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 - J

(1973 - 2012)



JACKPINE SAVAGE: in ON PANARCHY X, in PEACE PLANS 755. All of this sub-series are digitized by now.

JACOBSON, PHILIP E., Free Accord Law: Ethical Communities. This article by Philip E. Jacobson was published in the Winter 1995-96 issue of FORMULATIONS, a publication of the Free Nation Foundation. - This paper was presented at our 14 October 1995 Forum. FNF archives. - - Outline - Preface - 1.0 Game Ecology - 2.0 Ethical Communities - 3.0 Levels of Moral Seriousness - 4.0 Larger Populations - 5.0 Characterizing Community Size - 6.0 Multiple Ethical Systems Within Single Societies - 7.0 Enforcement of Community Standards - 8.0 State as Defender of Public Morality - 9.0 Overlapping Membership by Individuals - - Preface. - As a college student majoring in social science, I began to take an interest in the natural history of the political system of our civilization, but found that the subject was never treated comprehensively. Now, more than twenty years later, I find myself trying to write such a treatment. Initially I intended this to be only an article, but it keeps growing and threatens to become a book. I'd really rather not go that far, but there is a message here that needs to be written. - So what you have here is only part of the whole. I have developed an outline, and have been filling it in as time passes, but the FNF publication deadline now forces me to stop adding new material. I present several sections here, each of which I hope stands alone fairly well, but which I admit you may have trouble correlating to the central theme, as some connecting sections remain to be written. The feedback in this Forum will help me, both in clarifying the message and in containing it to an appropriate size. - In writing this I draw upon most of a lifetime of reading in a subject, which falls under the general heading of "political anthropology." I draw from the eclectic presentations I was exposed to in college, as well as from a continuous diet of self-assigned readings since that time. - - The thesis, which I intend to develop in the whole work, when complete, is that statist law is inherently negative sum, as opposed to free accord law, which in humans is naturally disposed to be positive sum in the extreme. - Now, having used the terms "negative sum" and "positive sum," I need to explain those terms. We jump in with an excursion into game theory. - 1.0 Game Ecology - 1.1 Categorizing Games by the Sums of Their Points - Any activity can be viewed as a game. Each game will have some goal, which can be thought of as being a "point" or quantity of points, which each player seeks to obtain. Different games will have different ways of assigning points. The success of individuals is measured in the minds of players. A player may not visualize quantities of "points" while playing, but will in some way (perhaps subconsciously) perceive how well the goal is being achieved. Game theory provides a way of categorizing games in terms of "points" regardless of how players see the game. It is especially useful in appraising how the acquisition of points by one player influences the ability of other players to gain points. - Thus we find it informative to categorize games by their sum, which is simply the total of all the scores of all the individual players. The sum gives us a view of the whole — whether the whole loses, holds even, or gains. - - 1.2 Standard Game Types. These first three game types were described as part of Game Theory, a science invented by computer pioneer John Von Neumann in the 1950s. - 1.2.1 Negative sum: # points diminishes with play. Thus someone must lose points, even if no one wins. Example: most human wars. - 1.2.2 Zero sum: # points stays constant during play. Thus in order for someone to win points, someone must lose. Example: the game of poker, when the players are forced to limit their bets to what was on the table at the beginning of play. - 1.2.3 Positive sum: # points rises with play. Though some may lose points, some must win. Example: a healthy economy. - - 1.3 Additional Positive Sum Types. - Even in "positive sum" games a lot of players can lose a lot of points. For them the entire experience can be negative. It is useful therefore to note the possibilities of positive sum games, which are not at all negative. For this purpose I have added (with the help of Robert Bass) the following categories of games. 1.3.1 Superlative sum = no losers, though some may not gain. - 1.3.2 Supreme sum = all winners, though some may win more than others. - 1.4 Questions of Player Perspective - 1.4.1 What are points for player? Individuals interacting with one another may each use a different type of point. Example: one individual may join an activity thinking of it as a way to get money, while another individual may join the same activity seeking power over other people during the course of play. - 1.4.2 Which game type does player see as best way to get his points? - What seems positive sum to one individual may seem negative to another individual. Objective appraisals can be difficult. - 1.4.3 Does player see other types of games or other types of points as part of his ecology? In the last example, both players may (or may not) be aware of one another's perspectives, yet continue to consciously pursue different kinds of points. - 1.5 Mixed Interactions. 1.5.1 Players with different x-sum approaches. A player may have a personal philosophy which values a particular "x-sum" (one of the summation types: negative sum, zero sum, etc.) over the others. That player may set personal limitations beyond the rules of the game or violate others' concepts of the rules of the game in order to be able to play the particular x-sum. - 1.5.2 Players with different scoring (point) systems. As noted above, two players may play with each other but use separate rules — especially scoring rules. - 1.5.3 Competition within a positive-sum system. - "Zero sum within positive sum": a player may adopt a zero-sum perspective even though the players as a whole operate in a positive sum context. - 1.5.4 Cooperation within a zero or negative sum system. "Positive sum within negative sum": an individual is able to play positive sum, even though others around them are playing negative or zero sum. - - 2.0 Ethical Communities. The most basic social institutions, which foster coordination are those which sustain and develop community ethics. A community's system of ethics provides the foundation for cooperation in all other areas. For most of humanity's time on the earth there were no legal systems as we now know them. Stateless ethical systems flourished throughout the world amidst a wide variety of climates and customs. Today it is commonly assumed that ethical enforcement requires a special social institution dedicated to law enforcement, provided by a state. But state institutions of justice are neither necessary nor desirable. The systems of early man are still alive, well, and in the absence of interference from the state, capable of dealing with modern conditions. - For most of the time humans have been on the earth, people have been hunters and gatherers. Only after the last ice age, which ended a little over 10,000 years ago, did other forms of subsistence evolve. Hunting and gathering peoples do not have different kinds of communities. There were no special community types devoted to various kinds of productivity, or recreation, or religion, or political affiliation. The skills known to the culture were practiced, with varying degrees of proficiency, by each individual. A given society's culture could be contained entirely within a small group of people varying in size from perhaps 10 to 50 individuals. While many such communities might exist for a given culture, they were all pretty much the same. There were no distinct institution groups devoted to religious or political orientation. Everyone within a community had the same religion. Everyone participated in enforcing ethics without recourse to governmental organization. - The state began as a tribute relationship between an army and a conquered people. Successful states began to take a greater interest in the affairs of the conquered. The military elite of these states usually came from herding peoples who saw the conquered population as cattle to be cultivated. Over time the state's leaders assumed judicial authority over the conquered population and began to assign elements of its army to serve as police. Though institutions described as promoting "self-government" have been established in some societies, citizen participation in them is minimal and largely limited to conforming to decisions made by state officials; the state's law enforcement officials still behave as herdsmen. [And we are treated largely as their property: voting cattle, tax slaves, military slaves etc. - J.Z., 3.9.11.] - A society with a state apparatus is composed of many communities at war (usually "cold war" but sometimes "guerrilla war") with one another. The state will enact a set of laws and encourage propaganda in support of the notion that there is a moral code, which is applicable to all individuals and all communities within the society. Indeed, the state will endorse the notion that there is in fact only one community and that any conflicts with its laws are merely the reflection of the immorality of individuals. In fact, states occur only in societies with economies with a system of division of labor based largely on membership in many separate communities. These communities will inherently have differing ethical standards. The effort by the state to conscript all the communities into a single standard may not be an endorsement of morality. It is probably the opposite. When a state promotes a single set of standards it fosters conflict. It sets itself up as an arbiter between conflicting parties, playing them off against one another. This tactic is primarily useful during times of peace and prosperity. During times of conflict with other societies or of times of general poverty there are plenty of "natural" conflicts. - - 3.0 Levels of Moral Seriousness. In modern societies the moral perspective of hunter-gatherers has been supplemented by that of the state. But the collective emotions through which modern people approach the ethics of given behavior are similar to those of hunter-gatherers. People still choose from among the same options when assigning importance to moral issues. With respect to the seriousness of a specific issue, people within a given group will react to the issue with varying degrees of concern when another group member violates the ethic. Morality differs greatly from culture to culture. What is a serious matter in one group may be of little or no consequence in another. Within a given culture important issues can remain very casual affairs, while issues with very little physical significance can provoke extreme concern from group members. As children modern individuals often receive their most severe scolding for walking too near to street traffic. But jaywalking is among the most trivial of offences for an adult. Similarly, one is taught in an unlicensed (though cautious) situation how to light a match as a child, and needs no permit to use fire as an adult, though fire is one of humanity's deadliest weapons. Yet the use of emotionally charged words may become so controversial that laws are proposed to protect citizens from them. And a food or drug accepted as harmless or even beneficial by one culture may become among the most contraband of substances in a neighboring culture. - The level of seriousness with which an ethic is taken is not correlated with the physical importance of the ethic. It is correlated with the type of reactions of the community when the ethic is violated. It is useful to examine this variable when considering the way groups use ethics to coordinate the behavior of individuals. - - 3.1 Habits. - At some point, repeated behaviors tend to take on a "life" of their own, and members will tend to follow the ethical standards and expect other members to follow them out of habit. Indeed many of the standards of behavior may not even be "rules," may not even be spoken of officially. Patterns of behavior which work for an individual in the community context will be repeated thoughtlessly and may be copied by others just as thoughtlessly. - In a study of the sociology of ethics, it is useful to categorize a group's patterns of behavior by the level of moral seriousness they are accorded by the members of a group. The categories used here are based on observations made by the sociologist William G. Sumner in his book Folkways (1906). - - 3.2 Folkways. - Beyond mere habits, Sumner noted the existence of folkways, standards of behavior that are socially approved but not considered to be of moral significance. Folkways are the preferred behavior, the customary way of doing things. Group members may be uncomfortable when folkways are not adhered to. They may even mention their discomfort. But failure to adhere to folkways is not "wrong" and does not call for sanctions. - - 3.3 Mores. - The next serious kind of standard Sumner noted were mores (pronounced "morays"; singular: "mos"). Failure to adhere to mores is deemed "wrong" by the group, but has not been made unlawful. Group members feel strongly about mores and usually consider them essential to the group's welfare. Therefore some sanction against anyone violating a mos is usually undertaken. But because the morality is not a part of the law the sanctioning will be informal and may be limited to ostracism and/or serious criticism. - - 3.4 Law - Sumner focused his discussion on informal morality, but most cultures recognized the existence of law as well. Law (which may be a product of tradition, legislation, or decree) is not only a standard of behavior, but also involves standards of enforcement. When one is accused of breaking a law, the community expects a procedure to be initiated, which includes some mandatory form of judgment and, in the case of one found guilty, of punishment. However, many communities do not have any formal moral structure and thus have no laws. - - 3.5 Taboo. - The most severe form of moral standard is the taboo (not discussed by Sumner). - (Note by J.Z., 22.8.1999: In the index of the Mentor Book edition of Sumner's Folkways I find 34 references to taboos. He also refers to them in his essay on rights. See Davie, Maurice R., Sumner Today, 1940. In Edward Sagarin"s "William Graham Sumner, Folkways and Mores, Schocken, N.Y., 1970, 15 references to taboos are indexed. I suppose that still more references can be found in his other works. What P.J. may have meant is that S. may not have SUFFICIENTLY DISCUSSED taboos in his FOLKWAYS. That is quite possible.) - - A taboo involves unthinkable behavior and can be considered an extreme form of law. A member in good standing of a group simply would not commit a taboo. Thus if someone does commit a taboo, they are no longer considered a part of the group. The minimum punishment is banishment, which may be supplemented by other punishments, possibly by execution. In Western Civilization the notion of a taboo is found in the concept of the outlaw. Anyone branded an outlaw has offended the community so much that they are literally outside the law. They may be killed on sight without a trial by any community member. - - 3.6 The Standard for Appraising the Level of an Ethic. - Generally, if an ethic is readily accepted by individuals it will not be imbued with a great deal of socially charged emotion. Thus it will be low on the scale of moral seriousness. To rate highly on the scale of moral seriousness an ethic must be associated with a behavior which is both important and controversial. That is, the members of the group subscribing to the ethic must feel both that the issue is important and also that a serious risk of deviant behavior exists. - - 3.7 Hunter-Gatherers Don't Need Lawyers. - The most important point to be made regarding levels of moral seriousness for various community standards is that most of the behavioral controls are not a matter of law. Most community standards are adhered to because the individuals who abide by them believe in the standards or conform to them out of habit. No society could function if its morality was strictly a matter of law. Nor could it function if most of its members required constant prodding and complaints from their neighbors (folkway style enforcement) in order to get them to conform its standards. - Only when there is serious disagreement with regard to the community's standards, when significant factions within the community seriously disagree on the ethic, is there a need for a sizable institution for enforcing the standards. For hunter-gatherers this probably happened rarely. Their small communities relied mostly on habit — to a lesser degree on folkways and mores. If a hunter-gatherer band had a significant internal disagreement, a respected individual not party to the dispute could arbitrate it, but would not need a special rank to do so. If this did not work individuals could and did stop associating with their opponents. Perhaps the band would split into two bands. Perhaps one or more individuals would join a neighboring band. - - 4.0 Larger Populations. - 4.1 Multiple-Community Societies. - After a relatively large number of people began to live near each other in permanent dwellings, that is to say in large villages, societies began to fragment into a number of separate communities. As economic specialization became common, both within and between villages, the specialized communities operating within a larger economy and society became possible. People still preferred to associate in small groups of individuals with common interests. But a single society required the economic coordination of a large (by hunter-gatherer standards) group of people. Therefore small communities within each urban area continued to provide the basis for social organization — and to provide for the formulation and enforcement of ethics. - At first these communities were based on common residence, as neighborhoods emerged in towns. But soon ethnic background provided a further distinction between communities, as individuals from different cultures began to fill cities. Differing ethnic backgrounds often meant differing religions as well. But as religious beliefs spread between people, there came to be recognizable - "communities" composed of common believers in a given religion who might have differing ethnic backgrounds. - - 4.2 The Impact of Increased Population on Ethical Systems. - In the earliest villages, it would still have been possible for rival factions to move away from one another to avoid hostile contact. The hunter-gatherers' methods of enforcing ethics could still be used. The experiences of each small community still provided a context for a unique set of habits and traditions. These habits were still taught to children in informal settings, mostly simply by example. But as populations grew, town dwellers became relatively immobile. Increasingly, diplomacy between factions and the use of arbitration were required tools of resolving moral questions. These tools would later be appropriated by the state. But stateless communities could and did live in peace beside one another. - - 4.3 Social Complexity in Modern Times. - Technological innovations have enabled the number of people living within one urban area to become much larger. Technology has also improved communications and transportation over great distances. Various interest groups associated with these economic factors have tended to form communities in themselves. So there are communities made of merchants, of seamen, of various kinds of craftsmen, etc. These groups might tend to associate not only with locals of the same occupation, but also be able to see themselves as belonging to communities which transcend local residence. Increased communication also lets individuals of common ethnic or religious background associate with others like themselves in other towns, and thus to develop or maintain a sense of community. - - 4.4 Virtual communities: hunter-gatherer ethical systems re-emerging. - As communications systems continue to advance, we see the emergence of "virtual communities" composed of individuals whose primary interaction is via electronic media. These communities have an unparalleled flexibility to add or drop members. Single communities can be formed by persons with a wide variety of interests across huge distances. They provide a way for modern persons with limited physical mobility to leave their local communities (sometimes temporarily) and join new communities with behaviors and perspectives which are rare. As a result, individuals who participate in these new groups have a group membership flexibility like that of hunter-gatherers. - (Note by J.Z.: Before the Internet we had some "virtual communities" via messengers, mail, telephone calls and personal transport {visits}. Many family, friendship, professional, tradesmen and scholarship ties were kept in this way. Personal law has a very long tradition. See also the studies on associationism in the Middle Ages. Today, and even before the Internet happened, the U.S. has probably more voluntary associations than any other country has. Theoretically, a reading and publishing community might also be held together by microfilm. The speed and flexibility of communication is often less important than its availability, quantity and quality. Electronics have so far promised much more than delivered. - Non-territorial and voluntary communities are not an invention of the Internet. P. J. recognizes this in some of the following sections. - J.Z., 22.10.99.) - - 5.0 Characterizing Community Size. - Herding cultures measure the esteem of an individual or group by the number of animals in their flock or herd. To the leaders of a state, this means that the larger the population under the state's control the better. This virtue may be supplemented by advantages of large armies over small ones in battle. But to field a large army the leader must control the productivity of many times as many civilians. The effective limits are those of civilian control. - However, even hunter-gatherers seem to have had some concept of group beyond the small hunting band. Family connections, especially tended to be recognized. - Anthropologists have noted patterns in pre-literate organizational hierarchy which seem to repeat themselves and may be biologically based. - - 5.1 Peer Group. - The smallest group is the peer group. This corresponds to the nuclear family. Peer groups may also be formed in other contexts, such as work, recreation, etc. as mentioned above. Even in pre-literate cultures, an individual may be a member of more than one peer group. The family unit might be supplemented by a hunting (or gathering) peer group. An individual might even have friends from other tribes. - Peer ethics tend to be the most informal. Yet a peer group can debate and consciously adopt standards which are in effect laws, and taboos may exist. - - 5.2 Clan. - The next size of group is the extended family or clan size, formed from several peer-sized groups. One example of a non-family clan sized group is the religious "congregation", usually composed of several families. In some agricultural cultures, the "hamlet" is a residentially based clan sized group. Several peer groups within a relatively small business might form, but the business as a whole be a clan-sized grouping. - As with peer groups, the full range of ethical seriousness is possible for a clan. But because communication between clan members may take more time, a moral issue may be resolved more slowly. If possible, clan ethics will be addressed within the peer groups which make up the clan. But clan-wide enforcement mechanisms may also exist. Gossip becomes an important vehicle for assessing moral issues, and may become the basis for ostracism or praise. - - 5.3 Tribe. - The next sized group in pre-literate cultures is the tribe, composed of several clans. Usually tribes have extensive intermarriage and common culture, but the people may not all live together, or even very near to one another. In pre-literate societies it is common for the peoples of a tribe to believe that they are all descended from a single ancestor, though intermarriage may be the only true kin bond. - The notion of being "good children" of the common ancestor might be a basis for discussion of ethics amongst pre-literate tribe members. This or other common experiences would provide a foundation for a common spoken literature. Stories, especially moral tales, become a vehicle for communication across clan and peer group lines, and also across time. - As urban populations grew and occupational specialties multiplied new kinds of tribes emerged. Tribal sized organization is found in small communities, which support several religious congregations. A religious denomination may organize at tribal size across a large geographic area. An industrial organization may also be organized at the tribal level with several departments organized as clan-sized operations. Tribes can come together in one physical location occasionally, but usually remain dispersed most of the time, though in communication via individual or group contacts which cut across clan and peer group lines. - - 5.4 Nation. - The next sized group in preliterate cultures is the nation. A nation is usually recognized as speakers of a common language. Nations usually have a number of distinct tribal level groups within them. It is extremely rare that all the peoples of a nation would come together in one place, though various forms of communication will be made easier by their common language, which will tend to keep them in contact. As a result, even if there are no formal ethical systems that extend across the whole nation, at least some common culture will be maintained which will encourage common values. - Literary tradition and overlapping membership in kin or other groups provided the common ethical link for pre-state communities. There was no effort to - promote a morality for the whole nation except through these ways of sharing experiences. The fact that the local communities within a nation would have somewhat varying traditions and thus varying ethical traditions was readily accepted. Notions of "law" would probably be a matter for clan or tribal affairs, even if they existed across a whole nation. Of course, diplomacy remained a major tool for resolving inter-tribal issues. - A nation-sized grouping might form across traditional "nationalities" amongst the practitioners of a single profession or the enthusiasts of a single recreational pursuit. Individuals within such groups would tend to adopt a lingo of their own which, while pursuing the profession or hobby, would give them greater affinity to others knowing this lingo than to kinsmen or neighbors. - - 5.5 Civilization. - The largest sized grouping is the civilization. A civilization is a cultural pattern, which transcends several nationalities. It may be based on a common religion, or a common economy. It may, but need not, have a common political system. If it is dominated by one political entity, then it is properly termed an empire. Even in the absence of a single political regime, ideas and world views will tend to travel within a civilization more easily than between the peoples of two or more civilizations. While language barriers will make the establishment of common customs and values more difficult than within single nations, there will still be some commonality of ethics. - The recognition of distinct civilizations (as opposed to nations) probably did not occur amongst hunter-gatherers. It may not even have occurred for years after town-dwelling became common. The perspective needed to observe civilizational differences requires contact with highly varied cultures across a wide geographic area. - (Note by J.Z.: Villages, towns and especially cities formed smaller civilizations of people from different backgrounds and groupings. I find of special interest the scarce hints that some cities were established by run-away slaves, who rapidly put up some defences against their former masters, hunting them.) - - 6.0 Multiple Ethical Systems Within Single Societies. - While families still provided a basic environment for moral instruction, the new peer associations of the new communities also contributed to the formulation and promoting of ethics. Indeed, the new groups began to provide important ethical reference points, even for morality taught in the home. The ethical differences between cultures had previously been traceable to local geography and the common experience of the specific bands of hunter-gatherers. The new environments, which fostered the new types of groups, also encourage a change of ethical perspective. - Desert dwellers might find it expedient to punish a water thief, while people living in a very wet climate might not even consider the concept of water theft. Similarly, a merchant community would value a certain kind of cleverness in deal making while a farmer would see this as abusive. - Typically, each individual in the new complex societies would initially have learned an ethical tradition in a single small group, probably a family group. But as that individual made additional contacts in the society, they would have come into contact with other communities with other traditions. This would not necessarily have strained human nature, as differing cultures had made peaceful contacts even when all humans were hunter-gatherers. Indeed, it has been observed that hunter-gatherers, not usually needing to defend land, do not tend to have wars, but rather to be able to make friendly contact with other traditions from time to time. A hunter-gatherer might even be granted honorary membership in a "foreign" band. - Similarly a citizen in a complex society might be a member of more than one community, especially as an adult. So in complex societies, adults came to find it necessary to shift ethical perspectives rapidly when moving from group to group. This capacity, a variant of the hunter-gatherers' relationship with neighboring bands, is still with us. We have evolved to institutions which tend to argue for "universal" morality, the state and many religious organizations. - Religion, in particular is often though of as being the primary institution for ethics. Yet we continue to be highly flexible in practice. There is a high correlation in civilized societies between religion and ethics. - Yet while all religions do have ethical concerns, many ethical concerns are supported by non-religious interests. For instance a ball player may agree to abide by the rulings of an umpire, but then argue when he is judged to have violated the rules. From a religious point of view the player's honesty or integrity might be questioned. But the rules of the ball game have no religious significance. Other players and fans of the game form a community, which understands the rules and supports them as valuable to the game. The "game community" is the foundation of the ball game ethics, not a spiritual belief. Indeed players and fans may have little or no agreement on spiritual matters yet still support the ethics of the game. - - 7.0 Enforcement of Community Standards. - The herdsman needs to understand the nature of his animal, especially as it behaves in a social context. When state leaders seek to herd humans this problem is complicated by the flexibility of human culture. The would-be herder of a large, complex society cannot hope to understand the varieties of lifestyle of the many communities which make up his herd. It is much easier to order the foreign cultures he has conquered to adhere to the leader's own culture. But people naturally adapt their habits to the particulars of their situations. They also enjoy being recognized as members of distinct groups, and are inclined to adopt symbolic ways of displaying group identity such as clothing styles. No elite culture, no matter how repressive, can fully suppress group differences. - Yet too much pride by a group might lead it to rebel. - - 7.1 Informal Enforcement. - 7.1.1 Negative informal. - Enforcement of community standards, which are merely habits or folkways, is primarily a matter of (usually) informal training of new members by example. Humans naturally tend to try to fit into a new group. Children naturally try to copy the older members of the group. Some explicit reference to group behaviors may be made, but usually when reference to group habits or folkways occurs, it can be done indirectly or through oral or written literary traditions. Perhaps the term "enforcement" does not even apply, as the major effect of these activities is simply to make the habit or folkway more comfortable than alternative behaviors. - - 7.1.2 Positive informal. - Informal enforcement can also include positive incentives. - - 7.2 Overt Enforcement. - 7.2.1 Overt negative incentives. - When community standards reach the level of mores, practical enforcement issues become overt. If a group member is rude or conducts themselves in an otherwise "immoral" way, the remaining group members feel a need to react. Again, for the most part, there is no organized effort for enforcement. Those who observe the immorality will be critical of it both to the offender and to others. Even if an offender is not confronted directly they will "get the message" through ostracism and the knowledge that others tend to criticize. All individuals will know about the gossip system of the community through direct participation when they are not offending parties, so they can assume that even when they are not directly confronted, that criticism is being made behind their back. A particularly offensive behavior may provoke a physical attack on the offender's person, properties, or perhaps their friends and family. However, to the extent that the community is harmonious, such punishments will tend to be matters of law. - - 7.2.2 Overt positive incentives. - These are also possible. - - 7.3 Organized Enforcement. - 7.2.3 Organized negative. - Particularly serious offenses may provoke organized efforts to punish the offender. At this point we may say that the matter has become "political," especially if there is not agreement amongst the community on the need for or type of punishment. If possible, the accuser(s) will try to invoke law against the accused. If the accuser succeeds in invoking law then the matter falls within the community's established traditions and the results will not appear custom tailored to the particular offense or offender. This will make the community much more accepting of the proceedings. Failure to invoke law may embroil the community in factional disputes with possibly disastrous results. - - 7.2.4 Invoking the law. - In some groups there may be no formal process for invoking law. However, individuals who are members of such groups will have experiences in other groups where laws do exist, if only via tradition. When a group with no law is faced with a serious crisis, these experiences can be called upon as models for precedents within the lawless group — especially if the alternative is a feud. Similarly, a new law may result from tensions which have no precedent in a group with laws. The invocation of law involves a number of very specific steps. The details and names of these steps will vary from group to group, but all group invocation requires them in some form. It is interesting to note that these steps are also required when the group reacts to an external threat, such as a war. • Trial - The first step is the establishment that an ethic has been violated which requires the group's coordinated reaction. This involves a "trial" of some sort. The "trial" may be of varying length and may or may not involve the accused. The only factor common to all groups is that a "satisfactory" case is made that the accused has violated law. For some groups this will be a matter of getting a consensus. In other groups a leader or arbiter may be granted the power to make the determination. In others a formal vote of some or all group members may be taken to establish guilt. If there is no law, a prior step must be taken enacting one, although for practical purposes this act may be merged with the "trial." Again, the method will vary from group to group and may be borrowed from another group's tradition. • Alerting enforcer agents. - The second step in the invocation of law is "alerting" the appropriate enforcement body of its duty to act. Some specific group member or members will be empowered to act in the group's name to punish the violator. In small groups this may be the whole membership, but in many cases it is useful to delegate the punishment responsibility, perhaps to ensure fairness, perhaps to select a leader of the enforcement effort, perhaps because of special skills, perhaps just to make sure someone gets the job done. - • Mobilizing. - The third step is "mobilizing" the enforcement body, getting it organized. If the enforcer is just one person, this step is minimal. But when coordinating a team of enforcers, the leader needs to actually assemble the team, to make sure that each member is on the right schedule and that they know what is expected of them. Even if the enforcement team is a permanent force (police or military) it needs to be oriented to the particular task at hand. - - • Marshaling. The fourth is "marshaling" the enforcement body, directing it in its duties. - - 8.0 State as Defender of Public Morality. - A society, which is impoverished, can be plagued by squabbles over limited supplies of essential products like food and shelter. The state is often portrayed as a force, which can contain these conflicts and prevent them from becoming violent. Libertarian thinkers have presented a number of sound economic arguments to the effect that the state's interference in a society generally discourages prosperity, thus adding to the economic sources of conflict. But it is also true that in a prosperous society the efforts of the state to "promote morality" only serve to encourage conflict. - - 9.0 Overlapping Membership by Individuals. - As has been noted, it is especially important to remember that an individual may be a member of more than one group of the same size. That individual's sense of ethics will vary somewhat as they find themselves in different group contexts. What may be of critical importance in one group may be of little or no consequence in another. Behavior appropriate to one group might be absolutely unacceptable in another. The need for most individuals in civilized societies to adjust to different ethical standards as they move between groups is one of the most important facts of life for these individuals. Clashes between group standards within a single society are difficult to avoid. Much of the culture of civilized societies is devoted to accommodating the differing standards of groups with overlapping membership. In a society based on mutual self-interest and individual liberty, this concern must be of paramount importance. For a society based on at least limited endorsement of initiated force as a means to resolve interpersonal conflicts, the job is much simpler. D - - Phil Jacobson has been an activist and student of liberty in North Carolina since the early 1970s. For a living he sells used books, used CDs, and used video games. - FNF archives. - Phil Jacobson, - contributed to the FNF publication FORMULATIONS - Most of that material is now on-line at the FNF Archive - ( which I edit. (1999) Free Nation Foundation. - - - Phil Jacobson, in “Political Curriculum". published in the Spring 1996 issue of FORMULATIONS: ... as mentioned above, there are many ways to organize a Libertarian Society. The differences between these types can be quite extreme. For instance a fully Communistic society, where all property is held in common, is theoretically possible within a framework of completely voluntary social relations, as is a fully Proprietary society, where everything is owned by private individuals (and no collective ownership is ever recognized). For a given existing Libertarian Society of the future, one or more of these ways will have proven practical. - - Here he has an almost panarchistic concept of a truly libertarian society. - J.Z., 26.10.11. – PERSONAL LAW, FOLKWAYS, CUSTOMS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM

JACOBSON, PHILIP E., Glorious Revolution for an American Free Nation. - This article was published in the Spring 1995 issue of FORMULATIONS a publication of the Free Nation Foundation. - Outline - -The Second American Revolution, already underway, may be the "kindest and gentlest" - yet the most fundamental - political revolution in the history of Western Civilization. - The advantages of circumvention: the British example - Revising the political tradition of Western Civilization - Administrative functions - Legislative functions - Talk shows and other new modes of communication promise to perform the functions of a legislature - The shift in legislative power has already begun. - (The existing formal legislation remains largely unknown and unknowable, simply due to its sheer quantity. - J.Z., 26.10.11.) - - The Second American Revolution, already underway, may be the "kindest and gentlest" yet the most fundamental political revolution in the history of Western Civilization. - - One of the most difficult tasks in envisioning a free nation (or any new society) is to picture how it would come to be. Typically, it is assumed that in order to realize a free society it would be necessary to destroy an old regime and replace it. The regime of one's home country would have to be replaced or one would have to move to a foreign land where this had happened. Would the change from statism to voluntarism really require that a society's regime be replaced? (Only its territorial monopoly would have to be abolished. For its remaining voluntary followers it could remain, as long as it has any or manages to gain even more. - J.Z., 26.10.11.) - In this essay I will explore this question. I will begin by borrowing some important ideas from the late historian Carroll Quigley. Quigley advanced a theory of the rise and decline of civilizations in his book The Evolution of Civilizations. In exploring previous civilizations, he reviewed the mechanisms whereby fundamental change had occurred in the past. He noted that historically fundamental political change has not always required the replacement of a regime. Quigley stated that all civilizations followed a pattern, which resembled the life cycle of an organism. He contended that the final phase of the life cycle, involving the collapse of the civilization, could be postponed by a rejuvenation, though he believed that decay would again set in over time. I believe that the objective of the Free Nation Foundation will require no less than a rejuvenation of Western Civilization. Thus, Quigley's insights can be applied to this problem. - - According to Quigley, any civilization is based upon methods of organization which are unique to it. A key mechanism exists for each civilization, which he called the civilization's "instrument of expansion" which allows it to grow and dominate a specific geographic area. Over time, he notes, the methods become "institutionalized": they become ritualized. As the real world changes, because of technological innovation or for other reasons, aspects of the instrument of expansion become obsolete. Yet many citizens still follow them blindly. The people of the society tend to forget why they do what they do and focus their thinking on how it is done. Traditions are followed without being understood. Method is emphasized to the detriment of goal. The society becomes dysfunctional and tensions among its citizens rise. - Most individuals in the society will see that something is wrong. Some will argue that something must be done to fix things. Basically there will be those who wish to focus on the methods the society uses to achieve its ends, and those that focus on the society's goals. Those who focus on method will seek greater adherence to tradition. Those who focus on goals will search for and advocate new methods of achieving the society's goals. In an extreme case, the advocates of change may promote a major change in the instrument of expansion or even its replacement by a new instrument. Quigley calls this conflict the "tension of development." - Quigley then describes what might happen next: - "From this tension and its ensuing controversy, there may emerge any one (or a combination) among three possible outcomes: reform, circumvention or reaction. - In the first case, reform, the institution is reorganized and its methods of action changed so that it becomes, relatively speaking, more of an instrument and achieves its purpose with sufficient facility to reduce tension to a socially acceptable level. In the second case, circumvention, the institution is left with most of its privileges and vested interests intact, but its duties are taken away and assigned to a new instrument within the same society. ... In the third possible outcome, reaction, the vested interests triumph in the struggle, and the people of that society are doomed to ineffective achievement of their needs on that level for an indefinite period." - (The Evolution of Civilizations, Liberty Press, Indianapolis. Emphasis added.) - - The advantages of circumvention: the British example. - For the most part, advocates of a free nation envision reform and reaction as the only alternatives. Reaction, of course, would be the result if no part of the earth could be transformed to a free nation, if statism in one form or another succeeded in suppressing efforts at reform in all parts of the world. - There are endless examples of reaction in history with consequent erosion of the - quality of life for the average citizens living under the resulting regimes. - Reform, it should be noted, can come in more than one way. It can be bloody, as in the French Revolution, or it can be relatively peaceful, as with the recent fall of the Soviet regime. The costs of bloody revolution are high. Not only is damage done during the revolution itself, but a resulting political instability often causes continued damage and inefficiency. Insecure revolutionary regimes often resort to purges and excessive intrusions into the lives of ordinary citizens in order to stay in power. - Yet peaceful reform can also be difficult for the society. The desire of the old aristocrats to retain their privileges impedes real change. Even when the top positions of power have been transferred to the new regime, the middle and lower levels are typically staffed by persons who have benefited from the system of privileges of the old regime. Peaceful transitions can be slow ones, as the new regime maneuvers to enforce its new methods on social institutions which are still geared to the methods of the old regime. Important technical or administrative knowledge is usually held by these lower-level persons. Often that knowledge is indispensable to any regime and can be withheld in order to slow the process of change. Consider the situation of the anti-Communist Russian reformers of today, as well as that of the anti-Apartheid regime of South Africa. (Alas, he does not consider the experimental and voluntary alternatives of alternative communities that are only exterritorially autonomous and can thus freely compete and demonstrate any reforms they have achieved among their members. - J.Z., 26.10.11.) - The alternative of circumvention is well worth consideration. The classic example of circumvention was used by the British to resolve the problems caused by the English Civil War (their earlier effort at bloody reform). In that war Parliament's armies commanded by Oliver Cromwell had defeated and beheaded King Charles. Then Cromwell had established a dictatorship as bad as or worse than that of the King. Upon Cromwell's death (by natural causes) Parliament reinstated the monarchy and its associated noble families to power. Yet the new King James had learned little from his predecessor's death and tried to pick up where King Charles had left off. Frustrated, Parliament made a deal with another noble, William, Prince of Orange, called the "Glorious Revolution." James was ousted in a bloodless coup. (Almost bloodless. One skirmish happened, with about 300 casualties. - J.Z., 26.10.11.) William was given the crown, but with very reduced powers. The nobles kept extensive lands, subject to Parliamentary law. Titled noblemen were forbidden to hold seats in Parliament. In the following years, Parliament whittled away the power of the King and his Lords. Titles and significant amounts of wealth remained in the hands of the nobility (as they still remain to a very great extent). But political power passed to the commoner politicians in Parliament. The British Empire reached its height using this system. - - Revising the political tradition of Western Civilization - - I would like to propose that the political crisis in the United States today might be resolved by a form of circumvention. In fact, I believe that this is already beginning to happen. Those of us seeking a free nation could take advantage of such a process. We can adjust our thinking and our strategies to work for and with a "new regime," while leaving the formalities of the old regime in place. - - Let me first explore the nature of this "new regime." In my opinion, the territory of the United States is moving toward a voluntary political system. By this I do not mean a lack of political order, but merely that political relationships would not be based on conscription. To some this would be "anarchy." To others it would be "limited government." Rather than focusing on this labelling dispute (which I think is semantic, not substantive), let us focus on the application of the principle of voluntary relations to the political functions we feel need to be performed. - The current regime is usually considered to have three functions: the three branches of government, administrative, legislative, and judicial. For years, libertarian theorists have noted that the judicial function has a voluntary form. Private arbitration systems already exist and thrive. Since other writers have examined these in detail, I will not discuss the judicial function here. - - Some attention has been paid to the possibility of a voluntary system of administration. Mostly this thinking has focused on the privatization of government functions. I will comment briefly on a few weak links in this discussion. But virtually no thought has been done on a voluntary legislature. This is particularly unfortunate since citizen representation via elections, the cornerstone of the current regime's claim to legitimacy, is best embodied in its legislative institutions. Having a system of elective representation is the biggest difference between the modern state system and the feudal state system, which it replaced. It is, in my opinion, the modern state's "instrument of expansion." - Therefore, after some brief commentary on the new possibilities for voluntarist administrative systems to replace the system of elective representation, I will focus my comments on new "legislative" systems.  -  Administrative Functions - The main administrative function thought to be inherent to government is the command of military or police forces. Less commonly noted by libertarians is the function of diplomacy. Certainly private guard services serve as a model for voluntary police, but what of military command? And what of diplomacy? Military - Voluntary militia systems have existed in the past. Yet the tradition of the militia is that it is always subject to mobilization (conscription) by a central government. Only in this way, it is argued, can many militias be coordinated in an orderly manner. - A voluntary model for coordinating the command of several independent militias already exists, though it is not used by any military force to my knowledge. It is the system used in the U.S.A. to coordinate fire departments (especially rural ones) in the event of a very large fire. If a local fire chief feels that his forces are inadequate, he may request help from neighboring fire departments. While not obliged to give assistance, neighbors usually give it, subject to prearranged rates of financial compensation. (In private systems, insurance could be set up to cover such a contingency). The assisting forces are always commanded by the department which calls on them, unless that department's chief (or his field deputy) voluntarily yields to another commander. This usually happens only when a particularly experienced leader from a "neighbor" department is seen by the local chief as having better skills. There is no presumption, however, that the local chief will yield. Further, the chief of an assisting force still has authority to recall his forces if he feels that action to be appropriate to his own department's priorities (as in the event of a fresh fire in his own hometown). Good will between neighboring fire departments has kept this system working for many years. - - Diplomacy - Diplomacy is being privatized. There is no reason why private international diplomacy cannot function in the same way as private arbitration. The pioneer work of Jimmy Carter in Korea and Haiti is the first well-publicized step. He was able to step in because the nation's official diplomatic officers (including the President) had become so bogged-down in statist agendas that they had lost credibility. Having serious international credibility, yet no commitment to the immediate policies of any government, Mr. Carter was seen as more objective than any diplomat with governmental rank. In the future, individuals with none of Mr. Carter's former government connections could provide international diplomatic services in the total absence of government. - - As individuals look to voluntary security services and to militias to protect them, each of these forces may come to operate in a manner similar to a mini-government. Relations among such forces would be based on diplomatic efforts. A "new diplomacy" will begin with individuals who build their reputations negotiating agreements among these little jurisdictions. Particularly talented individuals would gain wider reputations and be invited to take on bigger problems. Eventually, individuals who had never been associated with a state would begin to address diplomatic problems on a worldwide scale. - - Legislative Functions - - Finally there is legislation. It is very important to remember why we have legislatures. Legislatures debate and pass laws. That is, they coordinate the formation and the explicit listing of a community's highest-priority behavioral standards. When the feudal regime was overthrown, the ideal was established that all of the ethical standards of the society should have the voluntary endorsement of the people of that society (at least from a relatively large "citizen" class), rather than being the edicts of a relatively small elite. Yet this ideal presented a serious communication problem for any society, which was larger than a small village. It was impractical for all the citizens to be directly involved in the discussion at the same time. The system of elected representatives was invented to overcome this communication problem. At the local level, discussions would establish the character of would-be representatives and the sentiments of local voters. The local citizens would then pick representatives and collectively pay for them to travel several days and to meet with the representatives of other communities. - (Alas, he did not consider the exterritorial and personal law alternative to territorially imposed legislation. - J.Z., 26.10.11.) - - The legislature. - - The representatives would shuttle back and forth between the legislature and the local citizens they represented, negotiating a common sentiment. Theoretically, the representatives were to establish a common sense of what was appropriate behavior according to the society as a whole before writing it down as a law. This has worked to some extent. When serious competition for the job of representative is allowed, legislatures have a history of being less oppressive than feudal lords — at least towards those individuals who are allowed to vote. - But there are serious problems with the system of elected representation as a method of coordinating the citizens' desires. Minority rights are hard to maintain since the system allows any majority (or merely a plurality in most cases) to dictate behavior to the rest of the citizens. Since almost any citizen will be part of a minority on some topic, few citizens can completely avoid being victimized by some majority. Another problem is that communication via representatives, even representatives with the best intentions, is inefficient. Ideas get muddled as they pass from person to person. Finally, when many issues must be considered, a citizen usually cannot find a single candidate who agrees with that citizen on all issues. Yet that citizen's vote is still taken by the candidate as a mandate on all the candidate's publicly expressed opinions. - These factors all serve in practice to isolate elected representatives from the true will of their constituents. The societies which use the political system of elected representation find themselves stuck with many laws which do not really reflect the will of even a majority. Politicians find themselves empowered to enact unfair laws which most of their constituents do not really want or which abuse one set of constituents at the expense of another. Great rewards are offered to representatives who ally themselves with special interests, which seek to exploit the common citizen. - It is important to note that most laws require voluntary compliance in order to be effective. Consider the speed laws on most U.S. highways. Most of the time they are not obeyed unless a police car is in view. Yet law enforcement officials may eagerly seek even a partial enforcement of an unpopular law. Patrolmen write tickets and courts collect fees knowing full well that they do not enforce the public will. The working environment of law enforcement, when laws are unfair, tends to attract and hold officers who enjoy enforcement for its own sake. Enforcement is to establish "respect for law" or to collect revenue rather than to enforce a true public moral standard. Both politicians and law enforcement officials begin to argue that loyalty to the system, to "the law," is more important than justice in establishing public ethics. The average citizen has learned that it is quite normal to disobey a very large number of laws. Obedience to the law is a function of fear of being caught more than respect for ethical values shared with other citizens The legal system and the system of elected representatives are no longer seen as a vehicle for coordinating social values and for negotiating common ground. It is seen as a zero-sum environment where each citizen competes for the power to compel involuntary obedience from other citizens. "Institutionalization" (in Quigley's sense) has set in. - The problem, as stated above, is due to the poor communication inherent in the system of elected representation. As the society has gotten larger and more complex, the problem has gotten worse. There are more things to discuss. Yet the method for transforming public discussion into law still revolves around elections. - - Talk shows and other new modes of communication promise to perform the functions of a legislature - Elections presume communication systems which were state of the art at the time of the American Revolution but which are quite primitive today. In the 1700s it was quite difficult for people to engage in public debate. Usually this required the individuals involved to meet face to face for the communication to go both ways. Citizens would usually need to come to a public meeting. Some communication was possible via newspapers or other journals, but this would be one-way, since few individuals owned printing facilities. Two-way communication required citizens to travel, which few could afford to do and which in any case took a great deal of time. - - In other institutions within the society, coordination of policy has taken advantage of new forms of communication. Economic institutions increasingly use electronic methods for key communications. So do military institutions, academic institutions, and others. In each of these, speedy, electric, two-way communication is commonplace. The legislature, the institution which coordinates the legitimization of public policy, lags behind. New "legislative" forces are emerging to fill this void. The task of consensus building is being taken up by communication professionals — by journalists, specifically by "call-in talk shows" on television and most significantly on radio. - - There are other channels of discussion, which supplement the call-in talk shows. - Computer-based personal communications, ranging from one-to-one modem contacts, through local computer bulletin boards, all the way to the Internet offer a very free-form arena for citizens who have the appropriate equipment. An explosion in video communications, including expanded cable-TV, video tape stores, and more personal ownership of video tape players and cameras has put sophisticated multimedia productions in almost all citizens' homes. Computer programs and the hardware to run them, including better word-processing, graphics, spread-sheets, databases, and "game" environments have little political impact yet, but offer considerable promise as educational and modelling tools. More paper journals exist than ever before, because almost anyone with talent and a personal computer can enter the field of publishing. - But while all of the new forms of communication are contributing to formation of public opinion, the call-in talk show is absorbing the power of the legislature. - - Call-in talk shows have two advantages over other electric communication. First, they allow an intense two-way communication. Second, they allow the communication to occur while the citizens are going about everyday activities. Citizens can gather data through the other electronic media as well as through old-fashioned paper and face-to-face means. But only on the call-in shows can citizens randomly send their opinions back to the journalists in a way that other viewers or listeners can witness. Citizens are directly involved in proposing and endorsing policy, just as they would be at a public meeting. But unlike a public meeting, the audience can participate without traveling. Citizens can be brought together while at work, at home, or in vehicles. The call-in show forum has a further advantage over elected politicians. Citizens can dismiss hosts at any time and transfer their allegiance to another. There is no need for term limits for a talk show host. As soon as the host loses the citizen's interest, the citizen switches to another broadcast. In addition, there is no limit to the number of shows and hosts. New hosts can offer themselves to the public at any time, without being certified by a party hierarchy or a ballot access requirement. Yet despite their growing influence, talk show hosts cannot decide public policy. It is true that they can and do censor what gets on their programs. But they do so subject to instant competition by other programs. Ultimately, the power of the talk show host is the power to add to public debate rather than to limit debate. New ideas, new personalities, and new styles can all be offered to the public. Thus public consensus comes from the public's response to a true marketplace of ideas, which is how citizen-based social ethics should be forged. - (Without an Ideas Archive, easily accessible to all, this market place is still MISSING or only realized FRACTIONALLY! - Other free market services to speed up enlightenment are also missing still. I listed them and argued for them in my 2010 digitized book manuscript, still only called NEW DRAFT, which is not yet online but has been reviewed on - J.Z., 26.10.11.) - - The shift in legislative power has already begun - - The shift of power will not be instantaneous, nor should it be. People are still getting used to participating in call-in talk shows, to shopping for hosts and for ideas. But a great deal of progress has been made, as evidenced by the Congressional elections of 1994. The Republican Party has had very significant success because of support from radio talk show hosts. Yet the success, as most Republicans concede, is due to a public resolve to remove the old politicians and due to a new public volatility, rather than any permanent shift in party loyalties. The economic agenda of the Republicans has considerable appeal, as the polls and the talk shows reflect. But the "moral" agenda typically associated with the Republicans has no such public support. Had the Republicans felt that they'd been given an old-style mandate, they'd have put the agenda of their Christian Conservative wing on the table along with the economic conservative agenda of the Contract With America. Instead they've felt that the public has used a line-item veto to limit the new mandate to economic concerns. Where was that veto exercised? Certainly not inside traditional Republican Party machinery. It has come from an extensive and open dialogue with the American public, coordinated by the talk show hosts entrepreneurs with neither governmental nor political party rank. (They are among the main opinion makers. Any systematic enlightenment efforts should concentrate on enlightening the opinion-makers, by providing them with the information they are still lacking. - J.Z., 26.10.11.) Meanwhile, the legislatures themselves remain in session. While they do not drive the process of public policy formation, they continue to pass laws. It is also still true that a law in Britain requires the signature of the British monarch even though it has been passed by Parliament. Yet it has been a great many years since a British monarch dared not to sign what was passed by Parliament. The monarchs have feared, quite reasonably, that they would be replaced if they did not rubber stamp the public will as expressed through Parliament. The Second American Revolution has not yet come that far. But I believe an American Glorious Revolution (quite bloodless) is in the works. And it seems probable that Congress will soon find it extremely unwise to thwart any solid formation of public will which is consistently reflected by the call-in talk shows. - Then we may proclaim in our new liberation: The legislature is dead!  Long live the legislature! - Phil Jacobson has been an activist and student of liberty in North Carolina since the early 1970s. For a living he sells used books, used CDs and used video games. - CURRENT TRENDS, GRADUALIST REVOLUTION, VOLUNTARISM, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, DISOBEDIENCE & IGNORING THE GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL LAW, LIBERATION STEP BY STEP, NON-VIOLENCE, DROPPING OUT, DOING THE OWN THINGS, PRIVATE POLICING, ARBITRATION, LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTION, PUBLIC OPINION, NEW COMMUNICATION CHANNELS, TWO WAY RADIO TALK SHOWS, EMAIL, INTERNET, GLOBALIZATION, DIPLOMACY, LEGISLATION, CIVILIZATION & ORGANIZATION, GOALS VS. TRADITION, PUBLIC OPINION CHANGES, ENLIGHTENMENT, SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION,

JACOBSON, PHILIP E., Introduction to de Puydt s Panarchy. - Molinari Institute - - 127k - Cached - Similar pages

JACOBSON, PHILIP E., Marketguard, from THE CONNECTION, No.100 of 12 Nov.81, 16pp, 70, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PEACE PLANS 869. - A close to panarchistic article.  - P. E. J. also arranged for the publication of a panarchist article by the FNF: Free Nations Foundation, which also advocates "virtual cantons".

JACOBSON, PHILIP E., to John Zube, 8 Nov. 84, 1p, with 2pp reply of 12 Dec.84. (Could not be delivered due to change of address. I still don't know his current one. J.Z., 20.1.99.) Page 86, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - Phil Jacobson, might still apply now. - J.Z., 19.10.11.

JACOBSON, PHILIP E.: On Panarchy, 10, 11, 25-27, 43, 60, 78, in PEACE PLANS No. 505. -- 104, 105, 115-120, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. -- in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. - - 91-95, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879. -- 7-10, 15-17, 39-41, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.


JANICOT: On Panarchy, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. -- 105, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879.

JANIK, C. L. & ZUBE, JOHN: Correspondence, 1978-84, 13pp, including his description of his bulletin board system, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. - - C. L. Janik - P.O. BOX 731, SEDONA, ARIZONA 86336 - May 2, 1978, .... Dear Mr. Zube: I have your 27/4/78 note about more information on our new communication system. - -Enclosed is an outline of the concept; is that enough? - - - Your main concern seems to be about FREEDOM, that is, the absence of coercion of any kind; why not ponder what other ways besides SC Club and Libertarianism could lead to it? - - With the sole exception of Switzerland, the whole world lives under one or another social system pretending to be this or that, but which always is nothing but a disguised dictator­ship, be it American, Soviet, British, Chinese, etc. - - In Switzerland, no taxing power is ever delegated "higher up"; it stays in the smallest "political" unit, the community, to which everything defers. This is all that the Swiss have in common with "politics". - - Thus no inflation, no monetary problems, no unemployment, no energy crisis, no militarism, no government scandals - in a country that has no natural resources of any kind (scenery excepted), and yet the highest standard of living in the world. - - Why not set up our own "Switzerlands", no matter how small in size and population? What do we need "politics" for? - - Citizenship is a bond of "allegiance" to some political set-up. How did you become a citizen? Do you have to remain one? - - Could anyone prevent you from giving it up and living in Au­stralia as a resident? Why not foreswear citizenship privile­ges (name one worth having) so that you could not be morally compelled to shoulder its obligations? - - - In my opinion, Garry Davis made a mistake in publicly renoun­cing his citizenship; why bother, why not just "throw it up", like washing dirt off your hands? - - What do you think?  Signed: C. L. Janik - CLJ:KS - Encl: Advertising Self Service – World Citizen. - - - World Citizen(Newsweek, May, 1, 1978.) - - In 1948, 26-year-old Garry Davis marched into the American Embassy in Paris, renounced, his American citizen­ship and launched a one-man crusade for world government. - - Five years later, in Ellsworth, Maine, he proclaimed himself "World Citizen No. 1" and claimed "the entire earth as the proper home and rightful possession of all mankind." - - Then he issued himself a world passport and citizenship papers. - - Now, 27 arrests later, Davis is confident that he's made some headway. "It's not just a Utopian idea any more," he declares. "Now the world is coming to us." - - Davis has had an up-and-down struggle to hold onto public attention. In his salad days it wasn't hard: he hobnobbed with French intellectuals, conferred with Nehru and made headlines by crashing the gates of Buckingham Palace. But Da­vis soon found himself booted from coun­try to country. Press coverage eventually dwindled — but word-of-mouth didn't. By 1971, the demand for his world-citizen passports had become so great that he set up the World Service Authority in Basel, Switzerland. - - Appeal: According to Davis, he has issued 40,000 passports that are recognized officially by six countries (Ecuador, Kuwait, Yemen, Upper Volta, Zambia and Mauritania) and have been honored by more than 100 others. The 42-page docu­ment now costs $25 and, with 600 re­quests a month, the income sustains Davis — and his new offices in London and Washington. (The WSA doesn't insist on payment from refugees, prisoners or deportees.)  - Now he faces deportation from his native land, but Davis still considers the U.S. his home. - "I am not a man with­out a country," he explains, "merely a man without a nationality." - If his current appeal fails, Davis will have to hit the road again. - "Where can they deport me to this time?" he wonders. "The moon?" - JAMES N. BAKER with ALAN M. FIELD in Tokyo and MARY HAGER in Washington - - J.Z.: I could not reproduce the associated photo of Gary Davis well enough. It was subtitled: Garry Davis: A 30-year crusade - - At least he had made a living out of his individual secessionism – and has shown how many dissatisfied subject-citizens there are, although he did, obviously, mainly appeal to those in favor of a World State or World Federation. – J.Z., 19.12.04. - - - - John Zube, 16.5.78, Mr. C. L. Janik, P.O. Box 731 Sedona, Arizona 86336 - Dear Mr. Janik, - thanks for yours of May 2nd., 78. Without wanting to become a sponsor or “Adomat” manager myself, I would like still some more information: What size bulletin board have you got in mind? I imagine there are inherent space limits which would limit the volume of your communications.  ...  (Apparently, he had only some kind of physical bulletin boards, not electronic ones, in mind. – J.Z., 10.1.05.) ... (He sent me some information on his bulletin board invention. I do not reproduce it here. – J.Z., 19.12.04.) - - As for other comments: Freedom does NOT mean the absence of coercion of any kind. If a lout tried to destroy one of your ADOMATs and I forcefully prevented him from doing so, that would be coercion from my side (not initiated), preserving your and my freedom - and not infringing the freedom of the offender - because there is no freedom (or right) to destroy other people's property. - - I am seriously interested in all approaches towards a free society. My listing in my Super Computer Club proposal should attest to that. - - Your favourable comments on Switzerland excite my curiosity. I have lived in a country next to Switzerland for half my life, worked for a few weeks there and followed its referendum and militia policies with interest, but have never gained an as favourable impression over-all. Can you somewhat back up your assertions? - - I do appreciate the remaining differences between e.g. the American and Austra­lian "dictatorships" and those of the Soviets or Red China. - - To my knowledge only some taxing powers remain at the lowest level, quite a lot of federal and cantonal and even local politicking goes on, there is some inflation, although less than in most other countries. It has all the monetary prob­lems inherent in central banking. It has restrictions on foreign workers because of employment problems. The energy crisis is only a product of the imagination of collectivists (at a free market price always sufficient energy is produced in a competitive system). It still has a small group of military professionals. It has a bureaucracy and thereby inevitably scandals. It has the natural resource of intelligent and trained manpower and, according to all the surveys I have seen, it has NOT the highest standard of living in the world. - - Please give me the source of your contrary information or a copy of it. - - I do favor the new and free country movement - and listed it, although I did not mention the Amsterdam "Phoenix Foundation" especially. - - I don't need politics for anything - but want to get rid of it by any rightful means, at least off my back. - - Like you I favor secessions, ignoring the state, competing governments, panarchy or multigovernments (Le Grand E. Day) but do not believe they can be as easily realized as you seem to imply. Many back issues of my PEACE PLANS series deal with this problem. If you think it is easy, just try the "limited" secession from a compulsory uni­on or conscript army. ...... I would like to interlink all existing information service, electronically, by microfiche, mail and telephonically, and to build up the missing ones, like a libertarian or communication innovation data banks. (I have now slightly edited the above letter. – J.Z., 19.12.04.)  - - - - - - - - - - - - C. L. Janik, May 23. 1978. - Dear Mr. Zube: Thank you for your Aerogramme, postmarked May 16. - Our board is 48"x 60", .... True FREEDOM is inconsistent with "authority" of any kind. Any social system that prevents you from doing anything that does not harm others, or that taxes you against your will or a better judgment, is in principle a dictatorship. And that's precisely what Switzerland is not, in contrast to all the other "social" systems in the world. - - Who is the president of Switzerland, or premier, or prime minister? No such critters, as they are not needed. - - How come that a country of only 6 million "natives" has in its labor-force more than 1,300,000 "foreigners"? And why, with most of the world's gold in Swiss coffers, (does) no aggressor ever dare to march in and just help himself? - - No armaments, no nuclear deterrents, no treaties with “friends” or “foes”.) - - Switzerland has no Army; it is an army. It has no "political" ties of any kind, external or internal. - - The Swiss are the only free people in the world, because theirs is a free, voluntary union. Their common identification is (in German): EIDGENOSSENSCHAFT SCHWEIZ, which can be rendered in English as: MUTUAL AID SOCIETY of SWITZERLAND. - - Why dignify a criminal regime by "seceding" from it? What is to be gained thereby? - - Citizenship (that is: membership) in any system, or group, or nation, or club, is a mark and proof of voluntary "ser­vitude". - - How do you become an American, Australian, Czech, Indian or Hottentot, or for that matter a Catholic, Jew, or a Moslem? - - Is there any force in the world that could prevent you from "throwing up" your citizenship, the badge of your voluntary servitude? Can you be coerced into "voluntarily" accepting citizenship, ”honorary” or other? If you stand up for your natural rights, you cannot be co­erced into a "compulsory union or conscript army", any more than you can be coerced into becoming a Catholic, or a Jew, a Democrat, Republican, Communist, Royalist, etc. - - It is all in your mind, and your mind alone. If you want to live in voluntary servitude, it's your affair. But it should be strictly at your own cost, and you should not gang up on others who do not share your views or convic­tions, and force them to help support your special regime. - - Seriously now, why should not mankind live peacefully side by side in two distinct groups, each with its own way of life, one of slavery, and the other of freedom? It has not been tried yet, true, but there is always the first time, is there not? And what would be risked by trying it out? - - Garry Davis has the right idea, but with one weak point; thinking that it must be done on a world-wide scale. That's what's wrong with it. It must be done - it can be done - only on purely individual scale, by every person just for him(her)self alone. - - Can you be jailed, or killed, or exiled (or have your pro­perty confiscated) for "throwing up" your citizenship? And what happens when there are enough of us? Everywhere? Just give it a thought, and let me know. - - Cordially, signed: C. L. Janik - CLJ:KS - - - - John Zube -"PEACE PLANS", LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, RESEARCH CENTRE FOR MONETARY AND FINANCIAL FREEDOM, ETC. ... 19.9.78. - - Dear Mr. Janik, please forgive this late reply to yours of May 23rd. I was busy for a few months gathering sufficient information for the enclosed introductory booklet to another medium, which is insufficiently used. - In my mind I have still no clear image in on how your bulletin board scheme is going to work and hope to hear more when it is operating. Naturally, you also may want to keep your business secrets. - Wholeheartedly, I do agree with you that, ideally, a communications system would bring even a scribbled message to the notice of all who would be intensely interested in its contents. - - Thus my interest in Ideas Archives, computers and recently micrographics. - - Like you, I also hold that there is room for many more bulletin-boards and that they ought to be used much more efficiently than was the ease so far. - - I, for one, have nothing against the spiritual and moral and practical ascendancy of an "Authority” which does nothing but set good examples at its own risk and expense and consequently finds many imitators. That would be one aspect of freedom for all leaders and followers, innovators and copycats. - - - Careful with your definition of freedom using the word “harm”.  If I were to go into competition with you and were good in a modern bulletin board business - then I might do some "harm" to you, by taking some business orders from you, or rather, by drawing them towards me. But I still would not do you any wrong or infringe your liberty. - - Some taxes in your ideal society, Switzerland, are not subject to referendums (*) and the foreigners are taxed against their will. They have no vote, cannot even stay around for a full year. - - (*) A young Swiss libertarian, whom I met at the Rotorua ISIL conference in July 04, asserted that there are NO restrictions on the subject of a Swiss referendum. I still doubt this but would like to see evidence for this assertion. – J.Z. 19.12.04.) - - Any country could be very bureaucratically governed even without a premier or prime-minister as figurehead or power centre. (But without them there would be less CENTRALIZED bureaucracy. – J.Z., 19.12.04.) - - Is really most of the world's gold in Swiss coffers??? (What good could it do there? Such hoards are among the most unproductive investments in the world. They are not required to give notes or securities a value standard reckoned in gold weight units. – J.Z., 19.12.04.) - - Napoleon did march in - and Hitler would, most likely, also have tried his luck – if he had succeeded in Africa, Russia and England. - - - Nuclear deterrents were seriously proposed for Switzerland when I left in 1959. - - As a foreigner I worked for half the wage the citizens got. They have plenty of arms - but largely under direct control of individual citizens, as far as ordinary firearms are concerned. This is one of the aspects, which interests me most because in this respect Switzerland’s military organization comes closest to my ideal of citizen forces. - - - Are you quite certain that every Swiss man and woman has given full and voluntary consent to all that is done by the governments in Switzerland? Or is the union there only as "voluntary" as that of trade unions? - - - I am reasonably well acquainted with the history of the Swiss Eidgenossensehaft, having only a few years ago read Johannes von Mueller's: Geschichten Schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft" in 3 volumes, Volk & Schrifttum, Zollikon-Zuerich, 1942. Nowhere did I get the impression that either in the past or the present Switzerland is as ideal as you try to make it out. - - - Secession:  Instead of theorizing about it and merely considering how it should be (here I largely agree with you), just have a look at what happens to citizens who try to assert these rights. They would better be armed, and trained, and numerous, at least as well as the Swiss are! - - - Like you I have great hopes for individual secession but do not think that mere wishful thinking will get us there.   As one rough Australian saying has it: If you fill your left hand with wishes and your right hand with shit, see which hand gets full first! - - There are numerous precedents for individual secession and societies, which recognized it. We ought to study them. - - - Why should people group themselves world-wide into only two groups??? - Aren't they different enough for many more groups? - Who would dare to set them a limit, once the principle is recognized? - Look for instance on the thick handbook of international associations - or, for that matter, of associations only in the US, handbooks available in any large library's reference section. - - In one aspect Gary Davis did right. In another he made the same mistake Marx did: Trying to fight many small monopolists with one super monopoly. - - - Yes, indeed, all these terrible things you list can happen to you in most countries when you try to secede (not only nominally throw away your right to vote and be elected etc.) but really try to opt out, e.g. from under tax laws. We have several such attempts going on in Australia at present and none has fully succeeded yet – although "Prince Leonard", with his “Hutt River Province in Western Australia has at least turned his secession attempt into a good tourist trap. A local pie shop owner, dissatisfied with rates and development restrictions, also “seceded” – and at least his pie sales went up, even though his secession was not officially recognized, either. - - If all pro-secessionists united on a platform of mutual tolerance and support against aggressors, they could easily outnumber all other movements. - - - Too little thought has still been given, even by you and me, to all the opportunities secession offers. - - My thoughts and material on secessions, ideal citizen forces, resisting dictatorships, ideal referendums, competing governments, even competing anarchies, and alternative communication systems will be found in future microfiche issues. Consider them, if you will, as miniature bulletin boards which are within everyone's reach and which can offer unlimited space and variety. - - (CDs that can bring up to 3000 books zipped and HD’s of 320 Gbs, that could hold more than 1 million books, are even more promising. Even the humble floppy could, zipped, hold up to 6 small books. Emails and websites have size limits and relatively high costs for very many Mbs.  – J.Z., 19.12.04.) - - I tried to fully understand your bulletin board scheme - but am still in doubt. Naturally, this may be precisely your intention and if you want to keep business secrets, please, don't tell them to me. - For Freedom In Our Time   - signed: John Zube. - Slightly revised: 19.12.04. - - - - The following is my transcription of a hand-written note of C.L. Janik, January 5, 1979: Thanks for yours of 19/9/78. - A better insight into our “situation” can be gained by a dispassionate analysis and comparison of life in the USA (or England, Italy, USSR, etc. etc.) with Switzerland. - - Secession? Nonsense, why bother. Just throw up – literally – your citizenship, US, Chinese, Australian, Hottentot, Polish, etc. etc., and you are morally free from all citizenship obligations. – If you reply: Yes, but what of citizenship’s advantages or benefits? Answer: Name one – just one – that is worth having. - Cordially, signed: C. L. Janik - - [Being morally right does not make us automatically free. Think of those mass murdered in concentration camps or kept wrongfully in them, or in a whole totalitarian country, for years to decades. A good enough libertarian liberation and revolution program is either still not written or sufficiently published. - I have waited for improvements to my own, expressed in two peace books, in vain, for decades! - For many years these books have been online now - and the response to them is still almost ZERO! - J.Z., 10.10.11.] - - - - John Zube, 18.3.1980. - Dear Mr. Janik, - already more than a year has passed since your letter of Jan. 5th. 1979.  - I was mainly busy with making use of the freedom of press opportunity provided by microfiche publishing. Presently, due to a petrol strike, excess overtime, my golf-ball machine being under repair and the writing desk becoming overloaded with unfinished matter, I do attempt not to expand my literature list but rather to reduce my correspondence obligation. - I for one have no argument with the usefulness of bulletin boards, their expansion in size and numbers and even their systematic use, continent or world-wide, through electronic communication channels. - I have only my doubts concerning the space available for print-outs on the boards. If the boards consisted just of screens on which you could call out all the notices of interest to you and get a print-out of selected ones - this would be one matter. Otherwise, you might have to use ultra-fiche reduction rates to get at least a considerable percentage of your information displayed and would need special ultra-fiche reading machines. - Imagine the bulletin board space which would be taken up merely by the information contained in a single newspaper like the New York Times, in spite of its already small print. Your bulletin board system is to find still more writers and readers - so multiply this at least by a factor of 10 or 100 to get a realistic notion of the space required - and also of the labour of pinning up all these notices. - - The “Viewdata” systems do already offer something similar - on TV screens at home and their feedback systems or enquiry systems could also be used to feed information into such a network. - - What most people would want to feed in are: wanted to sell and buy notices - and these get already voluminous and chaotic enough in many of the large department stores. To sort them out would at least require electronic data processing. - However, local boards only, with local notices only, would serve this purpose better. – [Now we have Paypal etc. – J.Z., 24.12.11.] - - - - Whether you call it "secession" (individual) or "throwing up one's citizenship" is just a rose by another name. We want the same final thing. We even largely agree upon the method "secessionism, individual" or "throwing-up" (citizenship) but we do not quite agree on how to proceed with our method. [At least by now selling and buying via the Internet has taken off and achieved already something like 10% of all retail sales. - But technological progress does not automatically liberate us sufficiently. By now, we COULD produce a complete freedom library on a single large disc. BUT, do "we" bother? - J.Z., 19.10.11.] - - - - Like you, I do not see any advantages in present citizenships (except e.g. as a prerequisite, presently, for a passport. – J.Z., 28.7.89.), but this does not mean that I do not see threats and coercion when I alone, unsupported by public opinion and many similar acts by other individuals, attempt to dissociate myself from my present territorial rulers. Like you, I am fully aware that morally I would not commit any wrong, that, morally, I would be fully within my rights - but would this, mine awareness, restrain e.g. the tax collector? If this were the case, then this method could, and, indeed, would spread like wildfire, would be irresistible like an avalanche started by a single additional snowflake at the appropriate moment. - - However, most human beings are not aware of this human potential and individuals like you and me have still to establish a degree of collective consciousness and appreciation of it - before we can safely act in this direction. - The difficulties along this road should not be underestimated or disregarded under one or the other verbal screen but rather analysed and then, one by one, systematically overcome - which would require a considerable amount of enlightenment work. - - -You will find my first and still all too incomplete bibliography of writings on the philosophical, utopian and practical-historical aspects of this idea in the enclosed preliminary bibliography of libertarian writings. If you know of any more such writings, let me know. Many of these writers have stated the case much better or more appealingly than either you or I could - yet, they did not bring about an avalanche of individual and group disassociation declarations. - - - The difficulties are similar to those involved e.g. in a military insurrection or revolution. Indeed, if all soldiers and citizens, at the same time, wanted to do the same thing, against a criminal government, the power would really be in their hand - but there, exactly, is the rub: Even if, individually, they are already ripe for common action, the common action does still not come about until all others are seen as wanting the same at the same time. Only then may it only take one first step of disobedience and self-rule by a single individual to make all others follow their own drummer. [Kant pointed this out already more than 2 centuries ago. - J.Z., 19.10.11.] - - - Alas, as you know, military insurrections and revolutions are not easily arranged and individual acts of desertion or disobedience and rebellion are usually considered and treated rather unfavourably - no matter how great their moral merits are - by those who are in power and want to stay in it. - - - The most suitable places for bulletin boards (for enlightenment purposes) would probably be large libraries. But, according to my own expedience, public librarians are probably hardest to persuade that such communication needs should have priority over architectural and artistic appearances and decorations. They treat their buildings and walls as parts of temples, which are not to be desecrated by profane notices whose contents might not always find their full approval. - - You should read up on "computer conferencing" as described e.g. in "CREATIVE COMPUTING" Sep.-Oct. 1977. - - A practicable scheme appears to me to input all information to be communicated into one vast computer network and then to establish a dense network of output centres, associated with this network, where any kind of arrangement and collection of all this input from anyone, anytime and anywhere can be cheaply obtained on COM microfiche, 4x6" film cards with 400-600 pages of information, readable on the better reading machines. - - I am working towards such an objective with my Super Computer network and my initial efforts with Libertarian Microfiche Publishing. See my booklet: “An Ideal Market for Freedom Ideas" and the following “Gone Fiching -for Liberty”. - - (In this sphere a large degree of freedom of action existed and still exists – and thus such dreams and better ones CAN became quickly realized. – J.Z., 19.12.04.) [But that is still not mediated by e.g. a libertarian Ideas Archive and a libertarian common projects list - online. - Only silly large protests are organized with modern mobile phones etc. The ideas of the protestors remain were poor and under-informed. They are rich only in popular errors and prejudices, not yet systematically collected and confronted with the best refutations, which would be done with a large disc. - J.Z., 19.10.11.] - - - Like you, I would like to opt out. Not only out of taxation, conscription, general laws of an irrational and repressive kind, but also and especially out of the monetary and financial legislation. See my enclosed literature list. - - Can you really be as unaware as your statements on "throwing up" statism seem to suggest, how hard any government would make it, presently, for anyone who claimed monetary and financial freedom, of the complete kind, in practice? - - Admittedly, monetary and financial despotisms: is nothing more than a popular religion of which the official experts are the high priests - but this is precisely its strength - when it comes to repressing sound, moral and rational alternatives. - - - It would be very hard to overestimate the value of the disassociation principle.  - For instance, how easily could it have solved the current crises in Iran and Afghanistan? - How irresistible could it make a resistance or revolutionary movement, any minority aspiration towards self-rule (by fully recognizing the same right in all dissenters living in the same and in other countries)? - And yet, you and I know, that a single person’s enlightened and moral act of individual secessionism would not have turned the tide under the present rule of ignorance, territorial powers and prejudices. - - I also agree with you that even single, undisturbed and prolonged instances of successful secessionism, be it that of a farmer like Len Casley in Western Australia (not yet successful and complete because not yet recognized) or of a single village in India, China or Soviet Russia - if sufficiently and truthfully reported upon, in the mass media, could, indeed, be the signal for a similar transformation of the whole world. - - But, again, I can only state that to achieve this single instance, undisturbed, complete and for a considerable time, would require much more than a mere declaration by a single individual. - To take an analogy: You act as if the "right" to vote could have been generally introduced by a single person, casting only his own vote, once, upon one occasion, while all others would abstain, effectively suppressed or terrorized. - - Now, I would be the last one to deny the potential power and influence of examples set by individuals. After all, a single Christian monk, has, for instance, been credited with ending the popular sport of gladiatorial games. And Martin Luther had, largely, started off the Reformation single-handedly, with his 97 theses nailed to the church door at Wittenberg, using it as his bulletin board. But I would be the last one to assert that this method is always guaranteed to succeed. - A book full of such instances would be a book full of rousing tales - but remember, heroism is the exception, not the rule. - - - How do you opt out, as an individual, out of the nuclear strength and war preparations of governments? - I wrote a book about this (Peace Plans No. 16-17) but cannot say, unfortunately, that it has been a popular one. - - I firmly hold, that individual secessionism must be backed up by something like an ideal militia force for the protection of human rights - a military defence force, which, one might say, would largely follow the Swiss model - and would use the direct democratic practices common in Switzerland. - - - You would also be right if you were to say that mass meetings of people, where people, instead of shouting hateful slogans or making all too general pro-freedom statements, would, instead, declare their individual and complete secession from the existing State and encourage all other soldiers and citizens to make similar statements and then to associate on a voluntary and exterritorial and autonomous basis, according to their highest beliefs, acting only on their own expense and risk, and also stating that they would grant this right even to their worst enemies, then such meetings could, indeed be more influential than the usual non-violent or violent ones. - But unarmed voters, citizens and soldiers, who are not properly organized and enlightened, are usually still only puppets or comical figures in the hands of rulers, who are armed and organized for repression. They would, usually, not be any better off than the protestors against nuclear reactors or large meetings of conscientious objectors are - in the face of a counter-action by armed policemen or soldiers. (How many protestors in the world were simply shot or otherwise murdered during the last year in various trouble spots of the world? - According to some reports, many of the victims were buried - alive. - J.Z., 19.10.11.) - - Face it, most people are still statists and in favour of "national security" no matter how harmful and dangerous "Welfare States" and "national security preparations" have become for them. Thus individual dissenting acts consisting only in one-sided declarations and hopeful one-sided actions will not find wide approval but, usually, rather popular repression. - - - We are still in no better position than atheists and heretics were under the rule of the one and only "true” church. For both of us new communication channels are the means to spread our idea of general liberty and self-rule. But before these ideas have spread, we cannot expect them to be widely enough acted upon. - - - I listed quite a number of "cultural revolution" new communication channels, which ought to be opened up in order to bring about - fast - a change in the climate of public opinion (They include bulletin boards) in: Peace Plans 61-63. Let me have your comments on that. [With my other peace book now online at the A libertarian enlightenment program I offered in a digitized book manuscript, still only called New Draft, in 2010. So far only a review of it is online at - J.Z., 19.10.11.] - - - Generalizing present electronic media trends, I would say that the conventional types of public bulletin boards will be out-dated before they have even reached their full potential as aids in enlightenment. - - David Hart in his essay in PEACE PLANS 135/6 deals also with the secessionist ideas of G. Molinari (expressed especially in his "The Production of Security"). - - Such ideas were brilliantly expressed, already over 100 years ago and yet did not spread like the wind around the world, but were, largely, forgotten until recently, to a large extent even in libertarian circles - because these texts were out of print or not yet translated into the other major languages. - - - Johann Gottlieb Fichte expressed such ideas possibly first of all, in 1793, in his "Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische Revolution" (“A Contribution to Rectify Public Opinion on the French Revolution, of which an extract, in English, was microfiched in PEACE PLANS 61-63. This edition has been online for a while and I have still not received a single response to it! See: and yet, how effective has his individual declaration been, although he is known, for other of his writings, all over the world? It does take much more than a single expression of such an idea, which is still unknown to most people, as well as the knowledge of its extensive and very long practice in the past, a part of history that is, usually, ignored by most historians and jurists. - - - We have to got into the details to solve the problem why people give "the sanction of the victim" as Ayn Rand put it and still favour the subjection of other people to majority rule, the rule of strong men or of a single party. - - While individual dissociation is, indeed, one of the required solvents and, probably, the most important one for this knotty problem, it must also be properly applied to be effective and not just waved about or shouted like a magic wand or work magic. - - - If we could simply rid ourselves of bureaucracy by opting out of it - what rational being would not do so? But as long as the bureaucracy's police and military power is ignored and its support by popular prejudices, and most people are not sufficiently informed, they will not arm, train and organize themselves to uphold their rights against repressive and aggressive actions by others. - - Think how much of Switzerland's freedom is due to it being well armed and organized. Otherwise, Swiss declarations of "neutrality" would not have helped very much. - - People who think about secessionism only in general terms, are usually unable to apply it in many concrete instances and thus fall back into conventional thinking. Thus there are many intolerant or totalitarian "libertarians" who want to impose in one way or the other a free society, according to their definitions, upon all people, even those who, for themselves, would prefer unfree societies. Sometimes, they do express both ideas, individual choice, and ideal universal systems, in the same article or book! - - - Whosoever deals with ideas only on very general terms, does not supply a good enough service, fails even to enlighten himself in many instances. - - - Before the two of us could agree even on this one important question we have to go into many more details. - For Freedom In Our Time, signed: John Zube - - P.S.: Why not consider my microfiche as mini- and cheap bulletin boards? Can you exhibit 98 pages any cheaper? Indeed, a reader is needed, but for short notices even a hand-held one is sufficient. You could put 1,000 of them, i.e. 98,000 pages into a single mini-"Esky" of polyutherane foam which is designed to carry only 6 cans of soft drinks. - - The Kodak Ektalite microfiche reader, to access all these, is hardly larger than this small box. - I put so far out 3 on suitable locations in Sydney and work on “opening up” 2 more such locations. – J.Z. (Alas, these locations, too, were not as suitable as I thought them to be. – J.Z., 19.12.04.) - Enclosures: PP 61-69. - - - (Somewhat edited: 19.12.04 & 19.10.11, 24.12.11, 24.5.12.)

JANOWSKY, OSCAR I., People at Bay: The Jewish Problem in East Central Europe, N.Y., 1939.

JANOWSKY, OSCAR I., The Jews and Minority Rights, 1898-1919, Columbia U.P., N.Y., 1933.

JASPER THE JESTER: 61, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PEACE PLANS 585. -- in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. -- 13, 37, 42, 45, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.

JENKINS, CARL S., HAT (Human Animal Territorial Syndrome), pp 162-172 of THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN RELATIONS, Second Quarter 1969, Central State Univ., Wilber-force, Ohio, - Univ. of NSW Libr. - A defence of the Territorial Imperative idea - independent of Ardrey. -- Among human beings, as I believe, this syndrome indicates something close to a mental defect, namely, the inability or unwillingness to think in other than territorial terms. Even among animals, from sparrows to some of the big apes, the territorial "imperative" is not general, as Robert Ardrey had to admit himself. Among animals it can be forgiven as an instinct but among rational human beings, as merely a wrongful and irrational idea, and its application, in spite of all the disasters it leads to, has become inexcusable. -  My bibliography on panarchism seems long but it is listing only a very tiny fraction of all political writings. [It is included in the preliminary A to Z on panarchism etc. – J.Z., 24.5.12.] In other words, non-sufferers from this syndrome are rare and remaining fixed ideas on territorialism can be found even in the writings of those who sometimes came close to the panarchistic ideal. - J.Z., 16.1.99. – TERRITORIALISM, TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE OR EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE?


JENKS, Law and Politics in the Middle Ages (Lon­don. 1913), p. 14. Quoted by Liu, Exterritoriality, p. 28.

JERNIGAN, T. R., China in Law and Commerce, New York, 1915.

JESUS CHRIST, CHRISTIANITY & PANARCHISM: J.Z. to Keith Johnson, 31.5.06: Dear Keith, what the Nazis would have thought about a Jew being murdered by other Jews, would have been: That is no business of ours! It's only a killing among Jews. We are only involved when a Jew murders a Nazi or a Nazi murders a Jew. - Jews, like Germans, were not a uniform people. Quite the contrary. - JC had certainly not committed a serious offence within the voluntary community of his followers. - He had only offended against the ancient Jewish laws and traditions, in the attempt to territorially and uniformly change them in the direction of his beliefs. That was wrong by him - but did not really deserve the death penalty, either. - If Jews themselves and Arabs and Christians etc. had been allowed to sort themselves out into their own and voluntary communities, all of them only exterritorially autonomous, then history would have taken a turn for the better, from then on. - Alas, he was mainly only concerned with "souls" and their "heaven" and a pious life on Earth, rather than in major reforms of life and institutions on Earth. The social reforms he proposed were all too limited. - But if he had really advocated voluntaristic communities, then he would really have been a prophet or prince of peace, rather than, in practice, and often very much against his will, becoming interpreted as an advocate of all too much humble submission or as a fanatic, favouring even and mass murders of non-believers. - His major guilt consisted in establishing a major and more or less new strong faith, strong enough to turn all too many people into fanatics. - He did not even preach religious tolerance, and was, like most people are still today, far from being tolerant towards tolerant political, economic and social systems. - Nor did he firmly enough oppose all notions and practices of collective responsibility, of which the Old Testament is all too full. Moreover, he or his followers spread the absurd notion that he could die "for our 'sins'"! As one of the last religious human sacrifices! – [And this after even animal sacrifices had already been largely abolished among the Jews! – JZ., 24.12.11.] Anyhow, no one, who has not sufficiently cleared his mind of all such religious rubbish notions, can sufficiently cope with the problems of our times or can even comprehend them. - I attempted to draw some lessons from the errors of the past in the attached article. [My Nuclear War Threat book manuscript, still unfinished. - J.Z., 26.9.11.] The term "dream" in the first 12 points section should probably be replaced by "idea" or "notion". - There you will see how far apart our ideas still are. - PIOT, John. - RELIGIONS, TOLERANCE, HEAVEN ON EARTH RATHER THAN IN THE SKY, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, VOLUNTARISM, INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM, NWT.

JEWISH AUTONOMY WITHOUT TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, JEWISH COMMUNAL SELF-GOVERNMENT TRADITIONS: Jews ... How long had they been a self-contained culture, independent of geography, living even in their own time-stream? - "Outward Bound", by Norman Spinrad, "ANALOG", 3/64, p. 59. - Alas, most modern Jews tend to focus on the numerous pogroms that Jews suffered under and to neglect the degrees of exterritorial self-government that they had managed to achieve for some periods in the past, in some countries. These historical precedents could and should still serve as models for our times, if freed from the then still remaining restraints, e.g. a head tax. Furthermore, Zionism has misdirected many to most of them in the direction of territorialism, although at least in religion, culture and in their trading network, they constituted already a cosmopolitan and largely exterritorial world-wide voluntary community. The remaining numerous wrongful and territorial prosecutions led them to strive for a territorial model for themselves, rather than examining and trying to fully realise their exterritorial possibilities, which would have been right and useful for all other volunteer communities as well. - The history of the Jewish "territorialists" may still have to be written. (This misleading name was adopted by those Jews who strove for exterritorial autonomy WITHIN the Czarist empire.) - J.Z., 11.12.03. - ZIONISM, TERRITORIAL, AS OPPOSED TO JUDAISM, EXTERRITORIAL.

JEWISH AUTONOMY: The old Jewish name for it was "shtetel", which probably stands for the German word "Staedtl", meaning a small town. Were Jewish communities more autonomous in small towns, where it might have been quite uneconomical to incarcerate them in a ghetto, or in larger towns, where they had these areas set aside for them, forming a small town within the larger one? The only detailed study of Jewish autonomy that I have so far seen, possess and partly read (others, that looked somewhat interesting, I have not yet read ) is: S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, vol. II: The Community. The Jewish communities of the Arab world as portrayed in the documents of the Cairo geniza. University of California Press, 1971, indexed, 683pp. Please steer me in the direction of more such literature. - J.Z. 14.1.93. - Mostly this autonomy amounted only to somewhat extraterritorial enclaves rather than to an exterritorial and personal law status. In this it resembled the extraterritorial status of foreigners in China, achieved by the "unequal treaties". However, the latter also adopted "protégée citizens", i.e., volunteer from among the Chinese. (Naturally, it did not please the Chinese territorial nationalists that some Chinese preferred the courts and jurisdiction of foreigners to the then still rather unjust and arbitrary courts of the Chinese Emperor. But ultimately this led to at least some reforms of Chinese Courts - until the territorial totalitarians took over.) Jews in their Ghettos, in spite of their local self-government, remained underprivileged rather than privileged people in the countries that put them, compulsorily, and at least for the nights, into territorial ghettos. - J.Z., 11.12.2003. - Still, they had at least a degree of autonomy THERE. This was reduced to a ridiculous extent when, under the Nazi regime, they were only free to select themselves who would be the next victims to be transported to the extermination camps and there, when they were "free", to help in these mass murders, by removing the bodies from the gas chambers and burning them. The only alternative offered to them was to join the victims immediately, on their path to the gas chamber. All those, not considered fit for this "work", children and weak people, were among the first victims. The vicious prejudices of those, who had gained power in Germany then, had certainly not yet been sufficiently refuted or ridiculed, but led, together with many other aspects, to a totalitarian regime and mass murderous regime like that of Hitler. - J.Z., 6.11.11, 24.12.11. - See: NAZIS, HITLER, TOTALITARIANISM, INFLATION, DEPRESSION, UNEMPLOYMENT, MONETARY DESPOTISM, ANTISEMITISM, PREJUDICES, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS,

JEWISH COMMUNITY AUTONOMY & PERSONAL LAW TRADITION IN HISTORY, COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE ARABS & OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE NEAR EAST: I have listed a number of titles on this subject in this compilation and will not attempt to repeat them here. - J.Z., 16.9.04.

JEWISH COMMUNITY IN ANCIENT CHINA: An extract, without the pictures, from “Pictorial History of the Jewish People” by Nathan Ausubel, Crown Publishers, New York, 14th. Printing, 193?, page 223. - My ancient photocopy of this article, which my Jewish newsagent in Moss Vale pointed out to me, many years ago, is by now almost disintegrating. Thus I transcribe this article. - The article contains 3 pictures, that I cannot reproduce: 1.)“The old synagogue at K’aifeng, from a drawing by the French Jesuit missionary, Pére Jean Domenge, who visited it in 1762. It no longer exists. - 2.) A Sefer Torah case and its Ark, which formerly belonged to the K’aifeng Synagogue. – Jewish Museum - 3.) Jews of K’aifeng, 1919.” - (In Jewish clothing but by their facial features indistinguishable from Chinese.) - - China In K’aifeng, an ancient city on the Yellow River and the capital of Honan Province, live a handful of Jews who cannot be distinguished in any superficial way from the Chinese. Yet what marks them out as a unique ethnic group is their devotion to the Jewish religion. Their synagogue, now relinquished, was beautiful and elaborate, with exquisitely designed courtyards and chapels in the style of a Chinese temple. On one of the stone tablets in the compound of the synagogue was an inscription in Chinese characters. It read: ‘Adam was the first man, Abraham was the founder of our religion, then came Moses and gave us the Law and the Holy Scriptures …’ - Now, even without a house of worship they, nevertheless, cling to the Law that Moses gave them. The few traditional clans that they make up, Chinese fashion, desperately hold together in a common identity. - Some historians speculate that the Jews of K’aifeng are partly descended from Jewish stock that had been previously settled in Persia. Unknown events probably had obliged them to seek refuge in China in the days of the Maccabees, a period which coincided with that of the Han Dynasty. - There is little doubt that the K’aifeng Jews, both in numbers and in influence, must have formed at one time an important element in the community. The Chinese emperors of the T’ang Dynasty (seventh century C.E.) set a mandarin over them to look after their welfare. Once a year this princely official would enter the synagogue at K’aifeng and, in the name of the emperor whom he represented, would burn incense before the altar. The Chinese emperors granted the Jews full protection and accorded them courteous treatment. It is an interesting commentary on the varying social philosophies of peoples that at the very time that the Crusaders were savagely exterminating hundreds of Jewish communities in Europe, a Chinese emperor welcomed the Jews with these words: ‘You have come to our China; revere and preserve the customs of your ancestors.” He even helped them build their synagogue. - There were many migrations of Jews into Honan during the centuries. Their numbers must have been quite formidable to deserve the frequent official mention made of them in imperial records. The Jewish newcomers resembled the Chinese in so many ways as to make them readily acceptable: their gentleness, their scholarly predilections, their devoted study of religious writings, and not the least – their great reverence for tradition and for their ancestors. This may explain why it is that in time Jews began to disappear from Chinese life, though they were neither killed off nor forcibly converted. They were probably absorbed biologically and culturally in a slow but inexorable process. Today only enough of them are left – barely a few hundred – to serve, so to speak, as ethnological specimens.” - - According to 2 books that I have recently read, even Genghis Khan and his successors upheld religious tolerance. At least in that respect the “Christian” crusaders were worse. But the Crusaders also established some autonomous orders of “knights”, like the Templars and the Maltese. – J.Z., 8.12.04.

JEWISH PEOPLE: 46, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. - One of the 24 special issues, which were, later, all digitized, reproducing panarchistic contributions in my PEACE PLANS series, and those gathered online. Altogether 1779 issues of PEACE PLANS series appeared, mostly only on microfiche - until 2002. - J.Z., 26.9.11.

JEWISH PEOPLE: The Jews may be said to constitute a special sort of League of Nations of their own, resting not upon paper formulae but on the firmer foundation of a natural ability to understand and trust one another. We need go back little more than a century to find families of Jews, not only the great houses whose names are household words, but many thousands of unknown Jewish families spread all over the world, serving the manufacturers and traders of the world by reason of the credit or confidence which was and still is their special contribution to progress. - E. Benn, "Debt", 129/30. In a way most of them are natural and voluntary cosmopolitans or citizens of the world or world federationists. And they force no one to join their federation or to use any of their services. Nor do they prosecute, in our times, anyone who secedes from their communities. The full history of the duration and extent of their exterritorial autonomy of their communities in many foreign countries may still have to be written. Only their prosecution by religious fanatics, racists and territorial nationalists has been well recorded. Their largely tolerant coexistence with Christians and Muslims around the Mediterranean ought to be closely studied and further developed for our times, for these and other people and groups in other countries. Unfortunately, most Jewish scholars have so far neglected this field of studies, too and most Jews have become territorialists, with the usual dire consequences for themselves and others. - J.Z., 8.1.93.

JEWISH PLUS ARAB AUTONOMY IN ISRAEL & PALESTINE: Jewish and Arab autonomous communities of volunteers can both peacefully coexist in the same territory - but only upon the exterritorial model of voluntarism, not upon and exclusive, uniform and coercive territorial model with compulsory membership or subordination, however democratic, provided by any territorial State. What is needed is a revival and great extension of the exterritorial autonomy achieved by Jews and Christians in the Arab empire, for centuries. All these and other communities and movements in this area would have to sacrifice their imperialistic and territorialist ambitions and become merely exterritorially autonomous groups of volunteers. In this form all their tribes and clans, all their parties and movements, faiths and ideologies could be peacefully and tolerantly continued as long as they find adherents. As such they could rapidly come to peacefully coexist in the same area. - - "Judaism and Islam have coexisted more peacefully with each other than with Christianity or any other creed. In spite of their religious divergence, the productive harmony in which they lived for thousands (hundreds!? - J.Z., 10.12.03.) of years, from the great era of Alexandria to the golden age of Spain, has yielded fertile innovations in mathematics, astronomy, science, medicine and commerce. - 'My friends the enemies' is the ambivalent sentiment which many Jews and Arabs feel towards each other. Is it really too utopian to hope that a renewed pattern of coexistence and commerce could help transcend their momentary hatred and defuse the powder keg of the Middle East as well?"- Sam Pisar, Of Blood & Hope, 283. - Personal law for all groups of volunteers rather than any territorial, nationalistic, federal or imperialistic law imposition by one group over all other groups in the same territory. Just an extension of the tolerant features of their own traditions is required. That's all that they - and most other trouble-spots in the world - do need, to enable them to cope with most of their current, acute and large as well as with most minor problems. - J.Z. 15.1.93, 10.12.03, 19.10.11, 24.12.11.

JEWS OF LITHUANIA, 1916: They strove for exterritorial autonomy. See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON, Panarchie – immer konkret beschreiben.

JEWS: The Jews are a race apart. They have made laws according to their own fashion and keep them.” – Celsus, A True Discourse, c. 178. - They are personal laws and chosen laws - for one can secede from their communities. - J.Z., 10.7.86. - Self-chosen laws are much more likely to be kept. - J.Z., 28.10.02. – They are much more a group of various religious beliefs and community traditions held together by a common history and literature than a separate race. Just like Englishmen, North Americans, Spaniards, Italians, Germans, Australians, New Zealanders, Frenchmen and Irishmen are not, each, a different race. – J.Z., 15.1.09. PERSONAL LAWS, AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, DIS.

JOBS, ACTIONS, SERVICES: All jobs, services, laws, institutions and actions are right for those who do want them and wrong for those who don't. So, to each his own. - J.Z. 24.12.91, 24.12.11.

JOESTEN, JOACHIM: Article on consular jurisdiction in Tangier, DIE WELT, 22.8.1953. - JZL. – See: TANGIER AND PROTÉGÉE CITIZENSHIP, an article in German.

JOHN, Prince of Laird's Corner: Some declarations, photographs and press clippings of his secession, near Robertson, N.S.W., Australia, 87-105, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PEACE PLANS 832. - Since then deceased, with no one else pressing his claim. - J.Z., 20.1.99.

JOHNSON, DWIGHT, As for my "short web site pages", most of my blogging is currently on All my most recent stuff is there. I am hoping to put it into book form shortly (by the end of the month). - In email of 8.10.11.

JOHNSON, DWIGHT, How can multiple governments work? - How can multiple governments work? (2009)

JOHNSON, DWIGHT, Non-territorial governments, 2005-07-08 - Dwight Writes - We appear to be in a state of transition. Are there any historical patterns available to us to guide us to a resolution of our problems? I can think of one. - There was a time in the history of the West known as Christendom. To oversimplify a bit, we were a diverse people joined by common sets of morals and religious doctrines. The Reformation caused division within the area of doctrine. We split, then splintered. Unity of doctrine was lost, seemingly for good. At first, the attempts to repair the damage involved the use of armies, the letting of blood. Eventually we learned to coexist. More than that, the divisions themselves perhaps taught us something about freedom of conscience. It isn't that everyone is right in his own way. It is just that everyone has the right to be wrong in his own way. - - Until fairly recently, doctrine has divided us, but we clung to a core of common moral beliefs. That has changed. And, like the division on doctrine, there is no going back, at least not by a direct route. But we have not yet figured out how to deal with this new reality. - - What if we were able to find a solution to the new problem that worked like the old one did? What if we recognized everyone's right to be wrong, not just about doctrine, but also about morals? What would that look like? - - What if rather than keeping our one-size-fits-all, winner-take-all government, we devised a way to have multiple, non-territorial governments? The Republican and Democratic Parties become non-territorial governments (NTGs), jointly controlling the various departments of government in proportion to the number of their paying members. The numbers of members would be adjusted each month as members switched party affiliation. - - At some point, the parties would be allowed to split, and split they would. Eventually they too would splinter. But the parties would continue to jointly operate the national government departments like so many companies. - - [Do there have to be national government departments? - J.Z., 24.9.11.] - - How would this be any different from our current situation? Like so many sons of the Prodigal Father, they would insist on splitting their inheritances and going their own ways. This one wants to maintain Social Security along the old formula: off he goes! That one wants private accounts: rip! That one wants to police the whole world; this one wants to scale back dramatically. The inheritance of the old departments of government come apart at the seams. Each NTG acts according to its lights. People vote with their feet, moving their affiliation and cash to the one that reflects their moral beliefs. Costs of doing business are trimmed to attract new members. - - What would all this change create? It would do away with the idea that government must be monopolistic and involuntary. It would prove that government could be truly run like a business. It would allow each person the freedom to express their moral beliefs, to live within a government whose actions reflected their beliefs, whose tax dollars (if they could still be called taxes) would only go to fund actions that were in keeping with their morals. - - Yes, it does away with our self-image: we are a Christian nation, with a single set of moral beliefs in all things. We would be divided along the moral issues that already divide us. No need to worry if the new Supreme Court judge will help tear down Roe v. Wade. Irrelevant! With our intertwining, non-territorial governments, each will act (as he would anyway) according to his own moral beliefs. The difference is, WE won't be supporting THEIR causes with OUR money. The sun shines on the just and the unjust. We each have the right to be wrong in our own ways. And we are all responsible for our own actions. The monolithic, monopolistic, territorial, involuntary government will be no more. - - End of the story? No. Moral evil is objective. We will witness the consequences of evil choices, and need to bear witness to the truth, about morality just as with doctrine. The sun shines on the just and the unjust. But the wages of sin still demand to be payed. - - God draws straight with crooked lines. The doctrinal divisions of the Reformation, the moral divisions of our own times, perhaps they are paths to truths that we would not have seen clearly otherwise. Perhaps they are the straightest paths God could have fashioned for us. Respecting the dignity of the human person, including the right to be wrong, could be the shortest, straightest path of all. - posted by Dwight. Home

JOHNSON, DWIGHT, Paleo-libertarian Social Contract - a bill of human rights. The dignity of the human person requires that no other human person, or organization of persons in human society, can assume to take away the absolute right to freedom of the individual, except in response to violence done by that person against another. Abrogating a person's freedom of action is itself an act of violence against that person. - - This means that: Every individual has personal sovereignty. They must be allowed to freely choose their every action, as long as the action does not do harm to another's person or property. - - Every individual has an absolute right to life, the only exception being where merely restraining them by all means possible is not enough to prevent them from doing harm to others. - - Every individual has an absolute right to own property, and no person or organization has the right to separate them from their property, or their exercise of ownership of their property, unless no other means can be found to prevent them from harming others by means of that property. - - Every individual has an absolute right of association. The right of association also means that a person has the right not to associate with other persons or organizations. This further implies a right to secession from all human organizations, including every form of government. This right extends to every organization of persons who, as a group, are part of a larger organization. The right of association does not mean that a person has a right to be accepted as a member of any organization, since that would be contradictory to the right not to be associated with another. - posted by Dwight at 12:26 PM  4 Comments: Clarifications about personal sovereignty: the absolute freedom of action does not do away with contract responsibilities. A person who engages in a contractual arrangement is always bound to fulfil his responsibilities vis-a-vis the contract. By Dwight, at 2:02 PM  - - Clarification about the right to property: there will, of course, be occasions where property must be taken temporarily for security reasons. This is where law comes into play, establishing the parameters of such exceptions. - - By Dwight, at 2:05 PM  - - What does the clarification of property rights mean? Under what circumstances is it right to take somebody's property "for safety reasons"? The only case I can think of is to prevent attacks on some specific person or event, and in that case you only have to take weapons from those who enter the relevant place. And that can be handled voluntarily, so it is not an exception. - - By Anonymous, at 12:21 PMAnonymous, there will always be circumstances where, to use your example, a weapon would need to be taken from someone WITHOUT their cooperation. Society has a right to protect itself from individuals and organizations that do it harm. That is true of the gun-wielding outlaw or the tax-wielding government. I am guessing what you mean is that, in some 'relevant place' the local security organization would take weapons upon entry and return them upon departure. Is that what you mean? - By Dwight, at 12:58 PMPost a Comment - << Home - Dwight Writes  2005-07-13:

JOHNSON, DWIGHT, The Day My Eyes Were Opened. 2005-07-13. - Dwight Writes - The following story is pure fiction. No actual persons or events are depicted. I submitted it to Lew, but he rejected it (very politely) saying it was slightly out of scope of his site. Oh, how the artist must suffer! - - I was minding my own business, walking down a quiet road, when I was hit from behind by a speeding car. My body healed slowly. I was in a coma for several years. The world, meanwhile, moved on. Then, one day, June 22, I awoke. - - Before my lengthy nap, my country was made up of 50 states, and had a large national government, control of which was bounced back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats like a volleyball. The day after a national election resembled nothing so much as the whoop of victory when your team had spiked the ball. Contentiousness between liberals and conservatives hung in the air every hour of every day. There was no political dialog, no back and forth of argument. There was only "spin", coming equally from left and right. Spin and invective. This was the atmosphere of my world before 6/22. - - But the world I woke up in that day was entirely different. America still had fifty states, but long gone were the two parties, Democrats and Republicans. Now there were at least forty Non-Territorial Governments (NTGs). I was told that years ago, when the new system had first come about, the NTGs had advertised incessantly on TV, radio, the internet, and in every print media. That had calmed down as people got to know who was who. Now their advertising was more nuanced. - - The Reds, for example. They had been the largest block to come out of the old Republican party. They experienced, as did the Blues (Democrats), a great number of schisms in the early years, but the party leaders maintained a sizable member base by adroitly adjusting their platform. Recognizing the new shape of the world that they had entered, they fell back to their roots: limited government, support for business, and a generic Protestant view of things. The neo-conservative elements found themselves left out in the cold, and their NTG, which split off very early from the Reds, never had the numbers to rise to anywhere near the top ten. War is just too expensive, when you have a choice. The only reason they had survived so long within the Republican party was that the religious conservatives cared less about reining in the war-mongers than fighting off the abortionists. They had their priorities, and were forced into the unpleasant alliance. That was no longer the case. - - The Blues also remained the largest off-shoot of the old Democrats. They too went with their well-established base: support for the common man, the need for a sane health care system throughout the land, and personal liberty in matters of sexuality. They had to let the teachers go, as the public education system was just too far out of whack to be defended successfully. - - So these forty or so NTGs operated the vestiges of the old federal government jointly, paying their dues to do so. Each department of the old government had been reconstituted as a business venture, jointly owned by however many NTGs had the chips to play. The NTGs haggled over the various programs, splitting things up, each agreeing to help pay for this, but refusing to have anything to do with that. They pretty much all agreed to pay to maintain the nuclear silos and subs, [What for? Against which targets or enemies? Territories and their populations? – J.Z., 24.12.11.] but put together a committee to chart a path to the future. After all, these programs were expensive, and each NTG had a stake in reducing costs. Low cost was obviously a selling point when your existence depended on holding on to your customers. And each year the customers, every citizen of the US that wanted to benefit from what the NTGs offered, would shop around for the best deal. In many essentials there was little to distinguish the Reds from the Blues on these points: each provided comprehensive insurance plans for health and post-retirement income insurance (what used to be called Social Security). Each NTG would of course trumpet how they differed from their main competition. In the end, cost was always a big factor, and so they strained every year to cut costs. - - The old Postal Service was gone, but adequately covered by UPS and the other package deliverers, who easily stepped in with new services that more than matched the old. Also gone was the old Amtrak, but this too was replaced by a more robust rail system, owned jointly by a start-up created by several of the freight train companies, along with some European and Japanese rail systems. - - What had brought about this amazing change? It turned out that everyone finally realized there was no going back. The country had once enjoyed a fairly uniform view of moral issues. When this first began to unravel, most visibly in the decade of the 1960s, people thought things could go on with a tweak here and there. "Perhaps we could argue persuasively enough so they would see that we are right and they are wrong", each side thought. When persuasion failed, the battle for raw power in the government was waged. Every political election, every appointment to the Supreme Court, became a pitched battle for power and influence. If they couldn't convince, they would seize power and control the outcome to their satisfaction. Many battles were won; final victory always evaded their grasp. I guess everyone just tired of the constant battles, realized the futility of it all, and began to look for another solution. - - The solution turned out to be fairly simple: give everyone what they wanted. Instead of forcing everyone to work within a single, megalithic, monopolistic, involuntary, coercive government, where membership was based solely on residence, they created a web of interwoven non-territorial governments, voluntary, non-coercive, anything but megalithic. They gave the NTGs joint power over the goods that had once been the federal government, and gave all the people the right to choose what programs in that government they would support by letting them choose which NTG would control the distribution of their tax dollars. - - Not everyone was happy, of course. Some who held great power in the old regime missed that, especially the part where they got to spend other peoples money. Many, who clung to the belief that those who were "right" should impose their beliefs for the good of all, missed the ability, experienced occasionally, to control others. But most were happy that the level of invective had dropped, and the work of apologetics could go on within a more tranquil environment; for each side on every issue continued to think they had always been right. Now they could put their money, their tax money, where their mouths were. Time would tell. - - Lately the talk is about getting rid of the last remnants of what had been called the Internal Revenue Service. As the NTGs had whittled away their costs, they began to make most of their money selling insurance and security. Who'd have thought? - - This piece of fiction is based on two pieces of non-fiction. The first appeared some months ago in [ ]. - - The second would be appreciated by the readers of [ ]. - posted by Dwight at 9:06 AM   - 0 Comments: - Post a Comment - << Home

JOHNSON, DWIGHT, The end of modern serfdom. - The end of modern serfdom (2009) - I added an article to the website entitled "The end of modern serfdom". Comments are welcome (no registration required). - Dwight, 11.12.09.

JOHNSON, JILL: Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution, 1970, THE VILLAGE VOICE, N.Y., Simon & Schuster, 1973, 283pp, bibliography. - Some old, some new and many odd and confused lines of thought all jumbled together with little if any clarity on form and organization of this "Lesbian Nation" for which no territory is claimed. - J.Z. – My subjective first impression. By all means, add a better abstract or review – if you want to. – At least this author is not a territorialist. – J.Z., 24.12.11.

JOHNSON, RICHARD C. B., Government, State, Monopoly, Territorialism & Panarchy. Some important distinctions in an email circular of 6.10.11: I posted the following: [quote user="Logos"] More or less, I think people here are confusing a government (a governing body) with a state (an entity with the monopoly on the initiation of the use of force). Although all states are government, not all governments are states and THAT is something people need to comprehend.[/quote] - Indeed, I believe this is spot on. I'd say panarchists and anarchists both see the territorial monopolist government (i.e. the State) as the root to most social evils, but while the anarchists concludes that we need to get rid of all forms of government, panarchists conclude that we need to get rid of the territorial monopolies. - Non-monopolist governance has existed everywhere and long before the current territorial monopolist governments were instituted as the standard. If you didn't know this and want to learn more, check out the link under ‘Panarchy’ at my website,, for references. - Government without monopoly is a central feature of panarchy. If you can select and change government without moving, to some regard it's voluntary. There’s nothing really contradictory with voluntary government in that regard. - But this isn’t merely a play with words. The FACT is that governments have been around for ages without being territorial monopolist governments, like all our States today. - Cheers, Richard - I also find the distinction between Government and Governance somewhat useful. The former usually refers to a territorial government over a territorial State. Governance could be applied to the existence and activities of competing societies, whether they are e.g. statist ones or libertarian ones, all of them without a territorial government. Alas, our languages are on so many points so vague, and the same terms have often so many different and even contradictory definitions. Largely, it is the language barriers, even in our own language, that keep us at loggerheads. - J.Z., 7.10.11.

JOHNSSON, RICHARD C. B., Non-Territorial Governance - Mankind's Forgotten Legacy. - Richard C.B. Johnsson,  Non-Territorial Governance - Mankind's Forgotten Legacy (2005) [English] - A Review of Extraterritoriality: Its Rise and Its Decline, by Shih Shun Liu, Ph.D. New York. Columbia University Press, 1925, 235 p.

JOHNSSON, RICHARD C. B., Territoriality vs. Land Property. - Territoriality vs. Land Property (2010)

JOHNSSON, RICHARD C.B.: To the Monopolists of All Parties, January 13, 2005: (A review of LIU’s book on Extraterritoriality): Richard C.B. Johnsson, To the Monopolists of All Parties (2005) [English] - - "I suppose most columnists and adherents of this forum are used to being called things like radical, idealistic, naive and even utopian, all of the words used in a very negative sense. The perhaps most fundamental reason for this kind of behavior is that Mr. Rockwell et al oppose the idea of a government with a monopoly on the use of force. Abolishing this monopoly is, allegedly, at best utopian. Alas, and this might come as a surprise to all too many, for most of mankind's history, there were no such monopolies. - Thus, before you call people names again, you really should learn more about how we used to organize our governance, or else you might come across as historically ignorant. Learn more about it, and perhaps you agree that the time is ripe for a return to the way we all used to organize our governance? - [snipped] - - This snippet on his essay is taken from: wrote: To: - Subject: The SovereignLife Report - Essay Digest - 21 February 2005

JOHNSTON, JOSEPH F., Jr.: The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Inc., 360 West Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois 60610-0890, 1984, ISBN 0-89526-653-9. Not an explicitly panarchist book but an excellent libertarian one that contains quite a few remarks that come close to panarchism: Page 158.) “Contractarianism or Government-by-Agreement”. - Page 236: “Each individual consumer and each individual seller makes his own decision, and the aggregate of all such decisions is translated by the market into an overall allocation of resources that satisfies consumer demands in the most efficient manner. … If monopolies exist, therefore, the philosophy of individualism decrees that they should be broken up and competition restored.” – Alas, he does not demand the abolition of territorial monopoly services for States, communities and societies, although his arguments apply to them, too. – Page 277: “A basic axiom of civil society, we have assumed, is that individuals should be permitted to pursue their own goals.” – Page 309: “… to prevent the tyranny which had always occurred when one faction attempted to use the power of the state to force its own views – in matters of religion, for example – over another faction.” – That is still the aim of all parties in their struggles to obtain “victory” in an election. – Page 326: “The principle of the ‘lowest feasible level’ would make government responsive to the people, as it was originally intended to be in the American constitutional structure. …” – That is the level of the individual. Let him secede! – Page 327: “… only when the consumer can choose between two or more competing products or services does the supplier have any incentive to provide better service at lower cost. But in the supply of services by government, there is usually no competition. … Where there is no competition, as in the case of the Postal Service monopoly of first-class mail delivery, the result is poor and costly service. The conclusion is inexorable: to have more efficient performance, it is imperative that there be competition in the provision of public services.” – Page 328: “Once the principle of competition in public services has been accepted, these services will then begin to be responsive to the consumer for the first time rather than directed by the public officials, who like all producers would rather manage a secure monopoly if they can get away with it.” – Page 331: The most that can be expected from a political system is that it should allow the free growth of countervailing moral tendencies within the society itself, and permit the utmost diversity in social arrangements to that the puritans as well as the epicures shall have their opportunity to succeed and to persuade. Politically, this requires a structure of the maximum possible decentralization of power, so that each group can follow its own path.” – I highly recommend this book although I do not agree with all of its statements. It is a worthy successor of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s pioneering work on the subject. - J.Z., n.d. - I managed to review it twice - and became only now aware of this! At least when laughing about oneself, one does not hurt anyone else's feelings! - I also did not always quote the same pages and in the same way. - Have a laugh at my expense! - J.Z., 19.10.10.  - - -

JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery, 1984. – (Second review!) There are many somewhat panarchist expressions in this book - by a conservative and limited government statist, nevertheless, excellent in many ways: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., "The Limits of Government". - First a popular error, from page 63: "The work of reducing the size of government cannot be accomplished in the course of one administration, but will take many years ..." - I wrote in the margin: Let the discontented taxpayers opt out. No taxes, no benefits, no membership for them. Let them have their own constitutions, laws, jurisdiction etc. The rest, too, would have to adapt to the limits of their own resources. - And not only taxpayers are dissatisfied and should become free to secede and do their own things to and for themselves. That could lead to really fast changes, all only voluntary ones. - - Page 158: Here he uses "contractarianism or government-by-agreement". - Page 236: On markets and consumer sovereignty he uses terms also applicable to panarchism: "Each individual consumer and each individual seller makes his own decision, and the aggregate of all such decisions is translated by the market into an overall allocation of resources that satisfies consumer demands in the most efficient manner. The philosophy of competitive markets is, at root, the same as the philosophy of individual responsibility, which is the conceptual predicate of this book. The free market is the economic counterpart of the liberal society composed of free and responsible individuals." - If there were no territorial monopolies for States and societies. - Only the veil of territorialism separates many libertarians and anarchists from panarchism or polyarchism. - Page 277: "A basic axiom of civil society, we have assumed, is that individuals should be permitted to pursue their own goals." - No territorialist limit to that maxim! Numerous diverse societies and a-territorial States could peacefully coexist in this general societal framework. - National goals mean despotism for dissenting individuals. [That does, naturally, imply that all people merely peacefully and responsibly pursuing their own goals, at the own risk and expense, should not be interfered with by other individuals or groups with different ideas, ideals and opinions. - J.Z., 1.10.11.] - Page 306: "... the policy against government involvement in matters of individual conscience." - To us it is obvious that individual conscience goes beyond matters of religion and of conscientious objection against military servitude. - - Page 309: "According to the Founding Fathers, government had to be restrained, and its powers carefully balanced, in order to prevent the tyranny which had always occurred when one faction attempted to use the powers of the state to force its own views - in matters of religion, for example - over another faction." - The Founding Fathers obviously overlooked the rightful and necessary restraints resulting from voluntary membership, meaning also individual dissociation or secessionism and exterritorial or a-territorial autonomy for voluntary communities, not only limited autonomy for e.g. football clubs and professional associations. - - Page 312: "Local choice in education, transportation and social welfare permits experimentation with new solutions and a healthy competition among groups with different political ideas." - Exterritorially autonomous experiments among volunteers offer even more competitive options than merely local experiments. E.g., Free Traders could freely trade world-wide among themselves. - - Page 326: He favours the provision of services at the "lowest feasible level" and wrongly assumes that this would be the level of local governments. The lowest and at the same time the highest level should be that of individuals. Let the individuals secede and make their own choices of alternative governments or societies and their services, whether they are, provided world-wide, federally, state-wide or locally. As consumers we are already largely free to do so for ordinary goods and services - alas, not for the so-called "public services", all too often unwanted services, disservices or over-priced monopoly services. - - Page 327: "... only when the consumer can choose between two or more competing products or services does the supplier have any incentive to provide better service at lower cost. But in the supply of services by government, there is usually no competition. Therefore, the civil servants, who provide the services, have little motivation to supply the highest quality and lowest-cost service. Where there IS competition with the government, as in the case of parcel post, the competition usually wins, because its managers are motivated by the carrot of profits and the stick of losing their jobs. Where there is not competition, as in the case of the Postal Service's monopoly of first-class mail delivery, the result is poor and costly service. The conclusion is inexorable: to have more efficient performance, it is imperative that there be competition in the provision of public services." - ALL public services! - Page 328: "Once the principle of competition in public services (ALL OF THEM! - J.Z.) has been accepted, these services will then begin to be responsive to the CONSUMER for the first time rather than directed by the public officials, who like all producers would rather manage a secure monopoly if they can get away with it. The low productivity of civil servants everywhere (INCLUDING POLITICIANS, AT EVER LEVEL, ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED: THEIR MURDEROUS, DESTRUCTIVE, ROBBING AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES! - J.Z.), in comparison to the private sector, provides ample evidence of the truth of this principle." - - Page 331: "Politically, this requires a structure of the maximum possible decentralization of power, so that each group can follow its own path." - Volunteers should also be free to adopt centralization, even world-wide, for their own purposes, at their own risk and expense. E.g., the Free Traders would like world-wide free trade relationships between themselves. - J.Z., in letter to GPdB & C.B., 11.11.04.

JOKES RELATING TO PANARCHISM: (1) DECISION-MAKING TO BECOME INDIVIDUALIZED: Grim Humour "Wouldn't you hate to be the President of the U.S. and have all his worries?" - I asked my husband. "Honey," he said, "don't you know that I have to worry about what the President has to worry about plus what I have to worry about, too?" ‑ Jeanne Anschl.  (2) DECISION-MAKING TO BECOME INDIVIDUALIZED: Captain: Men! in five minutes we will attack. It will be a fight at close quarters, man against man. Private: Would you please point out my man to me? I believe I could come to an agreement with him.  (3) A similar joke came from the German Russian front during WW II: A soldier was refused leave because of the desperate military situation. The only exception would be, his commanding officer told him, if he obtained an enemy machine gun. Then, as a reward, he would get his leave still. Half an hour later, this German soldier was back, with a Soviet machine gun. He got his leave certificate but then the officer took him aside and ask him: „How did you manage that? I didn’t hear any firing. I won’t give you away. Just tell me!“ The German soldier, trusting his officer, replied: „A Russian soldier needed a machine gun, too, for the same reason!“ – Maybe both of them even got a medal. I think they deserved it much more than other military heroes. - I desperately need not a machine gun – but more such jokes, relating to panarchistic decision-making. – (4) Andre Gide is supposed to have said, at the beginning of WW II: „I rest all my hopes upon deserters!“ – Alas, not enough military disobedience, insurrection and desertion took place. Nor did a unilateral peace declaration occur again, as in Russia to end WW I, nor were enough separate peace treaties concluded, by the soldiers and officers themselves and quite just war aims were avoided by both sides and not even declared. – At least towards the totalitarian regimes he might have added: I rest my hopes upon traitors against them. -  J.Z., 11.1.05.

JONES, FRANCIS CLIFFORD: Extraterritoriality in Japan and the Diplomatic Relations Resulting in its Abolition, 1853-1899, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1931, Elliots Books, reproduced by AMS P., 1970, $ 9.50. - ANU Menzies Library, Canberra.


JOSEPH, BERNARD: Nationality. Its Nature and Problems, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1929, with bibl. & index, 380pp, JZL. The panarchist solution and precedents do not seem to be mentioned at all in the index and contents listing. - J.Z.

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RELATIONS: Second Quarter, 1969, Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio. The editorial, probably written by Don Werkheiser, favors individual secession, e.g. on p. IV. (This journal was at this time explicitly libertarian.)

JUDGES: Any judge is a good judge when he knows he's being watched.” - Robert A. Heinlein, Citizen of the Galaxy, p.240. – “Any judge is a good judge when he knows he’s being watched. … The place was so loaded with press that a common citizen stood no chance.” – Ibid, p. 249. - Even that does not help - if he has a sinecure - or simply shares popular prejudices. - J.Z., 27.10.02. – He must be watched by just people with influence upon his career, not only by appeals courts. Moreover, there must be free competition between various constitutional, legislative, political, policing, juridical and penal systems and individual consumer sovereignty towards them, i.e. free choice among systems, for those who have not victimized members of other communities. A harsh word, a joke or merely different behaviour in public are not to count as an offence, even when some people feel offended by it. Those who feel offended have to learn that the world is full of shocking sights and sounds and have to cope with them as best as they can. Artificial and arbitrarily produced loud noise is another matter. No one has e.g. the right to shout into another person’s ear, unless that person is nearly deaf and asks for it. – J.Z., 16.1.09. - COURTS, JUSTICE & PUBLICITY

JUDGES: As he wrote in his Confessions at this time, 'the true judge for every man is his own conscience, a fact that implies replacement of the systems of courts and laws with a system of personal obligations and contracts, in other words, repression of legal institutions.'” - Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.247, on Proudhon. – Not repression but free enterprise competition between them, combined with consumer sovereignty, i.e. free choice among them. The choice of courts involved could be part of each significant contract. – J.Z., 15.12.10. - COURTS & CONSCIENCE

JUDGES: Hire a judge acceptable to all sides. …” - L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach, p.95. - ARBITRATION COURTS

JUDGES: I do not think that the victims should also be the judges." - Martin Buber, in Encounter with Martin Buber, by Aubrey Hodes. - 1.) Why assume that there can be only one kind of victims and one kind of judges - or 2.) that there must be victims and judges at all? 3.) Victims should not have to rely on judges but should have the right to organize or join alternative police and protection forces to achieve more prevention and self-defence. 3.) They should even, as individuals, have the right to self-defence - although not to aggression, retaliation and to impose punishment and set indemnification arbitrarily. 4.) If they believe in the jury system, they should be free to subscribe to it and make it as autonomous from judges as they think fit. 5.) If they believe in arbitration, let them select the arbitration system and arbitrators in accordance with their preferred system. 6.) As members of a panarchy they would, in advance, predetermine the judicial system to be used by them - unless they offended against the rights of members of other judicial systems. 7.) Simply one system of justice for all people in a territory would not be just to all. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 8.4.89. -  – Victims: a) They should have the right to self-defence, using any rightful tool to uphold their rights. b) If they want to, they should have a vote in the selection of an arbitrator. c) As members of a panarchy they would have decided already in advance upon the juridical system to be applied against an offender against their rights, whether he is a member of the own community or that of another one. - One system of justice for all would not be just for all. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 28.10.02. - PANARCHISM, JUDGE IN THE OWN CASE, VICTIMS

JUDGES: If the function of this Court is to be essentially no different from that of a legislature, if the considerations governing constitutional construction are to be substantially those that underlie legislation, then indeed judges should not have life tenure and they should be made directly responsible to the electorate.” - Felix Frankfurter. - Elective judges or "independent" and life-long judges are less important than free individual choice in penal laws, juridical, policing and penal systems for individuals their volunteer groups. No justice system will ever be quite satisfactory to ALL people. - J.Z., 1.7.00. – ELECTIVE JUDGES & COURTS, CHOICE IN JUSTICE SYSTEMS, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS

JUDGES: It is better that a judge should lean on the side of compassion than severity.” - Cervantes. - Compassion with the offender or his past and future victims? How compassionate was the offender towards his victims? Such questions can never be completely settled equally for all. There are xyz notions on the ideals of protection, deterrence, adjudication and punishment. Let individuals make their own choices and let them beware not to interfere with the rights and liberties of others, who have made different choices for their protection. The penalties they would exact might be much higher than the ones for the same offence when committed by the offender within his own voluntary community. His may ignore “joyrides”, while another community might exact the death penalty or a large fine or prison sentence for such an infringement of property rights. Technically, it would be possible for a car that is stolen, to lock-in the thief and automatically drive him to the nearest police station and then set the horn blaring, until he is arrested. If he wants wheels of his own, let him save for a used bicycle first. A car thief steals something that may have taken the owner years of labour to acquire and to that extent the thief, without compassion, condemns his victim to years of unpaid or underpaid labour. Compassion? With whom? A society that has too much compassion with criminals rather than their victims, has too little compassion for the victims and does, indeed, breed crime. - J.Z., 30.4.00, 16.1.09. - JUSTICE, COURTS, JURISDICTION, CRIME & PUNISHMENT, VICTIMS, COMPASSION VS. SEVERITY, PANARCHISM

JUDGES: Judges are but men, and are swayed like other men by vehement prejudices. This is corruption in reality, give it whatever other name you please.” - David Dudley Field. - Freedom for all non-aggressive people to choose their own adjudication system. - J.Z., 30.4.00.

JUDGES: Judges who cannot or will not judge by the principles of natural law, and of individual rights and liberties but merely by law and precedent, do lack judgment and thus are not judges but impostors. - J.Z., 28.5.92. – At least for all those, who have not chosen them as their judges for themselves. – J.Z., 16.1.09.

JUDGES: No one should be judge in his own case.” - Publilius Syrus, Maxim 545, Sententiae, c. 50 B.C. - Few could. - J.Z., 10.7.86. - Everybody should be the sole judge when only his own rights and liberties are involved and those of others are not infringed or risked. Only in the latter cases should some kind of mutually agreeable juridical avenue be established, or agreed upon, one among the numerous ones that have been dreamed up or experimented with, one that is, at least in the opinion of the parties concerned, much better than that provided so far by territorial governments - J.Z., 25.11.02. – In many countries organizations of private arbitrators do already exist. – J.Z., 15.1.09. – ARBITRATORS, MEDIATORS, COURTS

JUDGES: Now, if you could sue the judge for bad judgments or if you could sue the Offenders Release Board, or anybody responsible for allowing criminals back on the street who re-offend, the justice system would be a totally different thing.” - John Laws, John Law's Book of Uncommon Sense, Pan, 1995, p.103. - He presumes that there could be only one such system for all people in a territory, instead of many and competing ones, which a user or consumer of their services could have freely chosen for himself. Then he could have chosen e.g. a system with autonomous judges or one with recallable and punishable ones. - J.Z., 18.4.00. - PENAL SYSTEM, PAROLE BOARDS

JUDGES: the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." - Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." – In judging judges we should always take into consideration who appointed them and who pays their salaries – not to speak of private bribes to which some of them are susceptible. Contempt of court is, sometimes, all too warranted, when “judge” act contemptibly. – Even the best of them cannot help being part and parcel of a territorial regime with numerous unjust laws. – It already requires the tyranny of territorialism to put them into their monopolistic positions. – How tyrannically could they be or become, in most cases, if they were merely parts of or options for freely competing States, communities, societies, personal law and juridical systems? – Towards free juries most judges are merely power-mongers, afraid that their powers or authority might be infringed by them. Thus, towards them, they act almost like trade unionists, who want to monopolize their jobs, against people whom they call scabs, but who are merely people wishing to practise their right to work. The all too popular and wrong assumption is still that the number of jobs is inherently limited, because all the aspects of really free exchange, including full monetary and financial freedom, are still not generally understood, not even by most professional economists. – Naturally, most of them are also opposed, as “trade unionists” or professionals with a trade-unionist mentality, to competing jurisdiction systems, just like e.g. most postal workers are opposed to competing postal services. - J.Z., - 5.1.08, 6.1.09. 24.11.11. - TYRANNY

JUDGES: To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” - Thomas Jefferson to W. Jarvis, 1820. – Sinecures do not make for good decisions or services. – The positive effect of competition and of consumer sovereignty is missing. -  J.Z., 16.1.09.

JUDGES: Who are they to judge, rule, regulate, legislate us, the judges, politicians, bureaucrats and party-men? - J.Z., 23.4.89. - Are they really better than we are? Do they know more? Are they wiser? Are they more honest? Are they less self-interested? Are they less corruptible? Are the best or the worst rising to the tops of these pyramids? - J.Z., 28.10.02, 15.12.10. – Even justice should be competitively supplied, not monopolistically or territorially. – J.Z., 15.12.10.

JUDGES: You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal." - Thomas Jefferson, 1820. - Ultimately, every individual should be free to select for himself the kind of constitution, legislation, jurisdiction and executive or administrative body that he wants for himself, in the form of his preferred kind of competing government or community or society of volunteers, all of them only exterritorially autonomous. – Territorial systems create insolvable problems - for the populations of large territories tend to be very diverse in their individual preferences and inclinations, beliefs, convictions and aims. – J.Z., 5.1.08. – CONSTITUTIONS, JUDICIARY, COURTS, HIGH COURT, SUPREME COURT, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

JUDICIARY BRANCH: The Constitution ... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” - Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Adams, 1804. – Who or what is to stand as an ultimate judge over any constitution? Firstly, the voluntarism of its subjects, who must remain free to secede. That includes the beneficial enlightening effect of other and competitive constitutions, laws and jurisdictions, practised by different communities of volunteers. Secondly, an as ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties as interested people can manage to compiled. Thirdly, an ideal military force of volunteers with the single purpose only of defending such a declaration and also developing it further, if possible. – J.Z., 16.1.09, 15.12.10. – CONSTITUTIONALISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, IDEAL MILITIAS FOR THEIR DEFENCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM

JUNGHANN, OTTO: Die nationale Minderheit, 1931, Zentral-Verlag, Berlin, 76 S., mit Bibliographie, JZL. - S. 15: "... der Prozess endigte hier wie dort mit der Vergewaltigung der personalen Gemeinschaft durch den territorialen Staat, ..." - Ulrich von Beckerath left two notes to this book, both dated 24.9.53: 1. "Die Sozialpolitik der naechsten Jahrhunderte wird in der Koordinierung des Rechtes der sozialen, oekonomischen und nationalen Minderheiten bestehen." 2. "Estland hatte s. Zt. das beste Minoritaetenrecht. Auf das Recht der NATIONALEN Minoritaeten ist eine gewaltige Denkarbeit verwendet worden. Die Ergebnisse lassen sich leicht auf ALLE Arten von Minoritaeten anwenden." - Der Staat, der die volle Minoritaetenautonomy im "eigenen" Territorium voll anerkennt und sie auch fuer alle anderen Territorialstaaten fordert koennte wirtschaftlich, politisch und auch militaerisch zum staerksten und sichersten Staat werden, obwohl er dann ebenfalls auf nur exterritoriale Autonomie fuer seine freiwilligen Mitglieder reduziert sein wuerde. Mit einem solchen Programm koennte ein Kleinstaat unbesiegbar werden - und die Welt befreien. Welcher Staat, welche Gesellschaft, wird es zuerst annehmen umd alle rechtmaesigen Folgerungen daraus ziehen und sie anwenden? - PIOT, J.Z., 1.2.1999. - [The National Minority, 1931, ... "... the process ended here as well as there with the rape of the personal law community through the territorial State, ..." - Ulrich von Beckerath left two notes to this book, both dated 24.9.53: 1. "The social policy of the next centuries will consist in the coordination of the rights of the social, economic and national minorities." - 2. "Estonia hat in at that time the best minority rights. Upon the right of NATIONAL minorities and enormous labour of thinking has been expended. The results can easily be applied to ALL kinds of minorities."  - The State, which fully recognizes the autonomy of minorities in its "own" territory and demands it also for all other territorial States, could become economically, politically and also militarily the strongest and most secure State, although it would then be reduced itself, likewise, to a mere exterritorially autonomous community for its voluntary members. With such a program even a mini-State could become invincible and could finally come to liberate the world. Which State or society will accept it first of all and draw all rightful conclusions from it and apply them? - PIOT, J.Z., 1.2.99.]

JUNTAS: Sometimes, as in South American revolutions, mere political debating clubs, called "juntas" found themselves in governing positions - because almost everybody turned away from the old authorities and listened rather to junta members, who either had really something better to say - or who were at least not yet known as failures. They were then largely listened to and their advice adhered to, while the threats and promises of governments were widely ignored, even by their own armed forces and civil servants.  – J.Z., to Richard Johnsson, 14.1.05, passing on one of the many freedom hints on ignoring governments and doing the right thing instead, collected and somewhat developed by Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969. - J. G. Fichte, in his 1793 book on the French Revolution, whose German edition I microfiched in my PEACE PLANS series, described this sudden and voluntary change of allegiance as a characteristic of revolutions. Suddenly and sometimes quite unexpectedly the alternative institutions find themselves in the position of being „the establishment“. Then they act either as intolerantly and full of prejudices and errors as the old government, or a bit less or more so, or they would, as they should, adopt a quite consistently tolerant program for all the rightful aspirations represented among them and the loyalists and the neutral parts of the general population. Then they would even allow the old government to continue – but only exterritorially, among and for its remaining followers – and among whatever volunteers they might manage to gain. With such a program further fighting would be minimized. – Alas, most revolutionaries never sufficiently recognized as principles and practices and so the old territorial systems re-established themselves, sometimes even in worse forms. - J.Z., 17.1.05.

JURIES, FREE JURIES AS PARALLEL OR ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: WE LIVE IN DANGEROUS TIMES, by LEE A. HOLLEY. - From: THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, vol. 1, No. 3, June 1989. Published monthly by FACTS, the Foundation against Abusive, Corrupt and Tyrannical Systems. - The FACTS, 4209, 164th St., S.W., Lynnwood, WA 98037, pages 4 & 5. - - “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it can not survive treason from within. An enemy at its gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." — Cicero - - We are faced with treason from within - in our rotting schools, in our dishonest media, through the homosexual bureaucracy, and from the treachery of the public health liars about AIDS. The legal experts are subverting our sacred institutions, contrary to their oaths to protect the Constitution. - - Nothing could be worse than to see the traitors in the Congress, who sold out freedom in Nicaragua, and used millions of public dollars to try and divert attention from their treason, to single out Colonel Ollie North, a true patriot, through the Iran-Contra Committee and the later million dollar set-up prosecution. The judge was openly hostile to North's defense, contrary to every tenant of due process of law. The jury was selected from a single ethnic group, Blacks, and admitted to be 90% contrary to the Ronald Reagan administration in voir dire, the questioning before trial. - - Even with this stacked kangaroo court, this jury was forced to throw out 75% of the charges. They openly admitted they only convicted because the judge left them no alternative in his instructions. There was an alternative, and the failure to recognize this, represents a serious erosion of the rights, not only of Ollie North, but of each of us. - - Juror Tara King summed it all up, in the abandonment of Ollie North at this trial:  “They put him out in the cold and closed the door behind him."  - - But unless we know the true treason - the abandonment of the United States Constitution and a free jury system, we miss the terrible lessons of how the pillars of our City are undermined, and the foundation of our freedoms are rotting, through our enemies within -- in the media, Congress, homosexual bureaucracy, and sly whispering thought controllers of this day. - - In our system, the jury is defeated in the same manner that most of our rights have been eroded — through seductive and misleading words. That is always the tool of the traitor. Words are the key to diverting your attention from the reality. - - While the Sixth Amendment guarantees us a jury trial that is inviolate, and while the Fifth Amendment guarantees a jury that is untampered and free, the manipulators deal with that through words. - - It is the same old "County Fair" shell game, where the gullible keep their eye on the shell while the manipulators hide the true meaning of what is happening. In our case, they give lip service to the words of fair and impartial judge and jury, and say "oh yes, you can have a jury" but then they find easily manipulated, know-nothing jurors (as in Ollie North's case), and they change all the rules so that you never get a free, untampered jury through a corrupt judge. - - The oppressing system plays upon the ignorance and gullibility of the jury. They falsely tell the jury that the judge is the sole arbiter of the law while this has never been the role of the judge alone until very recent times. - - They falsely tell the jury that the judge alone will determine what evidence will be considered, and the jurors may not speak out and ask questions as Ollie North's Foreman said they wanted to do while this has never been the role of the judge alone until very recent times. - - They falsely allow the judge to determine who may be jurors and who may not be jurors, and they handpick them to slant them in favor of the government while this has never been the role of the judge alone until very recent times. - - They wickedly control in the most oppressive manner what the lawyers can argue to the jury, and interfere with citizens having their cases handled by themselves contrary to the Constitution while this has never been the role of the judge alone until very recent times. - -  They interfere with the jurors ability to decide by denying them the right to take notes, and they keep constant control over them to instill the same fear that inmates experience while this has never been the role of the judge alone until very recent times. - - They give you a jury but that jury is not a jury, except in name only. It has no heart it has no soul. It has no masculinity, since any male members of the jury have had more than their feathers clipped. That jury is not what they had in mind in Rome or in Athens, and it is not what we Americans had in mind when we were free people. - - They gave Ollie North a jury, and that jury found him not-guilty except where the judge led them to believe they had no other choice. That is jury tampering. That is what goes on at all levels of our oppressive bureaucracy. - - The Oregon Constitution, for example, expressly wrote in and emphasized the jury's right to determine the law as well as the facts. The Oregon fathers were simply expressing an awareness of the evil encroachment by the voracious appetite of the lawyers and judges. - - But that right — OF THE JURORS' TO BE SOLE ARBITERS OF THE LAW — has always existed, and need not have been written in. It is part of the Constitutional protection for you in your state, if you learn to stand up. - - Garvan F. Kuskey, D.D.S. [what lawyer would do this excellent type legal research?] wrote in HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL REPORTS, July, 1987, A Jury Saves the Newborn: "Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was appointed to the first U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington. This is what he said in 1804: "I well know that it is the right of the jury in criminal cases to give a general verdict of acquittal, which cannot be set aside on account of it being contrary to law, and hence results the power of the jury to decide the law as well as the facts in all criminal cases. This power I hold to be a sacred part of our legal privileges." - - Chief Justice John Jay, presiding over a jury trial before the U.S. Supreme Court, instructed the jurors: " ... you have, nevertheless, a right ... to determine the law as well as the facts in controversy [and] both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.” - Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Callas 1 (1794)" - - In United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1972, Federal Appeals Judge Leaventhal wrote:  "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted and instructions of the judge." (Complete quote? – J.Z.) - - Judge Leaventhal further wrote, admonishing trial judges who do not permit defense lawyers to inform jurors of their common law rights:  “It is unjust to withhold information on the jury power of ‘nullification’ , since conscientious jurors may come, ironically, to abide by their oath as jurors not to render verdicts offensive to their individual conscience." - - [Yet, this is exactly what the jurors in Ollie North's trial were told they must do by the oppressive prosecution that included the judge.] - - The government spent over 40 million dollars trying to convict Ollie North! That in itself is the most shocking danger. The media, which we all must remember is part of the entertainment industry, just like the rock 'n roll stars, the movie stars, the sports elite, who are not working to wake you up but to keep you asleep, reported only on the 3 convictions and very little on the 9 acquittals. Very little was said about the mockery of the jury. - - After months, they were able to find in all of the District of Columbia, 12 men and women who had not heard of the Congressional hearings and Oliver North. Can you imagine what type of jurors we (were? – J.Z.) found? One man on the jury, I believe his name was Earl, was interviewed on the night of conviction and he stated that he thought it would be an injustice for North to go to jail; the next morning, when asked the same question, he hesitated, and stated that well he guesses he would have to go to jail since that is the law. This is called entertainment, and script writing in the name of news. It does reveal the weakness and suggestibility of that juror. It does reveal the weakness and hypnotism of all of us since no public out-roar was heard following this display of interference with the jury system. - - The woman Chairman of the jury was interviewed, and the interview was reprinted in part in the LA Times. There she clearly revealed that the jury believed that Ollie North was a good man, he was doing his duty under orders, but under the Judge's instructions, they believed they had to convict him on the three charges and they had no choice. This is called jury tampering by the judge, and it is a major problem in our system of justice. This type of jury tampering goes on in every trial and is the reason why all of our cases are simply decided without due process and why our fundamental rights, fought for in the struggle for the Magna Carta, are so eroded as to require major surgery. - - A jury trial by impartial and untampered persons has been an essential to justice in the minds of men since the earliest of days. That system of trial is reported in Sumer about 8,000 B.C. It was represented by trial of the Sanhedrin in the Bible. Trial by peers was an essential of justice in Athens, Rome, Egypt and among the Germanic barbarians, all long before our history and the (it? – J.Z.) was fought for and won again, in our society through the Magna Charta. - - In United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1969, the appellate court's decision contained the following: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if their verdict is contrary to evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdicts in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or for any reason which appeals to the logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by the decision." - - Chief Justice Carlan F. Stone, writing in 1941, said, “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case to be decided.' - - The failure to afford constitutionally protected jury trials, and the interference with the jury's traditional and intended natural role, is no light topic. It is the essence of our Republic, as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943): "The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote. They depend on the outcome of no elections." - - Yes, our nation can survive its fools and its ambitious in the media, in the courts, and among the Congress, but it cannot survive the subtle and vicious treason from within. The sly whispers of the liberals and the intellectuals, the sly seductions of the homosexuals and the leftists, are heard in the very halls of our government, itself. These traitors use clever words, one (? – J.Z.), peace, compassion, love in accents familiar and they appear to the baseness within each of us. That baseness tells us not to risk it all, to be lukewarm, to sit back and watch rather than get involved. Those words rot the soul of our nation and infect the people so that we can no longer resist evil. A murderer is less to be feared.“ – P.S.: There are many aspects to panarchism that are all too often neglected in the discussion of panarchism: Conscientious objection to conscription, free juries, black marketeering, alternative schools, monetary experiments and attempts to evade taxes and custom duties are among them, even private libraries are. – J.Z., 10.1.05.

JURIES, FREE JURIES, ALSO AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION TO THE TERRITORIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AS IT IS MISRUN NOW:  THE JUROR'S CREED - I will not allow myself to be a juror unless I am certain that I can protect the rights of the in­nocent as well as proclaim the guilt of the criminal. - I will remember that when I take my oath I become a judge and the judge becomes a referee. - I will honor my obligation to be a judge and to judge both the law and the facts as is my right and duty. - I will not allow the referee, the prosecutor or the other jurors to talk me out of doing what I know to be right. - I will be always mindful that the accused is innocent until I vote otherwise. - I will claim my right to interrogate the witnesses to eliminate doubt because I will not vote against the accused if I have any doubt. - If I become aware that the Constitutional or other rights of the accused are not being honored, I will automatically vote in favor of the accused, unless I am completely satisfied that harm has truly been done to others by the accused. - I will vote in favor of any defendant who is prevented from presenting to me all of the evidence and testimony he relies on. - I will vote in favor of any defendant who is prevented from telling me why he believes I should find him not guilty. - I will vote in favor of any defendant who has not hurt others. - I will vote in favor of any defendant who has not been a clear threat to the lives, liberty, physical safety or property of others. - I will cast only one (secret) vote. - I will not break the law by deliberating in secret. - May I never be an instrument of harm to anyone who does no harm. - Distributed as a Public Service by CONSTITUTIONAL REVIVAL, 28 Fairfield Road, Enfield, Connecticut, 06082.

JURIES: All juries to be made up out of crime victims only! Among them let there be one or two former convicts who were later found to be innocent of the crime they were convicted for. And since the accused is allowed to look his best, all dressed up for the trial, let the victim be represented by a life-sized photo or sculpture indicating the condition his attacker left him in, combined with a photo of his previous looks and present looks. If there was no victim of a supposed crime, then let this fact be driven home by a blank screen instead of a photo of the victim. - However, to each the justice system of his choice! - J.Z., 8.2.01, 2.2.02.

JURIES: If we subjected all laws to a trial by jury, would we find most of them guilty or innocent? - J.Z., 8.10.75. - How many votes by free men should it take to veto the validity of any territorial law? Naturally, the preferable system was to have only personal laws in the first place, for voluntary communities that are exterritorially autonomous. - J.Z., 28.10.02. - LAWS

JURIES: In effect, trial by jury was a trial of both the government and the criminal. Twelve representatives of the public were to determine the facts of the case and then to determine the justness of the government law. If any one of the twelve had doubts as to the facts or as to the justness of the government law, then the government's case against the criminal could not be upheld.” - Carl Watner, on Lysander Spooner, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p.125/126. – It takes only one man to secede from a government or society. However, one cannot thus secede from a crime with victims which one has previously committed. – J.Z., 16.1.09.

JURIES: Juries are not popular with legalists. Juries expose the law. They can ignore judges.” - Frank Herbert, Chapterhause Dune, p.355. – Under personal laws or panarchistic choice between various governments and societies, all only by and for volunteers, free juries would become as wide-spread as their supporters would want them to be – among themselves. – J.Z., 16.1.09. - LAWYERS, JUDGES, LEGISLATORS, PANARCHISM

JURIES: Juries should be freed to judge or nullify all unjust laws out of existence. - J.Z., 14.12.91. – Individual secessionism could achieve the same. It would remove the wrongfulness of territorial governments and their laws imposed upon peaceful dissenters. – J.Z., 16.1.09. - VS. UNJUST LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

JURIES: The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." …"You [the jurors] have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, US Supreme Court (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4). –- The human right of free choice among freely competing justice systems, provided in free enterprise competition, goes even far beyond the free jury system. Panarchies of volunteers would probably try out all kinds of justice systems between them, in the long run doing justice to all of them. – J.Z., 5.1.08. - FREE JURIES

JURISDICTION & PANARCHISM: As many juridical systems as volunteer communities want for themselves! - J.Z., 16.9.04.


JURISDICTION: Competing jurisdictions are described in Berman, Law and Revolution, a title referred to in Tom W. Bell, Privately Produced Law, LEGAL NOTES No. 16, Libertarian Alliance, U.K., 7 pages, an article with 41 footnotes. - COMPETING JURISDICTIONS, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW SYSTEMS

JURISDICTION: Governmental juridical judgments are mostly unjust - even though formally correct.” - J.Z., 5.4.99. – That cannot be otherwise when they enforce unjust laws from which no one is free to secede. – J.Z., 16.1.09. - GOVERNMENT COURTS, LAWS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, MAJORITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

JURISDICTION: Territorial constitutions, laws, regulations and institutions, privileges, powers and monopolies are what is mainly defended by governmental courts, i.e., largely injustices, rather than individual rights and liberties. Under this system no one is given a veto-right to uphold individual rights and liberties against continuous and official attacks, nor the right to secede and establish or join alternative and voluntary communities that are exterritorially quite autonomous. Thus are established and maintained State- or nation-wide territorial prisons, largely for innocent people, not convicted of any crimes with victims. The victims are only allowed to vote for one kind of master or the other - and to protest. - J.Z., 5.4.99, 27.10.02. – TERRITORIALISM, CONSTITUTIONALISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

JURISDICTION: Territorial constitutions, laws, regulations and institutions, privileges, powers and monopolies are what is mainly defended by governmental courts, i.e., largely injustices, rather than individual rights and liberties. Under this system no one is given a veto-right to uphold individual rights and liberties against continuous and official attacks, nor the right to secede and establish or join alternative and voluntary communities that are exterritorially quite autonomous. Thus are established and maintained State- or nation-wide territorial prisons, largely for innocent people, not convicted of any crimes with victims. The victims are only allowed to vote for one kind of master or the other - and to protest. - J.Z., 5.4.99, 27.10.02. – TERRITORIALISM, CONSTITUTIONALISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE & PANARCHISM: Instant justice, e.g. on the Islamic model, would become available as a matter of individual choice. Competition between different justice systems would not favor the most expensive and longest lasting justice systems. - J.Z., n.d.

JUSTICE & PARTIES: Even those without party ties do take their stand. They stand for justice." - Stanislaw Jerzy Lec. (Auch Parteilose sind nicht parteilos. Sie sind fuer die Gerechtigkeit.) - Everybody ought to be a member of a genuine Justice "Party". Since all do not agree on this, let all be free to opt out and establish their own competitive justice system - among themselves. -  J.Z. 5.7.92. - The ideal local volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, internationally federated, would form something like a militarily trained and organized and armed justice party. - J.Z. 15.1.93.

JUSTICE & TERRITORIALISM: Don't expect complete justice from territorialists. They are habituated to legally or coercively imposing their will upon dissenters and have "scientifically" rationalized this unjust action. - J.Z., 14.2.98, 26.6.01.

JUSTICE & TERRITORIALISM: No territorial political form CAN do justice to all the diverse individuals living in a territory - with all their diverse notions of justice. - J.Z., 15.1.90, 10.1.93.

JUSTICE ACCORDING TO PROUDHON & VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM WITHIN A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY, LAW, COURTS, GOVERNMENTS, INDIVIDUALS & AUTHORITY, POLITICAL CONSTITUTIONS & SOCIAL GROUP AUTONOMY: (If you can sum up the following in 3 words or 3 sentences, by all means, do so! - J.Z. 14.1.93.) - "Rejecting the Lockean notion that justice is possible only where there is a highly developed system of courts and legal agencies, Proudhon argued that 'Justice is not the work of the law; on the contrary, the law is only a declaration and application of justice in all (those) circumstances where men are liable to come in contact' with another. It followed for Proudhon, accordingly, that 'If the idea that we form of justice and right is ill-defined, if it is imperfect or even false, it is clear that all our legislative applications will be wrong, our institutions vicious, our politics erroneous; and consequently there will be disorder and chaos.' - It was an effort to avoid just such hopeless confusion in thought that Proudhon insisted that his contemporaries abandon the vacuous entity they held as to justice and replace it with a firm idea. As Proudhon put it: 'I say that you need a clear, positive, and exact expression of your whole idea (of justice), - that is, an expression which states at once the principle, the means, and the end; and I add that that expression is association.' (J.Z.: Justice, as chosen and developed by their voluntary members, differs for all exterritorially autonomous communities or panarchies. Agreement on some basic principles of justice in their international relations is the only understanding of justice they have to agree upon. It will be based largely on an advanced compilation of individual rights and liberties that are not to be interfered with, to the extent that they are claimed by the members of others communities.) - When Proudhon wrote that 'Association is Justice', he put himself totally outside the bourgeois conception of authority and law laid upon modern society by Hobbes and Locke, neither of whom was capable of visualizing any legal reality outside the jurisdiction of the state. Unlike both Hobbes and Locke, who maintained that justice is impossible where there is no functioning legal establishment to give right credibility, (J.Z.: Panarchism provides a minimal framework for optional, legal and juridical establishments of various degrees of formality and development, all chosen by volunteers for themselves. - 14.1.93.) Proudhon insisted that the proper basis of law is not the authority of a political constitution or even the will of a sovereign majority but the essential social norms that are developed over time by social groups. The norms created by any particular group may ultimately take the form of statutes or merely remain widely accepted rules of conduct upheld by virtue of public understanding, but in either case the one thing that is essential to law is that the norms that underlie it should express the fundamental will of the people organized within voluntary relationships they create in the course of living their lives. (J.Z.: To each panarchy its own norms and laws.) - In arguing that 'Justice is Association', Proudhon meant to establish the principle that 'justice always exists objectively in the nature of the relationship' that individuals voluntarily enter. From this it follows that his mutualist theory was pluralistic, justice and law being defined over and over again in the daily activity of society as it broke down (J.Z.: developed) into functioning associations of one kind or another, operating according to the social principle of reciprocity. And since individuals create justice by virtue of their own actions in these reciprocal relationships, according to Proudhon, it is beyond the jurisdiction of any (J.Z.: territorial) court of governmental agency to decree what justice is; only the individual, answering to the court of his own conscience or group norms, can find himself guilty of injustice, or, conversely, determine what is right social conduct. Proudhon, obviously, was a thoroughgoing pluralist in his thinking about law, as all anarchists basically must be." - W. O. Reichert, Natural Right in the Political Philosophy of P. J. Proudhon, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 138.

JUSTICE, PANARCHIES & STATES: Territorial States are based on lies, impositions and injustice. Justice, consent and truths are the ties only of voluntary societies or panarchies. - J.Z., 5.7.86 & 24.6.01.

JUSTICE, PANARCHIES VS. TERRITORIAL STATES: Why is it inherently more just, peaceful and free and economical to live in an exterritorial and autonomous as well as voluntaryist society or under a statist government with compulsory membership, a territorial monopoly and exclusive and centralized sovereignty, a single and imposed constitution, uniform legislation and jurisdiction, a single policing and penal system for all? - J.Z. 4.12.90. - Posting a question properly amounts already to at least half answering it. - J.Z., 14.1.93.

JUSTICE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, LIBERTY, GOVERNMENTS, CONSTITUTIONS, LAWS, JURISDICTION, POLICE & PENAL SYSTEMS: If you want justice, rights and liberty - avoid territorial governments, constitutions, laws, jurisdiction, police and penal systems as much as possible and strive for free and full secession and exterritorial autonomy from them, together with like-minded people. - J.Z., 5.4.99, 23.6.01.

JUSTICE, WAR, PEACE & PANARCHISM: Establish justice as the only means of banishing the menace of war." ‑ Ramsay Muir, "Future of Democracy", 1939. – Without panarchism justice cannot be fully realized. – J.Z., 11.1.05.

JUSTICE: Chief Justice Jay said in perhaps the greatest opinion he ever wrote, that "justice is always the same, whether it is due from one man to a million, or from a million to one man." - Albert Jay Nock, Journal of Forgotten Days, May 1934 - October 1935, Regnery, 1948, p.105. Also in Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, Harper, 1943, p.76. - Ibid, 77: “We learned not only that justice is always the same in small matters as in great, but we also learned thoroughly the consequent lesson which seems to unaccountably hard for Anglo-Saxons ever to learn, that justice is always the same in the case of men and things you do not like, as in the case of those you do like.” - Ibid, p. 78: “… a third great truth about justice, namely: that justice is seldom enough. It showed how necessary it is that matters should be managed not only with justice but with the appearance of justice, and that very often the appearance of justice is as important as the substance of justice.” - As if there could not be different criminal laws, court systems and police- and prison systems, indemnification systems for different people living in different communities, all freely chosen by individuals for themselves. – Just like there are some different other systems under territorialism. - J.Z., 16.1.09, 15.12.10. – PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALISM, MAJORITY RULE, DIS.

JUSTICE: Do you really believe that something as sensitive as justice should be administered by a territorial government? Wouldn't this be as likely to be badly administered as the government post office and the government health services are and as a government regulated sex life and food supply would be? - J.Z., 1974, 7.1.1986, 15.12.10.

JUSTICE: Don't offer anything that is less than 100% just as an ideal. - J.Z., 26.6.1974. - However, this ideal would tend to differ for different people and their voluntary communities. Let them have their own choices, in this sphere as well, for all their internal affairs. Naturally, they would have no jurisdiction over others, unless these others offended against internally claimed rights and liberties, that are also respected by an internationally recognized law that is based upon individual rights and liberties. For instance, religious communities may punish "blasphemy" etc. uttered by their voluntary members but not among non-members, even when uttered in the presence of their members. But they would be entitled to forcefully remove someone who thus disturbed e.g. one of their religious meetings. House rules are to be respected, at least as property rights, no matter how wrong and absurd they do appear to others. To that extent: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do" - but without extending that "principle" to the whole territory of Rome and all people living there, under the assumption that they would all constitute "one people" or one household or one business or one voluntary association. - J.Z., 16.11.02. – PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Even those, who are not members of a party, are taking a stand. They favor justice.” – (Auch Parteilose sind nicht parteilos. Sie sind fuer die Gerechtigkeit.) - Stanislaw Jerzy Lec. - Everybody ought to be a member of a genuine justice party. Since all don't agree on this, let all be free to opt out and establish their own justice system among themselves. - J.Z., 5.7.92. - NON-PARTISANS, PARTIES, INDEPENDENTS, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Freely competing juridical systems would come closer to justice than a monopolistic and governmental one. - J.Z., 5.4.99. - COMPETING COURTS, COMPETING PERSONAL LAWS & CONSTITUTIONS, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISM

JUSTICE: Gerechtigkeit ist das Brot der Nation; sie hungert immer danach." - Chateaubraind. (Justice is the bread of the nation. It is always starved for it.) - Oh, if only that were the case! We are, almost all, undernourished by this bread or vitamin and remain largely and in most cases unaware of this. However, if justice were clearly proposed and or lived by its principles, by a minimum number of people, then, finally, more and more people, free to act as consumers and producers of it, would come to prefer it. - J.Z., 5.7.92, 10.12.03.

JUSTICE: Gerechtigkeit ist das Ziel des Regierens, das Ziel der menschlichen Gesellschaft. Sie wurde und wird solange verfolgt, bis sie verwirklicht oder die Freiheit verloren ist." - Hamilton. (Justice is the aim of governing, the aim of human society. It was and will be pursued until it is either realized or liberty is lost. - In my re-translation attempt. - J.Z.) - Territorial government does not lead to justice but away from it - in all too many ways and for all too many people and in all too many cases. Only free and competing societies, including competing constitution, law, police, court, prison and rehabilitation and indemnification systems, are likely to approach it fast. - J.Z. 5.7.92, 10.12.03.

JUSTICE: Gerechtigkeit ist der einzige Grund der Macht und der Dauer des Staates sowie das einzige Band der menschlichen Gesellschaft." - Wieland. (Justice is the only foundation for the power and persistence of the State and the only tie of human society, too.) - Organized and armed injustice, rather, established and maintained most territorial States. For free societies only it was and is, to the extent that it is not still outlawed, the main bond. Only the justice or natural law or recognition of individual rights and liberties, between exterritorially autonomous societies of volunteers, freely competing with each other, has to be alike, no matter how much they may differ, voluntarily and internally, from this justice in their internal affairs, freely chosen by their own members. - 5. 7. 92, 15.1.93, 10.12.03.

JUSTICE: I say that you need a clear, positive, and exact expression of your whole idea (of justice), that is, an expression which states at once the principle, the means, and the end; and I add that that expression is ASSOCIATION. - "Association Is Justice.” – Proudhon, quoted in JLS, Winter 80, p.78. – Rather: A comprehensive and ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties, which would lead to voluntary and exterritorial associationism in every sphere. – J.Z., 15.12.10. - ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARYISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: If justice is to be for sale then I would rather have it supplied by competitors, among whom I can freely choose, than by a territorial monopoly system. - J.Z., 16.11.02. - THROUGH COMPETITION RATHER THAN ENFORCED & TERRITORIAL UNIFORMITY

JUSTICE: If mankind does not relinquish at once, and forever, its vain, mad, and fatal dream of justice, the world will lapse into barbarism.” - George Moore, Confessions of a Young Man, VIII, 1888. - Rather, let people practise their different systems of justice among themselves. Only such a tolerant system is over-all just to all. - J.Z., 10.7.86. – Is genuine justice really eagerly pursued? Do most people even known and appreciate genuine individual rights and liberties or show a serious interest in them? – The widespread barbarism lies in ignorance of and disrespect for or disinterest in these rights and liberties. - J.Z., 16.1.09. - PANARCHISM, BARBARISM, PERSONAL LAW, CIVILIZATION, DIS., INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

JUSTICE: If you want justice, hire an arbitrator or subscribe to a free jury system. But if you insist, you should be free to hire a lawyer and judge - to lead you away from your genuine individual rights and liberties as far as you like. - J.Z., 5.4.99, 24.5.12. - COURTS, JURIES

JUSTICE: If you want justice, leave government courts, judges, lawyers, laws, parliaments, politicians, and bureaucrats alone. Don't support or obey them, when you can help it. Rather secede from them. Establish or choose your own juridical system. – J.Z., 5.4.99. - With as much freedom of choice and freedom of action and experimentation finally established for individuals and their voluntary associations, we would soon make fast progress with the realization of justice on Earth. As it is, our individual rights and liberties are almost strangled by avalanches of laws and court decisions. - J.Z., 27.10.02.

JUSTICE: It is the science of peace: and the only science of peace: since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.” - Lysander Spooner, Natural Law. - However, for many centuries one overlooked that this would require the abolition of territorial States and their jurisdiction and their replacement by exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities and their various justice systems. One territorial justice system for all amounts to injustice to many people who disagree on principles, means and methods, punishments, rehabilitation and preventative steps against crimes. - J.Z., 16.11.02.

JUSTICE: Justice and law are distant cousins - and in South Africa they are not even on speaking terms.” - From film: A Dry White Summer, seen 12/92 on Prime TV. – Territorial law cannot be good enough for all; only the diversity of self-chosen personal law can be. One of the numerous lessons from history that is not yet generally recognized as such. – J.Z., 16.1.09. – PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIAL LAW, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Justice cannot be determined territorially! - J.Z., 16.11.02. - VS. TERRITORIALISM

JUSTICE: Justice consists in the compliance with custom in all matters of difference between men. … this accords with the definition of the Roman law.” - James Coolidge Carter. - While this might be a sufficient standard for justice within a volunteer community, with its personal law system, it is not automatically a good enough guide for the interrelationships between different volunteer-communities, unless on agrees, in advance, to adopt either the law of the defender or that of the accuser. I hold that a highly developed individual rights code would be a better guide to follow. However, agreement on this is also a matter of negotiation between such exterritorially autonomous communities, with their competing legal and juridical systems. - J.Z., 25.11.02.

JUSTICE: Justice is a firm and continuous desire to render to everyone that which is his due.” - Justinian, Institutiones, I, 1. In another version: “Justice is a firm and unceasing determination to render to every person his due.” – Justinian, Institutes, Book I. – Still another translation: “Justice is a steady and unceasing disposition to render to every man his due.” – (Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas jus suum cuique tribuendi.) - Carl Watner, Justice, p.15, quoting Justinian, Institutiones, Bk. i, sec. 1. – However since there were and are very different notions on how to carry out this ideal, they should all be freely practised among their volunteers in exterritorially autonomous communities, peacefully coexisting and competing with each other for members and customers or clients. – J.Z., 2.10.07.

JUSTICE: Justice is always the same, whether it be due from one man to a million, or from a million to one man.” - Chief Justice Jay. – But different peoples and individuals among populations have quite different ideas on justice and should thus be free to practise them, together with like-minded people, in their own communities of volunteers. Between these communities an international law ought to prevail that is largely based on non-interference and respect for all those genuine individual rights and liberties that are claimed and, usually practiced among members of other communities, even if they are not fully claimed and practised in the own community. No community to lay down the law for other communities! – Respect the customs, constitutions, laws, jurisdictions of others, in your dealings with them, even when they do disagree with your own – or simply abstain from dealing with them! - J.Z., 17.1.09. – PANARCHISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL LAW, NON-INTERVENTION

JUSTICE: Justice is fast becoming subservient to political ideology.” - Quoted in NEWS DIGEST INTERNATIONAL, 6/73. – The pretence of justice can be subservient to political ideology, not true justice. Or whatever they perceive to be justice can be rightfully applied among volunteers. – People have not yet subscribed to an ideal universal code of individual rights and liberties. They have not even seriously tried to develop one, although it is high time for it. – Until they produce it and fully agree on it they could and should have only their own voluntary and panarchistic approaches towards it, with all their remaining errors, mistakes and prejudices that they still subscribe to. - J.Z., 16.1.09. – PANARCHISM, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

JUSTICE: Justice is often geographic." - E. Lers: "Impeachment", p. 21. - Governmental justice is often more geographic than just. - J.Z. 13.1.93. - Geographically determined justice is better at determining geography than justice. - J.Z. 30.5.91. - Since there are even whole volumes filled with determining which territorial law is to be applied to particular individuals, born in other countries, who may have changed their residence and territorial nationality and citizenship several times or may have acquired several citizenships, territorial law does not even supply sufficient certainty and simplicity in this sphere. It would be much easier to hold individuals to the citizenship and its justice system that they voluntarily chose for themselves. - J.Z. 13.1.93, 16.9.04.

JUSTICE: Justice is our destiny.” - Zarlenga. – It could also become our main weapon against every kind of injustice, e.g. if we mobilized the potential of all kinds of governments in exile in a panarchistic way against any despotic and aggressive territorial regime. – J.Z., 16.1.09.

JUSTICE: Justice is that which exists when all laws are enforced.” - Isaac Asimov, The Caves of Steel, GALAXY SF, No. 13, UK, 73. - Rather, when only very few laws are enforced, the few that are quite just - while all other laws are ignored, for they only increase the injustices in this world. - J.Z., 7.10.00, 9.2.02. -– Free choice among personal laws for everybody. For those, who choose them for themselves, even the objectively unjust and irrational laws are just. – J.Z., 16.1.09. – JUSTICE VS. LAWS, JUSTICE ONLY IN FORM OF THE LAW OR OF PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Justice is the aim of government, the aim of human society. It was and is pursued until it is realized or freedom is lost.” – (Gerechtigkeit ist das Ziel des Regierens, das Ziel der menschlichen Gesellschaft. Sie wurde und wird solange verfolgt, bis sie verwirklicht oder die Freiheit verloren ist.) - e. - Territorial government does not lead to justice but away from it - in all too many ways and for all too many people. Only freely competing societies and communities of volunteers, exterritorially quite autonomous, are likely to approach, even fast, competitively, in accordance with their own ideas of justice. – Justice isn’t really pursued by most, e.g. with as much fervour as they engage in sex, sports, amusements, travels, entertainments, arts, fashions, hobbies and crafts. It was never fully realized and if it were and if it were then lost, it could be recovered, unless, in the process, mankind is wiped out. - J.Z., 5.7.92, 27.10.02, 16.1.09. – SOCIETY, GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Justice is the bread of the nation. It always hungers for it.” – (Gerechtigkeit ist das Brot der Nation; sie hungert immer danach.). - Châteaubriand. - Oh, if only this were the case! All too many try to make a living through unjust actions. - People who really hungered for justice would soon establish it among themselves. - Indeed, we are undernourished if we consider justice as a food. But we are overeating junk-food and make ourselves sick thereby. Injustices are dispensed to us, quite regularly and in many forms - without us becoming aware of them in all too many cases. However, if justice were clearly proposed, realized and lived under by a minimum number of people, all volunteers, in our neighbourhood, with their actions and institutions viewed almost daily and if we were free to choose among the various justice systems freely practised among their believers, then more and more people, enjoying consumer sovereignty in this sphere as well, would come to prefer genuine justice systems for themselves, even though these might still somewhat differ in details from each other. - J.Z., 5.7.92, 27.10.02, 16.1.09. – DIS., PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE AMONG SOCIETIES & GOVERNMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

JUSTICE: Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society.” - James Madison, The Federalist, No. 51. - True justice realized would end territorial governments and finally bring about truly civil, or civilized - because free societies. - Did territorial governments ever sufficiently aim at justice rather than power? - J.Z., 16.11.02, 24.5.12.

JUSTICE: Justice is the end of government.” - Daniel Defoe, The True-born Englishman, II, 1, 368, 1701. - Defoe's remark is rather ambiguously expressed. It could mean that justice will end governments or that justice is what governments really aim at. I would rather say: Government won't achieve justice but justice will end government. - J.Z. 5.7.82. - Although it is not the aim and method of territorial governments, the establishment of true justice would indeed end these governments. - J.Z., 17.10.85, 10.7.86, 27.10.02. - Has it ever been the true aim of any government? Will not the realization of true justice mean the end of any territorially imposed government? - J.Z., 2.4.99. Indeed, the realization of true justice would mean ending all territorial governments. - Territorial governments usually strove more for power than genuine justice. They only pretended to provide the latter and defence and protection etc. - J.Z., 16.11.02. – I know of no territorial government that ever seriously tried and could achieve, as such, genuine justice for all peaceful people, however different their ideals may be. – J.Z., 16.1.09. - GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Justice is the only foundation of power and duration for the State as well as the only connection of human society.” – (Gerechtigkeit ist der einzige Grund der Macht and der Dauer des Staates sowie das einzige Band der menschlichen Gesellschaft.) - Wieland. - Organized injustice establishes and maintains territorial States, at least injustice towards dissenting but peaceful minorities. For free societies justice is the main tie. Only the justice between various exterritorial and autonomous communities has to be somewhat alike, no matter how much their internal justice systems may differ. - J.Z., 5.7.92. - Contrary to Wieland, many territorial States were established and all too long maintained by great injustices. That would be much harder, to outright impossible, for communities that are only exterritorially autonomous and whose members are free to secede and have the chance to observe the different practices among numerous diverse communities all around them. - J.Z., 27.10.02. – TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, POWER, STATE, SOCIETY, INTERNATIONAL LAW

JUSTICE: justice should be sold on the free market like any other good, rather than poorly dispensed through a monopolistic judicial system.” - Scott, in LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, No.73, p.28.

JUSTICE: Justice, once disturbed, cannot be restored by indemnification between the victims alone. The offender (or similar types of offenders), rather than the general public must be held responsible for all the damages, including the costs of his apprehension, trial and support in prison. Different kinds of penal codes and judiciary systems and rehabilitation, punishment, deterrence and indemnification systems will be applied by different panarchies. - J.Z., 28.7.84, 16.11.02, 24.5.12. – INDEMNIFICATION

JUSTICE: Justice, too, is largely a subjective value beyond the commands of non-interventionism or the non-initiation of force, or the equal claim of all rational beings to basic rights: individual rights and liberties, if and to the extent that they are aware of them and do appreciate them. Thus it is differently conceived and practised among different people, doing their things to and for themselves and it is just that they do this rather than attempt to apply their concepts and practices of justice to those who do not agree with them – except the aggressors and criminals against them. - To that extent it is just and fair that they do apply different laws or rules and policing, juridical and penal among themselves, like different sports teams and different churches apply different rules among their voluntary participants. - J.Z., 16.11.02. – However, in the long run the free competition between them will come to clarify individual rights and liberties for all and moves us towards a world-wide free and just society of sufficiently enlightened people. Its ideals, law, rights and liberties can now not be imposed but, at best, freely demonstrated by their subscribers. – J.Z., 16.1.09.  SUBJECTIVE VALUE THEORY, RELATIVITY OF JUSTICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM EVEN IN THIS SPHERE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, ENLIGHTENMENT, PANARCHISM, A COSMOPOLITAN FREE & JUST SOCIETY – FINALLY, AFTER MANY DIFFERENT & PROLONGED EXPERIMENTS AMONG VOLUNTEERS?

JUSTICE: Justice? Who asks for justice? We make our own justice. We make it here on Arrakis - win or die. Let us not rail about justice as long as we have arms and the freedom to use them. - Frank Herbert, Heretics of Dune, p.493. - Any conqueror and dictator and other "great" leader might have argued likewise, while committing, with armed force, one injustice after another. However, there is something very different about merely receiving justice from above, as a divine or political dispensation, and being involved in making or choosing and assisting a justice system of one's own. - J.Z., 7.2.02.

JUSTICE: Law without justice is a mockery.” - Jerry Pournelle, ANALOG, 3/74. – “The law” must either be an exterritorial or personal law to be a just one or an international law based upon recognition of genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 16.1.09. – LAWS VS. THE LAW. PERSONAL LAW, THE LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

JUSTICE: Learn to do justice.” – (Discite justitiam.) - Vergil: Aeneid, VI, 1,620. 18 B.C. – If free to do so! We are not free to secede from a wrongful State or to issue sound money in competition with the unsound money of the State, or free to refuse to pay our taxes towards wrongful government expenditures. – A complete list would be very long. – J.Z., 16.1.09.

JUSTICE: No system of judicature can be suggested in which occasionally failure to insure complete justice may not arise.” - Mr. Justice Hawkins, Judgment in Rex vs. Miles, 1890. - But then let it happen through the self-chosen juridical avenues of personal laws and jurisdictions. - J.Z., 10.7.86. – Under competing jurisdiction systems such cases, costs and delays will tend to become reduced. – J.Z., 16.1.09. - JURISDICTION, COURTS, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: No territorial political form CAN do justice to all the diverse individuals living in a territory. - J.Z., 15.1.90. - VS. TERRITORIALISM

JUSTICE: No votes, no justice!” - Michael Z. Williamson, Freehold, 353 – Justice usually does not come through voting. - J.Z., 27.7.04. – Rather through reason and enlightenment, usually only found in individuals and in some minorities. Has the majority every clearly subscribed to all individual rights and liberties? Does it even know them or show a sufficient interest for them? – Not so far, not until it is, finally, sufficiently enlightened. One way to do so would be for more or less enlightened minorities to opt out and to try to set better and best examples for all others, all under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers. – Another, to attempt to sufficiently collaborate to produce an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties. Another one: A systematic attempt to refute, in optimal ways, all errors and prejudices raised against individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 8.9.07, 24.5.12. – VOTING, DIS.

JUSTICE: Now, if von Mises and the Austrian school are correct in their conclusion that market means are the optimal mechanism for supplying human wants, then justice and freedom should be most efficiently produced by the free market.” - Don Franzen, Reply to Peter Crosby's "Utopia of Competition", THE PERSONALIST. - PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: One man's justice is another's injustice.” - B. W. Emerson: Circles, 1841. - Compare: “One law for the lion and the ox is oppression.” - William Blake - So, let us apply to justice systems what justice demands for all other things: To each his own! - J.Z., 10.7.86. - INJUSTICE, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIALISM, DIVERSITY & COMPETITION OF JUSTICE SYSTEMS

JUSTICE: So long as governments depend on coercion, justice cannot be obtained.” - Carl Watner, on Spooner, REASON, 3/73. – So long as governments insist upon territorial rule, justice cannot be obtained. – J.Z., 16.1.09, 24.5.12. TERRITORIALISM

JUSTICE: so many lawyers, advocates, so many tribunals, so little justice; so many laws, yet never more disorders; the tribunal a labyrinth; to see a lamb executed, a wolf pronounce sentence?” - Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621. - Obviously, organized governmental injustice is nothing new. High time to overthrow this territorial imposition as well as it has already been widely overthrown in religion. - J.Z., 27.10.02. - INJUSTICE, COURTS, LAWYERS, LAWS, JUDGES, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Territorial governments have organized and practised injustice rather than justice. Full justice for all can only be organized exterritorially and by volunteer communities among their voluntary members. – How infective that example would be remains to be seen. - J.Z., 24.11.92, 16.1.09. - Full justice does not mean uniform justice for all kinds of people but just the kind of justice, which they want for themselves and their own affairs. Territorial governments do not give all their subjects this option. - J.Z., 27.10.02. PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

JUSTICE: The aim of justice is to give everyone his due.” - Cicero, De legibus, I, c. 50 B.C. - The system of justice that is due to everyone is that system which was his individual choice, unless he offended wilfully or carelessly against the justice system of someone else. - J.Z., 10.7.86, 28.10.02. - PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: The governmental justice system is slow, very expensive and all too often unjust. Nevertheless, its monopoly power is largely enforced. To improve it, it should be subjected to free competition, which could come to provide fast, cheap and almost certain justice. - J.Z., 27.10.02. - COURTS

JUSTICE: The purpose of a trial is to discover truth, not to demonstrate the ability of counsel. The ‘adversary’ system, derived at bottom from the old Norman concept of trial by combat (May God grant the right) has proven itself as absurd in practice as it is contrived in theory.” - Jerry Pournelle, in ANALOG, 9/83, p.111. – However, even this system of justice is right for those volunteers, who have chosen it for themselves – within their own communities. – J.Z., 6.1.09, COURTS, ADVERSARY SYSTEM, FREE CHOICE FOR JUSTICE SYSTEMS, TOO! PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: The specter of a dual system of justice loomed before me.” - Piers Anthony, Politician, Bio of a Space Tyrant, vol. 3, p.248. - Rather a multiple, competitive and voluntaristic system of justice consisting of many justice systems, all peacefully coexisting for their volunteers, with agreements on how to deal with those who crossed the line - and offended against members of other volunteer communities. - J.Z., 29.6.00 & 25.1.02. - UNIFORMITY VS. COMPETITION, IMPOSED VS. CHOSEN JUSTICE SYSTEMS, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW? EQUALITY OF VOLUNTEERS BEFORE THEIR LAW! PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: The sword of the law should never fall but on those whose guilt is so apparent as to be pronounced by their friends as well as foes.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Sarah Mease, March 1801. - In other words: Law should prosecute only by unanimous consent. Present States can at most approximate this condition by an ideal jury system. Panarchies institutionalize this principle, as desired by volunteers for themselves. - J.Z., 10.7.86, 15.12.10, 24.5.12. - PUNISHMENT, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: To exempt myself from rules which I rely on others to obey would be an act of injustice, for it would involve my claiming a greater freedom than I could rationally extend to others. Law is a social decision procedure and, having participated in and benefited from such a procedure, it is incoherent to claim a right to opt out when the going gets rough for me. ..." - Jeffrey G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right, 136. - However, as members of different exterritorially autonomous communities, one should expect others to obey their own laws while one obeys that of one's own volunteer community. And between these communities non-aggression and individual rights relationships ought to be and are likely to become the rule. J.Z. 26.7.92, 10.12.03. 

JUSTICE: True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil ... This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing today, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable.” - Cicero, De re publica, On the Commonwealth, translated in "Bohn's Classical Library, London, Bell and Daldy, 1872, p.360. - As if the demands of consciences did not differ in different people! Those with the same conscience and justice notions should associate to do their own things for and to themselves - and leave others, with different notions and practices alone. - J.Z., 16.11.02. - TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

JUSTICE: Unequal and prejudiced treatment of different classes: "How could a government be just when it treats one class of people, those in religion and publishing, as free to govern themselves - to follow or not to follow its own professional standards - but other classes, such as doctors, business people and financial advisors as in need of extensive supervision and regimentation?” - Tibor Machan, Liberty and Culture, p.104. - Those publishing on radio and TV are also under government regimentation. - And all of us are, as victims of territorial governments, continuously being outvoted or bureaucratically or politically ignored, or commanded, contrary to our personal preferences in numerous ways. Full consumer sovereignty towards all political and bureaucratic "services" and disservices, which would also mean voluntary taxation. That would rapidly reduce unjust and extensive governmentalism - and retain only some really wanted features - for voluntary victims. - J.Z., 27.10.02. - GOVERNMENT, CLASSES, PRIVILEGES, FREEDOM FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES BUT NOT FOR OTHERS, PANARCHISM.

JUSTICE: Whoever cannot achieve justice should at least attempt peaceful coexistence.” – (Wer die Gerechtigkeit nicht schafft, der probiere es mal mit der Vertraeglichkeit.) - Ernst R. Hauschka. - Contracts? Reconciliation? - I would rather recommend tolerance for all tolerant actions and independence for all, instead, of the panarchistic type. Then it becomes relatively easy to ignore opponents. - J.Z., 15.1.93, 27.10.02. - TOLERANCE, RECONCILIATION, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Why should there not be patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?” - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4.3.1861. - I would rather have justice realized gradually, step-by-step, within volunteer communities only, than wait until finally, in further decades or centuries, all or most of the people are sufficiently enlightened. Justice, peace, security, progress, prosperity and many other aspects of living are much too important to leave them to majority decisions. Allow individuals and minorities to advance as far and as fast as they want to and can. Set all real people free rather than the imagined “uniform” people of the territorial State model. – J.Z., 3.4.99. - THE PEOPLE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

JUSTICE: Without justice, courage is weak.” - Benjamin Franklin, in: Poor Richard, 1734. – A right is accompanied with the authority to enforce it, according to Kant. Territorial authorities have neither fully defined what genuine individual rights and liberties really are, nor, if they had, would they be the best authorities to protect them. Ideal militias, still non-existing and enlightened, trained, armed and organized by volunteers only and committed only to upholding genuine individual rights and liberties, would, probably, be the best enforcement agencies. However, so far not even an ideal declaration of these rights seems to have been compiled or recognized and published as such. In this respect we are living still in a Dark Age. – So far most people are unarmed and without sufficient knowledge of, interest in and respect for genuine individual rights and liberties. The results are corresponding to this situation. – There are still all too many primitives, savages and barbarians. “Nuclear giants and ethical infants!” - J.Z., 16.1.09. – COURAGE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS LIBERTIES, UPHELD BY AN IDEAL MILITIA.



[Home] [Top]