political, economic and social systems - but only at their own risk and expense. Only this system does fully correspond to the nature of human beings, as they are and will be, for a long time to come.  It makes even prejudicial and biased systems possible, among their believers - but only at their risk and expense. Thus their activities will serve as deterrent examples to others and as learning experiences for themselves. Men are so diverse critters, in their knowledge, preferences, character, beliefs, instincts, that no single and uniform political, economic and social system, however rightful and good, if imposed upon all of them, will keep them sufficiently satisfied and peaceful. Panarchism offers free market and free contract choices to all the diverse human types. Under it they can all play their own games at their own risk and expense, as a matter of individual choice, as long as they respect the same right and choice in all others. - J.Z. - MAN

HUMAN NATURE: Human nature is not of itself vicious.” - Thomas Paine. - But vicious institutions, like territorial States, with their coercion, monopolies and powers can make many people vicious, the victimizers as well as many of their victims. - J.Z., 1.5.00. – By means of conscription, military training and discipline the territorial State can turn peaceful citizens into effective and obedient soldiers for itself and its quite wrongful war aims. – It can condition them to act against their human nature. - J.Z., 7.1.09. - MAN, NATURAL MAN, HUMANITY, MANKIND, VICIOUSNESS, TERRITORIALISM, STATE, WAR, CONSCRIPTION, MILITARY SERVITUDE, WRONGFUL WAR AIMS

HUMAN NATURE: If the State acts in ways abhorrent to human nature, it is the lesser evil to destroy it.” - Baruch Spinoza. - With its coercive, hierarchical, centralistic and monopolistic nature, in one word, with its territorialism, it always acts contrary to human nature. In other words, its rulers still act as if a whole country and all its population were their private property to use and abuse as they please, i.e., to act as if all the other people in a country did not really count. - And this territorial and monarchical absolutism is still largely continued by the territorialism of our democracies, republics and "people's democracies". - J.Z., 25.11.02. – STATE, TERRITORIALISM, FEUDALISM, SERFDOM, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY

HUMAN NATURE: In fact, it is human nature to strive for the satisfaction of needs and to fight when the realization of physiological needs (for food, water, shelter, etc.) is imperilled and that of personality needs (for autonomy, creativity, mobility, self-esteem, etc.) is suffocated. These are the grievances that are likely to generate violence. - - By contrast, mass violence (i.e. war) starts when the rulers have satisfied all their needs and have resources in excess (arms, provisions, shelters, etc.) which they can use for the satisfaction of their pathological delusions of grandeur or compulsions of revenge. - BELLIS, GIAN PIERO: Scenarios for the Future, 2006, - - WAR, PEACE, FREEDOM, AUTONOMY, MAN

HUMAN NATURE: Inhumanity is so far still all too human or all too common. - J.Z., 28.3.87, 17.12.11. - However not just human nature but false education and social conditioning are involved and flawed institutions, like territorial States, and the central banking of monetary despotism, conscription, military discipline, laws against treason and espionage and sabotage (even towards the war machines of tyrants), flawed principles, like "collective responsibility", numerous flawed ideas and popular prejudices, not yet sufficiently countered by institutions, processes and reference works that are most suitable to speed up and ensure the progress of enlightenment. Even mere compulsory territorial voting leads to still more wrongful and harmful political decision-making. - J.Z., 18.10.02, 7.12.10, 18.5.12. - MAN, INHUMANITY, HUMANITY, TERRITORIALISM, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES, FLAWED IDEAS

HUMAN NATURE: It is easier to see and understand most humans as sub-humans rather than as humans in the best sense. – J.Z., 22.9.97. – But then they have long been institutionalized, conditioned, trained and educated by territorial warfare States! – J.Z., 30.11.07. – The genuine human nature will only become fully revealed once we have been free for a considerable period. – J.Z., 3.1.09. - HUMANS OR SUB-HUMANS? MAN


HUMAN NATURE: The biggest mischief in the past century has been perpetrated by Rousseau with his doctrine of the goodness of human nature. The mob and the intellectuals derived from it the vision of a Golden Age which would arrive without fail once the noble human race could act according to its whims.” - Jakob Burckhardt. - While R. was certainly wrong on many of the "noble savages", over 50 primitive tribes are on record as not engaging in war, others of being very skilled in bringing up their young etc. Man is certainly characterized by more than mere whims and we simply do not know as yet the degrees and the extent to which man might grow - under full liberties and rights as well as all the advantages of an advanced civilization, in which all genuine individual rights and liberties are realized, at least among those, who do know and appreciate them. - J.Z., 29.11.02, 18.5.12. - WHIMS, REASON, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, MAN, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, HUMAN RIGHTS

HUMAN NATURE: The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses. Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.” - Samuel L. Clemens ("Mark Twain") (1835-1910), The Damned Human Race. - Some ants seem to conduct wars against each other. - J.Z., 25.9.02. – It is not those, who make no territorial claims, who cause most wars. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - WAR & STATE, TERRITORIALISM

HUMAN NATURE: War will never cease until babies begin to come into the world with larger cerebrums and smaller adrenal glands.” -  H. L. Mencken. - Dozens of primitive human tribes managed to live without wars, possibly for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. It is not our human nature but our "civilized" institutions and ideas that made us more warlike. If we reorganised into personal law associations for all kinds of different volunteer groups most motives, means, targets, aims and resources for warfare would disappear. Free Trade and Free Enterprise make all resources and willing talents and labour and capital on Earth available to everybody, much more cheaply than fighting for them could. Look at all your possessions: How many of them did you steal, plunder or conquer and how many of them did you peacefully trade for? - J.Z., 29.11.02, 18.5.12. – WAR, DIS., TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, FREE TRADE, ACCESS TO RESOURCES, FREE MARKET

HUMAN NATURE: Why despair of human nature when it takes such a great effort to destroy it?” - G. B. Shaw, in a remark here retranslated from the German version. - Authoritarianism and tyrannies need violence for their support. Censorship, borders, tariffs, conscription, taxation, legal tender and monopolies are unnatural impositions lupon numan nature. - J.Z., 22.6.93. - Free individual secessionism would reveal human nature much more accurately, in its whole spectrum, than does territorial and collectivist voting. -  J.Z., 18.10.02. - DESPAIR, MAN, PESSIMISM, OPTIMISM, SIGNS OF THE TIME, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

HUMAN POTENTIAL: concerned with "the way in which individual human beings are prevented from developing" and that "at the same time there is a vision of the unfulfilled potentialities of every human being." - Richard Boston, in PEACE NEWS, 23 February 1962. – Once all genuine individual human rights and liberties are put together in an ideal declaration and the first panarchies of freedom lovers are establishing and experimenting with all these rights and liberties, the human potential for free, prosperous, rapidly progressing, peaceful and tolerant societies will soon become known. The practice of these rights and liberties is not impossible but are so far territorially outlawed to a great degree. – J.Z., 7.12.10, 18.5.12. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, HUMAN RIGHTS, MAN, MANKIND, PEOPLE

HUMAN POTENTIAL: People go from womb to tomb without ever realizing the human potential, precisely because the power to initiate, to participate in innovating, choosing, judging, and deciding is reserved for the top men.” - Colin Ward, ANARCHY IN ACTION, p.42. - DEVELOPMENT, STATES, DECISION-MAKING, THE PERPETUAL KINDERGARTEN, TERRITORIALISM

HUMAN RIGHTS & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTAL & PRIVATE CODES: A uniform, complete, consistent and agreed-upon human rights code does not yet exist. Instead we have hundreds of very diverse governmental ones and, probably, also hundreds of private drafts of this kind. (I assembled over 130 private ones in my digitized PEACE PLANS 589/590.) This means that individuals should be free, at this stage, not only to choose their kind of community, constitution, body of laws and juridical etc. system but, also, the kind of human rights draft they prefer for themselves and want their community to be based on. This kind of competition will lead to some arguments - but also to an improvement of these codes and finally, maybe only in the far future, to a large degree of agreement on one or a few such codes. Interference with members of other volunteer communities, regardless of what kind of justice concepts they prefer to practise among themselves, should become one of the primary crimes. - J.Z., 2.11.99, 23.6.01, 18.5.12.

HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES: Be human, not just a sacrificial lamb for governments. Live for your own sake, not to be fleeced and eaten by others. - Consider how much of your working life is eaten up by direct and indirect taxes and compliance with imposed regulations, how much of the value (purchasing power) of your savings disappear through inflation and how you have to sell your services at emergency sales prices during government-caused deflations. - J.Z., 15.11.02 - After all the bad experiences you had with them, the last ones you ought to feed and clothe would have to be the politicians and bureaucrats. However, if you want to continue playing your sacrificial role, to your end, panarchism would give you the chance to do so - without committing, at the same time, any crime against peaceful dissenters. - J.Z., 2/5/84, 7.12.10, 18.12.11 - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, DISSENTERS, TERRITORIALISM, TAXATION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL.

HUMAN RIGHTS & PANARCHIES: My notes to the human rights draft and de Puydt’s essay in PEACE PLANS No.4: Editorial: The above HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION is to a large degree the vision of a future, rational, and just society' seemingly on a uniform basis, a basis of extreme libertarianism, to be accepted by all. Thus understood it comes into conflict with the ideal political system described in "PANARCHY", a system in which everybody would have only one right, the right to choose and change (compare: 7 & 20.) But is there really a contradiction? - If you read "Panarchy" more closely, you will find that De Puydt's underlying concept is the belief in human rights, too (compare pages 3 & 9). One might say that the declaration brings nothing but a detailed application of the main panarchic principle: "Laissez faire, laissez passer!" and shows its extent and its limits. - I believe that it shows the maximum of freedom, which may be claimed and the minimum of rights one has to respect in others. But, you may object, did he not, on page 20, claim ONE right only? I concede this point and ask: What is a RIGHT? - It is a freedom you may or may not claim for yourself. You may claim it fully or partly, to any degree you desire. You are, as a rule, not obliged to make use of any human or natural right. - - Apart from the still very controversial concept of duties a rational being has towards himself (Kant started formulating them), these rights imply DUTIES only with regard to the rights of others, not in cases where they are merely temporarily and voluntarily disclaimed - but whenever they are suppressed. It is your duty to inform yourself, to protest, to resist, if rights of others are suppressed and not when others, voluntarily, intentionally, do not exercise them. - The panarchic concept of human rights means: each may exercise them to the extent that he, together with his associates wants, but he has always to fully respect them in members of other communities. - - If both peace plans were realized together (This PEACE PLANS issue No. 4 published together De Puydt''s article on panarchy and a human rights draft. - J.Z., 9.10.11.) - and they go far in showing how it could be done - we would see numerous different exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers established: On one extreme end would be loose associations of libertarians, or even anarchists, laying claim to and exercising all these rights as free and rational beings. Their political and other social institutions would be reduced to the absolute minimum they think to be necessary, possibly only some insurance companies, watchmen organizations and arbitration courts and, naturally, the militia organizations for the protection of individual rights. - The human rights declaration itself would form their common fundamental law. - - On the other extreme end we would find friendly despotisms, based on unanimous mass following, extreme welfare States, whose members claimed no individualist rights at all or none without far reaching restrictions. There, we would have even totalitarian societies ‑ clipped of their intolerance towards members of other societies. They would be totalitarian only towards their own members, like the communist party is in its internal organization. (A totalitarianism deprived of this evil side deserves another and better name.) - - In between these extremes there would be numerous other communities of all the shades and degrees desired. - - I believe that the libertarian communities would be the ideal societies for moral and rational beings, towards which all other communities would tend to develop. - You may believe that the period of transition will end in an almost general voluntary acceptance of your utopian scheme. Good luck to you. If your social experiments would prove you right and disprove my theories I would soon join you. Nothing succeeds more than success. Whilst we are both realizing our program for ourselves and compete for more members, we have only to agree upon a basis for our external affairs. - - As I said above, the recognition of the human and natural rights of the members of other communities could be a base for peaceful cooperation and coexistence. Everybody, who ignores them, with regard to anybody but his own voluntary followers, will thereby reveal himself as aggressive and despotic, perhaps even as an imperialist and tyrant and has naturally to expect the corresponding forceful resistance from a federation of all other free communities and from all militia organizations in his neighbourhood. - - This kind of PANARCHY, VOLUNTARISM, NON-MONOPOLISM, MUTUALISM, PLURALISM, LIBERTARIANISM, ANARCHISM, COMMUNALISM, ANTI‑IMPERIALISM, COEXISTENCE, COOPERATION, FREE. ENTERPRISE AND FREE. MARKET IN THE SOCIAL SPHERE, would lead to an easy separation between the rational and the unreasonable beings with different rights, dealt with in the human rights draft. They would, apart from those rational beings, who would take upon their shoulders the burdens and pleasures of ruling and advancing mentally childlike voluntary followers, separate themselves voluntarily, spontaneously, in different communities as described in: "Panarchy". The more rational they are, the more elementary rights they could claim and exercise tolerantly among their equals. - - De Puydt spoke mainly about the strife between monarchism and republicanism but his system is naturally applicable to all other isms, to all modern ideologies, too, if only their totalitarian side is removed. Panarchism would remove it. Some degree of totalitarianism is unavoidable in every present system as long as one believes uniformity to be necessary. It is a large totalitarian feature in all territorial systems. - - It really does not require a great mental effort to apply the panarchic system to the presently suppressed national, racial, ideological, religious minorities or majorities, e.g., to apply it to end the fighting in Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Israel, the Congo, to settle the unrest in South Africa, the Southern States of the U.S.A., to render harmless the power of communist and other dictators, to end terrorist activities, to bring about one or several (peacefully coexisting) world federations, to end the internal struggle between political parties and movements. - - Under panarchy and the rule of the human and the natural rights, each group could achieve as much independence and self-government as it desires. Once this is recognized most human beings will be rational enough not to strive for any more. - - A new science is required to determine exactly the extent and limits of economic, social, and political freedom of action and tolerance. I hope that the above contributions will help to bring it about. - - One of the advantages of individual human rights and panarchism, with regard to their realization, is that the majority need not to be won over first. These freedoms could to a large extent be realized and protected by small minorities and could from the smallest beginnings spread over the globe. It is e.g. sufficient if freedom of expression and information, the right to issue money tokens, to trade freely, so secede, to establish cooperatives, to resist, are, at first, intelligently exercised by small local minorities only. - - These rights have a self-preserving and self-multiplying power. Once they are intelligently practised then they would attract more and more adherents. - - If either the Soviet Union or Red China were to adopt and realize the human rights declaration - then whoever did so would no longer have to be afraid of the other communist power. The opponent's soldiers would then refuse to fight and would desert or revolt instead. (To hope for or gloat over the possibility that these powerful governments come to war with each other, reveals a horrifying ignorance or lack of human feeling and moral sentiment, as in the process these rulers would not hesitate to sacrifice millions of their involuntary followers. Furthermore, this attitude ignores the possibility that we might become directly involved, too, as we were in the war between Hitler and Stalin. - - Once individual human rights and liberties are sufficiently declared, broadcast and explained, the soldiers in these countries might rise simultaneously against their oppressors, with the aim to realize these rights for themselves. As this declaration implies the panarchic system, they would not find fanatical resistance among the present rulers and their voluntary followers. - - Yes, the discontented, conscripted soldiers are likely to claim and realize the panarchic freedom, so lucidly explained by De Puydt, first of all. - - Of the 108 peace plans so far published, almost all refer directly or indirectly to the above two plans and comment upon particular points. - - The close relationship between HUMAN RIGHTS AND PEACE was pointed out in a lengthy article of mine in: "THE STANDARD", Oct. 64 and Jan. 65 issues, available from a Henry George Union for Social Justice, NSW, 265 Elizabeth St., Sydney, for 1s 6d. - PEACE PLANS 4 was later digitized by me, one of the few of 1779 issues, that I tackled in this way. - J.Z., 19.10.11, 18.5.12.

HUMAN RIGHTS & PANARCHISM: An extract from PEACE PLANS 4, on the individual human rights directly involved in panarchism. Some formulations. How can they be better protected than through panarchisms? We have to ask ourselves: Can panarchism be realized without recognizing all genuine individual rights and liberties? In „my“ (*) old human rights draft, reproduced in PEACE PLANS 4, apart from the monetary freedom sections, and the ones on resistance, defence and militias, there are the following relevant entries: [(*) Most of the original input came from letters of Ulrich von Beckerath, extracted by my former wife.] - - - 16.) Right to Make Mistakes Every human being has the right to make mistakes and errors, to act thoughtlessly and clumsily, to learn by its own experience, as long as it does not offend against the rights of others or the duties a rational being has towards its own person.  Comment: Men who rule themselves may make mistakes, but they have a chance to correct them. If let alone, their common sense would soon rectify them whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice. Moderate drinking, e.g. may still be considered permissible, excessive intoxication certainly is not. Compare: 18 and 21. - - - VI.) Tolerance for Tolerant Social Actions - - 17.) Religious Tolerance  - Every human being has the right to belong to no religious denomination or to any of its choice, to change its religion and to manifest it in teaching, practice, worship, and observance, as long as it does not infringe other human rights or natural rights of rational beings. Comment: Everybody may join or leave a religious community any time. Nobody may be forced to participate in any way in its ceremonies or to respect its holy days. New religious movements may be formed. No recognition of their faith is required. Nobody is obliged to reveal his religious belief or to use any religious confirmation of an oath. - - - 18.) Social, Economic, and Political Tolerance - - Every rational being has the right to do everything, not only in its private life but in the social, economic, and political sphere as well, regardless of the existing laws, if and as long as it is done at its own expense and risk, i.e., it does not infringe the human rights or natural rights of rational beings. Comment: It is unjust to force rational beings to arrange their lives according to a temporarily prevailing theory incorporated in parliamentary laws. The State has e.g. no right to interfere with laws in social, constitutional, economic, and political experiments, if these experiments are tolerant, that is, concern only e.g. life, health, property, and employment of voluntary participants. Compare: 19 21. - - - 19.) Contracts - Every rational being has the right to conclude contracts freely, even to contract upon deviations from existing laws, as long as these deviations remain within the framework of the human rights and the natural rights of rational beings. - Comment: Rational beings would e.g. not undertake a real estate business without sufficient documentation and would not regard the requirement of public registration of such contracts as an infringement but rather as a safeguard. People under the influence of alcohol or other disabling drugs are at least temporarily not to be considered as rational. Compare: 7, 8, 14, 20 38, 44. - - - 20.) Secession - Every rational being has the right to give notice of withdrawal from a free contract or association and to secede from every unnatural association based on compulsory membership, including e.g. the State, the army, unions, and totalitarian parties, in the same way as it may resign from a church, without losing even a single human right or natural right. - - Comment: The social contract is neither voluntarily concluded between individuals nor is it unnatural. Its compulsion consists only in the inescapable duty to protect the human rights and natural rights of reasonable beings. Compare: 48. - - 21.) Associations and Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers - Every rational being has the right to join or form private associations. It may not be forced to join or to remain in any association or community. All rational beings have, furthermore, the right to associate in exterritorial and autonomous communities, even within the territories of those States from which they have seceded, as long as these new communities permit secession themselves and act within the framework of the human rights and the natural rights of rational beings. Rational beings have the right to join even several such communities simultaneously, according to their free choice, and the right to change their membership. Nobody may be arbitrarily deprived of it. But every community may refuse to accept or to keep someone who has obstinately offended against its laws. - Comment: Every rational being has e.g. the right but is not obliged to belong to a party standing for the human rights. It is free to leave it any time and to set up another party. No State or exterritorial and autonomous community may enforce membership in any form and under any pretence even in wartime. Compare: 48 53. Rights 20 and 21 give not only the majority in each generation but every individual rational being the right to choose for itself the form of government it believes to be the most conducive to its own happiness. In other words, these rights give the opportunity for full self-government and independence to all minorities no matter how small they are. They would thus help to avoid wars and civil wars. Only police actions against aggressive totalitarians would still be necessary. The court of Taranto, Italy, gave a ruling in 1954, in which it stated that the tendency today is "to regard citizenship as an essentially voluntary relationship, the implication being that one has to accept the principle of the freedom of will of the individual and to concede to his claims to an opportunity of shaping his life according to his own free choice." - - Concerning unions see: 24. - - - Future and better drafts should contain a clause that within voluntary communities, that are a-territorially autonomous, their members might agree to include even more individual rights - or less or more restricted ones. - For most rights their maximum practice by all, at all times and in all places, regardless of the circumstances, is not obligatory but optional. – Slightly revised: 18.5.12.

HUMAN RIGHTS & PANARCHISM: The individual human rights directly involved in panarchism. Some formulations. The other human rights: How can they be better protected through panarchisms? Still to be written up. - J.Z., 6.11.11. - Compare: MILITIA. & HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS, PRIVATE ONES, in PEACE PLANS 589/590, later enlarged and digitized. - J.Z.

HUMAN RIGHTS & TOLERANCE: Respect for human rights is the greatest degree of tolerance, which is morally still justified and it implies anti-totalitarianism or condemnation of communist, Nazi and other dictatorships. There is no justification for tolerance towards the intolerant. - J.Z., On Tolerance.

HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS, PRIVATE ONES, AS OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENTAL ONES: A first anthology including panarchistic statements, can be found in PEACE PLANS 589/590. This anthology was later enlarged and digitized to over 130 such drafts. How manhy others do still exist, somewhere, still unknown to me and all too many others? – J.Z., 18.5.12.

HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS, PRIVATE: I saw and read for the first time Thomas Paine’s human rights declaration on 27.3.06. Since I had been looking for such private declarations for decades, this, to me, was a good instance that such declarations, even by as famous men, are insufficiently published and referred to. It confirmed my effort to collect and publicize such declarations, as far as I can, since I started to do so in PEACE PLANS 589/590, since then digitized and somewhat supplemented. But how many other such declarations, possible excellent ones, did I still miss? By now there are thousands of books on human rights, but only few of them bother to publish any private declarations of such rights. The rest merely reproduce or discuss the all too flawed and incomplete statist and territorialist declarations and bills, which do not contain e.g. the right of individuals and minorities to secede and to organize under personal laws. Nor do they contain any monetary and financial rights and liberties – J.Z., n.d. & 19.10.07, 7.12.10, 18.5.12.

HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS, PRIVATE: Let me be a free man - free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself - and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty.” - In-mut-too-yah-lat-lat (Chief Joseph), 1879 – From Monica Cellio homepage. - Alas, he did not envision all the kinds of laws that would be passed. Otherwise he would have made his declaration much more complete. – J.Z., 20.9.08. – Why should he have to submit to any laws passed by others rather than merely to the personal laws he and like-minded people had chosen for themselves? . - This one is, probably, not yet included in my anthology of private human rights drafts. - J.Z., 7.12.10.


HUMAN RIGHTS: All too many would raise their personal human values above all human rights. Which human values and which human rights? Mine would be individual liberty, the right of individuals to secede, from armies, unions and even States, like from churches or spouses or employers, the right to issue own money tokens, to accept, refuse to accept or freely value those of others, the right to choose a standard of value, the right to supply oneself with work and to take all rightful and necessary steps for this purpose, the right to form and join militias for the protection of human rights, and to train in them with rightful weapons against all warmongers, the right to resist and rebel against oppression, the right to execute tyrants, the right to produce and exchange freely. If you don't mean all these - then what do you mean by that phrase? - J.Z., 28.8.1983,18.5.12. - Needless to say, perhaps, hardly anyone of the about 60 people or organizations, which I contacted with such ideas, approved of many or any of these. - J.Z., 8.1.1986.

HUMAN RIGHTS: Almost all experience teaches that one cannot safely entrust the protection of human rights to constitutions, courts, parliaments, laws, politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, policement, the UN, the mass media. What remains? Volunteer militias, their international federation, free juries, referendum, improved private human rights declarations, alternative publicity and enlightenment options, private enterprise education, panarchism (individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities under personal laws), a genuinely cultural revolution. - J.Z., 11.5.93, 18.10.02. – Perhaps, most important of all, a monetary and financial freedom revolution realizing the corresponding individual rights at liberties at least among their first subscribers. – J.Z., 7.12.10. - CRIME, PROTECTION, GOVERNMENTS, LAWS, CONSTITUTIONS, COURTS, POLICE, PARLIAMENTS, POLITICIANS, LAWYERS

HUMAN RIGHTS: At last some basic human rights are ignored or suppressed by all present governments. All territorial governments inevitably repress many individiual human rights of many minorities. - J.Z., 30.6.92, 18.5.12. - GOVERNMENTS & TERRITORIALISM

HUMAN RIGHTS: Draft of a New Declaration of those Human Rights and Natural Rights of Rational Beings which were so far discovered, edited by E. M. L./Z.; S.; U. v. Beckerath & J.Z., in PP 4 & pages 43ff, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

HUMAN RIGHTS: Each human being has an inalienable and inherent right to live his life in accordance with his own choices and values. Implicit in this statement is the recognition that since this is my right, it is also the right of every other individual and thus I have no right to coerce or harm another, regardless of the circumstances.” - Motto of Ruth Dazey, long time collaborator of Robert LeFevre.

HUMAN RIGHTS: How can one make most people think about their individual rights and how to get them recognized, protected and optimally applied? - J.Z., 20.6.92. - Obviously, the survival instinct on its own is not enough, nor is it sufficiently aided by government-controlled "education" or that provided by the mass media and conventional publishing. Even the Internet has so far offered more flawed observations, ideas and opinions than truthful ones. The whole enlightenment process has to be re-considered, changed and supplemented to become much more effective than it has been so far. See under Cultural Revolution. Obviously, we need also better and more complete declarations of individual rights and competitive education systems, as well as full experimental freedom in the political, economic and social sphere for volunteer communities of dissenters and the hierarchical military machines of territorial governments must be replaced by self-managed militia volunteers motivated, trained and armed to uphold nothing but individual rights and liberties. If the whole development is left to politicians, bureaucrats, priests, psychologists, lawyers, judges, and government subsidized teachers and professors, we might never reach that target. - J.Z., 20.6.92, 19.10.02, 18.5.12. - LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, CD PROJECT, IDEAS ARCHIVE, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF DEFINITIONS, SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS, FLOW CHART DISCUSSIONS, ELECTRONIC ARGUMENT MAPPING

HUMAN RIGHTS: Human rights are those rights, which you may not restrict in others, which everybody may limit only for himself - as long as he can wants this. - J.Z., 30.6. 84, 18.5.12.

HUMAN RIGHTS: It is the privilege of man's moral genius, impersonated by inspired individuals, to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and so well founded that men will accept them as grounded in the vast mass of their individual emotional experience. Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the text of experience.” - Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, ANALOG, Aug. 84, p. 155. - This did not prevent this moralizing scientist to recommend a totalitarian and total war “weapon” like the Atomic Bomb, supposedly as a means to fight totalitarianism. Did he ever come out instead, for e.g., tyrannicide and the duty to engage in military insurrections against tyrants? Did he favour one or several governments in exile, as volunteer communities, for those Germans who were not Nazis but spread, as usual, over the whole ideological spectrum? Wisdom in physics does not necessarily lead to wisdom in the social sciences. Quite a few scientists and myself as a non-scientists, have also their doubts on his wisdom in physics. - J.Z., 19.10.02. – My friend, Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, had written a book-length criticism of his theory of relativity, the manuscript of which ws burnt with his library in an air raid on Berlin in November 1943. In it he had accused E. e.g. of having mixed up diferente concepts of time. Only in B.’s correspondence can some hints towards his criticisim of E. be found. He never gota round to re-write this manuscript. – J.Z., 18.5.12. - MORALITY, ETHICS

HUMAN RIGHTS: Oath on Human Rights: See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VONOn Panarchy.

HUMAN RIGHTS: PRIVATE DECLARATIONS, AS OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENTAL ONES: A first anthology, including panarchistic statements, can be found in PEACE PLANS 589/590.It is online, enlarged and also digitized as part of CD that C. B. reproduced on

HUMAN RIGHTS: Respect for human rights creates peace. How to achieve this respect? Largely by replacing standing armies with ideal militias of volunteers for the protection of human rights, organized, armed and trained in accordance with their rights and liberties, sworn to fight for nothing else and to do so in association with all people whose rights have been suppressed and against their common enemies. By realizing freedom for exterritorially autonomous actions for all volunteer communities, thus teaching respect for human rights by realizing them oneself. Ending barriers to refugees and deserters. Allowing them to live under self-chosen laws wherever they please, as long as they respect the property and personal rights of others. By realizing full monetary and financial freedom and thus an end to most economic crises, to mass unemployment and depressions, to inflations and stagflations. By fully freed Free Trade and free enterprise for all those who have come to appreciate them. By letting enemies of human rights do their things to themselves, in their own volunteer communities. By finally compiling and sufficiently publicizing much improved private codes of individual rights, to replace the incomplete, flawed and self-contradictory bill of rights declarations of governments. By systematically recording and refuting, encyclopaedically, all errors, myths and prejudices on individual rights and liberties. - Just peruse my two books on the subject. ( ) And point out to me better titles on the same subject, please! - The connection between a genuine peace in freedom and justice and individual human rights could not be closer - and yet it remains all too widely overlooked. - J.Z., 19.10.02, 18.5.12. – PEACE, MILITIA, PANARCHISM & PANARCHIES, ENLIGHTENMENT, NEW DRAFT, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, ASYLUM, FREE MIGRATION

HUMAN RIGHTS: Respect for human rights is the greatest degree of tolerance, which is morally still justified and it implies anti-totalitarianism or condemnation of communist, Nazi and other dictatorships. There is no justification for tolerance towards the intolerant. - J.Z., in pamphlet on TOLERANCE. Naturally, I meant genuine individual rights and liberties, not the civil rights claims and welfare claims called rights by territorial governments etc. - J.Z., 15.10.11.

HUMAN RIGHTS: The authority for every citizen to represent the rights of a fellow citizen, even without that citizen's consent, before courts and government departments, moreover, the right to belong to autonomous communities for the protection of rights ...” – (Die Befugnis eines jeden Buergers die Rechte eines jeden Mitbuergers auch ohne dessen Einverstaendnis vor Gerichten und Behoerden zu vertreten, ferner das Recht, autonomen Rechtsgemeinschaften anzugehoeren, ...") - Note by Ulrich von Beckerath, Anmerkung zu Theodor Hertzka, Das Soziale Problem, towards the end, and reproduced in PEACE PLANS No. 551.

HUMAN RIGHTS: The purpose of every political association is the preservation of the natural and eternal human rights. These are: Freedom, property, security and resistance against oppression.” – (Der Zweck jeder politischen Vereinigung is die Erhaltung der natuerlichen und ewigen Menschenrechte. Diese sind: Freiheit, Eigentum, Sicherheit und Widerstand gegen Unterdrueckung.”) - Lafayette, Erklaerung der Menschenrechte. - I would concede that for panarchies (by the intentions of their volunteers, not necessarily for their internal policies, while for their external policies they would have to abide by them), but not for territorial States! Most territorial constitutions do not even contain an individual rights declaration. If they do contain a Bill of Rights then it is usually very incomplete and flawed. - J.Z., 18.10.02, 8.5.12. - PRIVATE HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS: We are interested in human rights because we are involved with mankind. Beyond that there is the pragmatic argument. Human rights are a precondition to effective arms control.” - William F. Buckley, Jr., The Governor Listeth, Putnams, 1975-78, p.40. - Governments are the worst kind of arms controllers for the arms of other governments. (*) Free people, free individuals, are the best kinds of holders of rightful arms and can form the best kinds of organizations to control or destroy arms in the hands of territorial governments. - J.Z., 29.4.00. – (*) As for their own “arms”: Some of them resort even to mass murder devices and stockpile them – in readiness! – J.Z., 18.5.12. - ARMS CONTROL

HUMAN: Only human. That's the trouble with them. Being human in this day isn't quite enough. I ask you, my friend, what is the history of conference?” - Clifford D. Simak, Ring Around the Sun, 195. - As if we had already fully explored and utilized the full potential of human beings, e.g., via an Ideas Archive, Panarchies, Monetary Freedom and all forms of Self-management. – International conferences between territorial governments do not secure genuine individual rights and liberties any more than the permanente conferences of national “representatives” do in parliaments. They do represent authoritarian regimes and Warfare States rather than their subjects and, especially not the lovers of peace, justice and individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., n.d. & 18.5.12. -  HUMANITY, MAN, CONFERENCES BETWEEN “LEADERS”, TERRITORIALISM, POLITIANS, SUMMIT CONFERENCES, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS

HUMANE STUDIES REVIEW: Archives, article list, Winter 1992 - Spring 97, of articles available online, 1p: 327, in PP 1689-1693.

HUMANE: By what strange and distorted definition could one be regarded as humane who would restrict and control the decision-making of other human beings over their own lives, or impose external direction upon others and does deny them the opportunity to create for themselves the diversity of experiences upon which personal development and self-actualization depend?” - Butler D. Shaffer, Calculated Chaos, p.227.

HUMANISM: Ein System, dass die Humanitaet vergoettert, wird sie in der Praxis verteufeln." - Ernst R. Hauschka. (A system that worships humanity will, in practice, degenerate it.  – Only a J.Z. translation.) Why? - Even humanists, rationalists and libertarians are, naturally, not infallible. But as long as they turn only their own lives into misery or hell, they have the right to do so. They become inhuman if they want to enforce their theories over a whole territory and all its dissenters. They share that wrongful ambition with most other “true believers”, also with most "democrats" and most "republicans". Each will find it easier to find himself and his ideas and utopias "divine", rather than those of others. Consequently, he will be inclined to subordinate all others to himself and his system. Even humanists, rationalists, libertarians etc. are, naturally, not infallible either. But, as long as they were practising merely a competitive atheism, within the framework of religious tolerance or freedom, i.e. tried only to turn their own lives into misery, hell or paradise, they should have the right to do so. They become inhuman only if and to the extent that they do try to enforce their theories and ideals within a whole territory and thus for all its dissidents, too, like the totalitarian atheists did and do. They share that wrongful and territorialist ambition with most other "true believers", including the religious fundamentalists, ideologues, democrats, republicans and modern liberals. - J.Z. 5.7.92, 15.1.93, 10.12.03, 16.9.04. - & THE WORSHIP OF MAN, - HUMANITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM, DOGMATISM, FANATICISM, TRUE BELIEVERS, COMMUNISM, NAZIS, CHRISTIANITY, PEOPLE, NATIONALISM, RELIGIOUS & IDEOLOGICAL INTELERANCE, MYTH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE, RACE, FAITH

HUMANITY, PRIDE & SELF-MASTERY: the pride of humanity is that we are not bound by instinct and reflex (*); we are free because we can master ourselves." - Poul Anderson, Past Times, 113. - (*) or rules made by others not only for themselves but for us, too, and forced upon us. - J.Z., 6.4.91.

HUMANITY: Ethnicity is the small picture. Humanity is the big picture.” - Jewish wise man quoted on radio. - 14.10.93. - But no one should be bound to either picture but each should have his own choice. If any ethnic or world-wide community refused membership to particular individuals then they should remain free to establish their own for themselves, country- or world-wide, under full exterritorial autonomy. Integration should be voluntary, too, i.e., should come by individual choice, not by law, with biologically mixed or integrated communities gradually taking over a larger and larger part of the world population. There has been and will be a strong biological pressure in this direction. - J.Z., 28.10.02, 7.12.10, 18.5.12. - ETHNICITY

HUMANITY: Panarchism would humanize man. J.Z. 9.7.92. Territorial State robotize or kill him. J.Z. 6.1.93.

HUMANKIND: The condition of man … is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.” - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, I, 4 - Yes, under territorialism. No - under exterritorialism. - J.Z., 12.10.02. - HUMANS, HUMAN NATURE, WAR, AGGRESSION, INBORN AGGRESSIVENESS, MAN MANKIND, WAR, PEACE, DIS., TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM

HUMANS: Human rights for all who are human. Hitler, e.g., wasn't. - J.Z., 15.11.75. - Tyrants are intolerable aliens. They must be exterminated if they cannot be put in circus cages. - J.Z., 19.10.02. - Whoever believes that Saddam Hussein was freely and willingly elected by 100% of his voters - will believe anything. - Alas, the communist regimes got away with such pretences for all too long. - No tyrant is human enough to deserve all human rights. Nevertheless, he should be granted the liberty to lord it over volunteers. We may need their deterrent examples to better appreciate our individual rights and liberties. J.Z., 3.11.02, 18.5.12. - HUMAN RIGHTS, TYRANNICIDE

HUMANS: the pattern of human life upon the planet Earth. A solid pattern, linked and double-linked, made strong through many years. Nothing can threaten it, nothing can shake it. With certain slow and gradual changes, it will prevail against any threat which may be brought against it.” - Clifford Simak, Skirmish, in: Strangers in the Universe, p.143. - The territorial pattern, although becoming stronger in recent centuries, has not made man more free and secure but more unfree and insecure. Slow and gradual all-over changes are not permitted by this framework. It leads to sudden and over-whelming disasters, especially when combined with notions of "collective responsibility" and the ABC  mass murder "weapons" which makes the realization of wrongful action based upon collective resplonsibility notions easy: Mass murders by button-pushing! Only individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities would permit slow and gradual changes away from it, for individuals and minorities - and these changes might soon come fast and for many and lead to ruther sudden and radical changes - but all only for volunteers. - J.Z., 18.10.02, 18.5.12. - MAN, SURVIVAL, GRADUALISM, PANARCHISM, TYRANNICIDE, TERRITORIALISM

HUMBOLDT, WILHELM von, Ideen zu einem Versuch die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen. (Ideas in an Attempt to Determine the Limits of the Effectiveness of the State.) Written from 1792 onwards, completed 1792, but only partly published then. First complete edition after his death, was in 1851.] According to my undated edition of the Deutsche Bibliothek in Berlin, first published in his collected works in 1841. According to a Biographical Uebersicht by Hartfrid Voss, "Eine theoretische Negation der allgemeinen Staatspraxis, wie sie Friedrich d.Gr. im materiellen Bereich, sein Nachfolger aber auch auf das geistige Dasein auszudehnen trachtete." (A theoretical negation of the general practice of States, which Frederick the Great tried to extend to the material sphere and his successor also to the mental life.") - I microfilmed a 1854 translation by Joseph Coulhart, London, John Chapman, entitled The Sphere and Duties of Government, in PEACE PLANS 205. Siegel Verlag, Frankfurt A.M. published it in 1947 entitled "Grenzen des Staates". Reclam published it under the original German title 1967ff. - The Limits of State Action, Cambridge University Press, 1969. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 1993. - H. wanted to confine the State to internal and external security and leave everything else to private initiative. Even that limitation does still trust the territorial State all too much. See also under DIBELIUS, OTTO, Dr., who developed W. 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. - J.Z., 4.10.11.

HUMMEL, JEFFREY ROGERS, & DON LAVOIE, National Defense and the Public-Goods Problem. In Arms, Politics, and the Economy, 1990, edited by Robert Higgs. New York: Holmes and Meier for The Independent Institute.

HUMMEL, JEFFREY ROGERS, A Practical Case for Denationalizing Defense. 1986. The Pragmatist 3 (April): 1, 8 – 10, and (June): 3-4.

HUMMEL, JEFFREY ROGERS, Deterrence vs. Disarmament. 1981. Caliber 9 (October–November): 8 – 10.

HUMMEL, JEFFREY ROGERS, National Goods versus Public Goods: Defense, Disarmament, and Free Riders. 1990. Review of Austrian Economics 4: 88 – 122.

HUMMEL, JEFFREY ROGERS, The Will to Be Free. The Role of Ideology in National Defense. - THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, v.V, n.4, Spring 2001, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright © 2001, pp. 523–537. - It is also standing up for private or market-like defence efforts. - To my knowledge, none of these and other libertarian writings on defence, except my own, explore the militia options and other libertarian steps to make a victory against any territorial system not only possible but likely. See e.g. under DESERTION, WAR AIMS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, MILITIA. - J.Z., 24.9.11.

HUNGER: All you have to do is leave people alone.” - L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach, p.120. - That does not quite apply e.g. to natural catastrophes. But voluntary and private catastrophe insurance is also possible and in certain forms, using monetary freedom, combined with loan and levy arrangements, affordable. - When they are subject to despotic rulers some outside help against them, consisting mainly of the provision of a libertarian resistance, liberation, revolution and military insurrection program, advanced by an international militia federation, would also be justified interventionism. - J.Z., 24.1.02. – Most helpful might be the platforms and examples of governments in exile, all only for their present and their future volunteers, in form of panarchies. - STARVATION, POVERTY, UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, IN FORM OF COMPETING VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES, PANARCHISM

HUTCHINSON HARRIS, S.: Auberon Herbert: Crusader for Liberty, 1943, indexed, 382 pages, in PEACE PLANS No. 767.

HUTCHINSON HARRIS, S.: The Doctrine of Personal Right, Barcelona, 1935, 594 pages, Concursos Patxot I Ferrer, Estudis Historics, Politics I. Socials, 42 x reduced, in PEACE PLANS No. 483.  - Reviews even Follin! page 316 & 317: “ … M. Henri L. Follin, who seeks to found a reasoned theory of opposition to compulsory cooperation on the alternative of liberty under the natural order.  Imbued with the political philosophy of Herbert Spencer, he imported to his masterly exposition of it in France the logical clearness of French diction, and the French spirit of orderliness. … “

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE: Statement Issued in Commemoration of the 1st. Anniversary of the Secession of the Hutt River Province, 21.4.1971, page 7, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PEACE PLANS 510.

HYDE, C. C., International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, 2 vols., Boston. Little, Brown and Co., 1922.

HYSLOP, R. C., The Birth of a Principality, a book designed by Earl of Noin, Frank Posh, copyrighted Hutt River Province, 1973, second printing: January 1976, page 44. - Prepared by R.C. Hyslop in collaboration with Prince Leonard, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PEACE PLANS 510.

HYSLOP, R.C., The Man, His Royal Highness Prince Leonard, Sovereign of The Hutt River Province Principality, An Independent Sovereign State, since 1970, in Western Australia, n.d., 95pp, 1-86, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PEACE PLANS 832. 



[Home] [Top]