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 - L

(1973 - 2012)



LA DIMORA DELLA PACE: Considerazioni Sulle Capitolazioni Tra I Paesi Islamici E L’Europe, Venezia, Cafoscarina, 1996. – Here only an abstract from the IN, 1p, in English, About the capitulations between Islamic countries and Europe: 94, in PP 1539.

LABELS: For the sake of sanity, be careful not to LABEL. Words like Fascist, Communist, Democrat, Republican, Catholic, Jew refer to human beings, who never quite fit any label.” - A. E. van Vogt, The Pawns of Null-A, p.116. – Labels that refer to the populations of whole territories, as if they were individuals, are just as wrong and misleading. They lead directly to mass extermination devices. – J.Z., 16.12.10. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, ENEMIES, DEFENCE, AGGRESSION, DEFINITIONS, GENERALIZATIONS, CLASSIFICATIONS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, NAME-CALLING, PROPAGANDA, PREJUDICES, INDIVIDUALISM

LABLIBS: There is so little to choose between Labor and Liberal Parties that under compulsory voting both draw about the same number of votes – according to the laws of chance. – J.Z., 3.5.76. – They only make a good case for “biarchy”, in which the Labor Party would rule the Labor voters and the Liberal Party the Liberal voters. From there it would be only a step towards panarchy, in which each group of volunteers rules itself, governmentally or in other self-management forms, all genuine because they are only applied to volunteers. – The situation is much the same in many other countries, with their two major parties, e.g. in the U.K. and in the USA. Only the names of their main political parties are somewhat different. They should all be free only to “benefit”, wrong and harm their own members, who must remain free to secede. Thus their revenues and powers would soon be reduced. – Then they could place any burdens only upon their remaining supporters. - J.Z., 16.12.10. – AUSTRALIA, BIARCHY, PANARCHY, POLITICAL PARTIES, ELECTIONS, VOTING, TERRITORIALISM, RULERS

LAFOSSE, HENRI: La juridiction consulaire de Rouen, 1556-1791, Defontaine, 1922, 306pp, bibl.

LAGEMAN, JOHN KORD: How Much Space Does a Man Need? READERS DIGEST, 9/67. It reviews the research of anthropologist Dr. Edward T. Hall on "proxemics" - the study of living in close quarters. Seems to me a rational approach towards the concept of a "territorial imperative", showing its close limits. - J.Z.

LAISSEZ FAIRE & PANARCHISM: Laissez faire in religion, arts, science, technology and private lifestyles ought to be supplemented by laissez faire in politics, economics and social experimentation – but only for all volunteer communities and under their own personal laws and at their own risk and expense. Then no one has any right to do more than verbally criticize them - if he disagrees with them and yet does not want to set a counter-example. Naturally, he would also be free to try to compete those out of existence that he does disagree with. – J.Z., 29.12.96, 9.1.99.

LAISSEZ FAIRE & POLITICAL POWER: Libertarians believe that the substitution of a completely laissez faire economic system for the political system of government intervention would largely eliminate the problem of power in society." - David Osterfeld, "THE FREEMAN", Dec. 76: The Free Market and the "Tyranny of Wealth", first sentence. - It is not enough to introduce laissez faire only into economics nor satisfactory for all, if it is introduced even for the enemies of laissez faire in economics. Laissez faire must be introduced in political and social affairs, too, so much so, that even its enemies become free to organize among their own volunteers, internally, exterritorially and autonomously, political, economic and social arrangements that are different from or even quite contrary to anarchist, libertarian and free market ideals. Then the problem of power would remain - but it would be confined to those powers which individuals granted certain people over themselves. - J.Z., 9.1.93.

LAISSEZ FAIRE & VOTING: Let the voting, on: "who is to dominate whom?" be replaced by individual declarations on who wants to secede and federate and let these people go ahead, at their own expense and risk, using internally any voting system that pleases them. - J.Z. 10/72, 2.4.89.

LAISSEZ FAIRE IN MONEY & GOVERNMENT: Laissez faire, especially in money and government. Let anyone issue, accept or refuse any kind of money and let anyone establish, join or secede from any government, even from any free society. To each his own, even regarding competing monies and governments. That is nothing but a basic liberty demanded by individual rights and liberties, by basic justice and by the preconditions for a lasting peace and prosperity. – J.Z., 8. 4. 96, 9.1.99.

LAISSEZ FAIRE, LAISSEZ PASSER: Laissez Faire .... in the meaning of: Let people produce and let them exchange! is also, as de Puydt stressed, a fundamental principle of panarchism - but applied much more widely than it commonly is was, supposedly, applied in the 19th century. - J.Z., n.d.

LAISSEZ FAIRE: Laissez faire in religion, arts, science, technology and private lifestyles ought to be supplemented by laissez faire in politics, economics and social experimentation – but only for all volunteer communities and under their own personal laws and at their own risk and expense. Then no one has any right to do more than verbally criticize them - if he disagrees with them and yet does not want to set a counter-example. Naturally, he would also be free to try to compete those out of existence that he does disagree with. – J.Z., 29.12.96, 9.1.99. - PANARCHISM

LAISSEZ FAIRE: Laissez faire rights and liberties among capitalists, individualists, libertarians, anarchists, free marketeers etc., but also „laissez faire“ for State socialists, „civil“ rights and liberties and „welfare“ States among their supporters. „To each his own!“ No system to be imposed upon any peaceful individuals or groups. All organizations and systems, constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and administrations to be voluntarily and individually chosen ones. No other general system is free, just, peaceful, enlightened, tolerant and progressive enough. Experimental freedom and freedom of action in all spheres for all people. Which automatically excludes any oppressive, aggressive and mass murderous actions and organizations and even preparations for them. Especially excluded would be any territorial monopolies that got beyond private or cooperative properties or real estate. - J.Z., 27.1.05, 25.5.12.

LAISSEZ FAIRE: Laissez faire, laissez passer”: let people produce and let them exchange - even so-called government services. – J.Z., n.d.

LAISSEZ FAIRE: Let the voting, on: "who is to dominate whom?" be replaced by individual declarations on who wants to secede and federate and let these people go ahead, at their own expense and risk, using internally any voting system that pleases them. - J.Z. 10/72, 2.4.89. - & VOTING

LAISSEZ FAIRE: There was too much in talk and writing and in tacit and unproven assumptions about the "end of laissez faire", with people having only economics in mind and taking territorial rule for granted, in spite of its remaining totalitarian, collectivist, monopolistic and coercive nature. A true laissez faire society, not only in economics, would include not only the variety of individually self-chosen economic systems but also all kind of political and social systems, going from all kinds of anarchism to all kinds of governmentalism, all chosen and practised only by volunteers and always at their own expense and risk. Insofar a comprehensive laissez-faire, laissez passer (Let people produce, let people exchange.) society has never existed as yet but is still to be established, in order to finally achieve liberty, justice, peace, enlightenment, progress and prosperity on Earth, as much of each as free people wish to have between themselves and are willing to organize and work or pay for. - J.Z., 11.10.11.

LAISSEZ FAIRE: Under laissez faire peaceful coexistence of a multitude of sovereign nations is possible. Under government control of business it is impossible." – Ludwig von Mises, in Human Action. - Alas, Mises considered it only as applicable to economics, not to politics. Under laissez faire for politics, i.e. on an exterritorial and personal law basis for volunteer communities, a peaceful coexistence of a multitude of autonomous societies would be possible within nations and on a world-wide scale. Laissez faire, as P. E. de Puydt has shown, back in 1860, requires individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy of volunteer communities to become complete. Then and thereby the peaceful coexistence option would become almost obvious, because it would be daily practised in front of everybody's eyes, by consenting adults, all peacefully doing their own thing - and too busy with that to be able or willing to meddle with the affairs of others and largely disabled from doing so, in case they were still intent upon trying to meddle. - J.Z., 1.8.92, 9.1.93, 16.12.10. – PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

LAKOTA INDIANS, SECESSION ATTEMPT: If true, sort of sensational and good news, though having to do a little more with secessionism than with panarchism, but still ... - Others should follow suit, even those without feathers ... We may not have feathers (except sometimes our ladies and Bavarians and Tyrolians ...), but ruffled they are as much as those of our First American brothers in liberty ... - C. B.; 21.12.07 - - Sender: - To: - 20 Dec 2007. Received: from unknown (HELO Subject: [libnetd] Lakota Indians Declare Independence, no longer US Citizens. The spiral towards the multiple civil wars I have predicted for years is growing almost daily. - Everyone is absolutely sick and tired of the lying, duplicitous, wicked Ferral Govmint. - The People of the united states should have learned even before the first Civil War that this monstrosity could not be trusted. - All one had to do was watch their lies and dirty tricks perpetrated on the Indians. - Treaties made then immediately broken when it served their selfish ends. - Giving Indians disease laden blankets in a horrible genocide. - "President" Jackson's derisive statement that the Supreme Court had "made its decision, now let them enforce it." - Can liars, thieves, mass murderers, and con men be trusted for anything? - Should the people sit passively by and let these evil men get their way? - Yet, that is exactly what the majority has done. And yet, they act so surprised now that the Frankenstein monster has turned on them now! - - You CAN'T accept injustice and evil against others, because soon it will come home to roost on YOUR doorstep. - The Lakota people are but the first. Soon, the slow drip, drip, drip of secession will turn into an unstoppable flood. - And then Satan will fall -- real hard. - - - They say that the new nation would issue its own passports etc., and be tax-free. - - WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday. - "We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference. - A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they [? Some of their ancestors! - J.Z., 30.9.11.] signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old. - They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference. - Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. - The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said. - The treaties signed with the United States are merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists say on their website. - The treaties have been "repeatedly violated in order to steal our culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life," the reborn freedom movement says. – [Can one really steal culture – apart from coercive brain-washing? – J.Z., 25.5.12.] Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said. - "This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution," which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said. - "It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent," said Means. - The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence -- an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England. - Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row," Means said. - One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples - despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws. - "We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children," Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference. - The US "annexation" of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people," said Means. - Oppression at the hands of the US government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world. - Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the United States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website. [Isn’t individual responsibility largely involved here? – J.Z., 25.5.12.] - "Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots," said Young. - "We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren," she said, predicting that the battle would not be won in her lifetime. - - They might win it, for themselves and all others, relatively soon, provided only that they do not make any territorial monopoly claim. That would be as wrong as such claims by the U.S. Federal Government, the U.S. States, all U.S. Local Governments and all other territorial governments in the world. - J.Z., 30.9.11.


LAND MONOPOLY, ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: The special place that landed property has among other property, either as genuine and natural property or as a privilege and monopoly and the various zealously represented theories on "the ideal and only right" land tenure system, helped to muddle the situation for most anarchists, beyond their other opposition to "property" or "capitalism". If any State did represent, inseparably, a single and completely wrong land tenure system, then that State, naturally, ought to be abolished, in order to get rid of that land tenure system. So they thought. - The fact that many of the somewhat liberal States permitted extensive experimentation with landownership and land-use by various ideological groups, was often conveniently overlooked by the zealots. Even my father, although he is a panarchist and subscribes to the open cooperative system, had failed to apply this possibility to the land problem. His favourite land reform scheme, according to him, is to be universally realized - with no chance for dissenters to realize their own among themselves. See his "Manifesto for Freedom and Peace". And so do most Georgists "think". Their "single tax" scheme is to be applied to all, believers and dissenters alike - as supposedly the only just one. (In spite of at least 2 practical Georgist experiments having been undertaken by volunteers and having demonstrated, in however limited form, the possibility of competing land tenure systems.) - Moreover, most land-reformers opposed to the private "land monopoly" have turned a blind eye to the most dangerous land monopoly, the large-scale collectivist one, the land tenure of nations and nation states, of "territories" - that now constitute nuclear targets. - J.Z., n.d. - ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONAL LAND MONOPOLY

LAND MONOPOLY: Equality does not permit property in land. For if one portion of the earth’s surface may justly become the possession of an individual, held for his sole use and benefit, as a thing to which he has the exclusive right, then other portions of its surface may be so held, and our planet must then lapse into private hands. It follows that the landowners have a valid right to its surface, all who are not landowners have no right at all to its surface.” – Herbert Spencer, Social Statics. – I hold that the most wrongful and harmful land monopoly is that claimed by territorial States. – J.Z., 13.11.07. – In developed countries only a tiny percentage of the population still depends upon directly using the land agriculturally for their survival. – J.Z., 24.1.09. - DIS.

LAND MONOPOLY: It is remarkable that jealousy of individual property in land often goes along with very exaggerated doctrines of tribal or national property in land. We are told that John, James, and William ought not to possess part of the earth’s surface because it belongs to all men, but it is held that Egyptians, Nicaraguans, or Indians have such right to the territory which they occupy, that they may bar the avenues of commerce and civilization if they choose, and that it is wrong to override their prejudices or expropriate their land. The truth is, that the notion that the race own the earth has practical meaning only for the latter class of cases.” – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, 45. – If Sumner had thought this idea over, to its final conclusion, he might have come out in favour of exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, i.e. for panarchism or polyarchism. – J.Z., 13.11.07. - LAND TENURE, NATIONAL LAND TENURE, TERRITORIALISM

LAND MONOPOLY: No man should be allowed to own any land that he does not use.” – Robert G. Ingersoll, quoted in Seldes, The Great Quotations, p.559. – Except e.g. building blocks for buildings within a reasonable period. – J.Z., n.d. – And if somebody does not use the land around his house otherwise than for lawns, should this land then be expropriated, so that we end up with wall-to-wall housing only? It is easy to put up a doctrine in this sphere but not so easy to defend it against all criticism. – Leave it to free competition, in this sphere as well, to finally develop an ideal land tenure system that would satisfy all people. – This could be done e.g. via panarchies. - J.Z., 13.11.07. – The transitions from one to the other system should only be undertaken by competitive purchases, donations or other agreements. – J.Z., 25.5.12.

LAND MONOPOLY: The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, ‘Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” – J. J. Rousseau: A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, 1754. – Fruits belong to all? Growing e.g. good fruit in quantities is usually neither easy nor cheap. And should anyone be allowed to simply help himself to the fruits of his neighbours? While the Statist, royal, feudalist etc. land distribution was certainly wrong, that does not make all private possession of land wrong. Numerous different land title or land use systems have so far been tried and proposed. Only a peaceful and panarchistic competition between all of them would have a good chance to determine which system is the best one, at least under certain conditions, determined by location and climate. The land title and land usage regulation by territorial States was certainly not always optimal. No alternative system has so far been generally agreed upon. Thus let experimental freedom of volunteers decide this issue. The volunteers would have to acquire the land titles for their experiments on a free market for land, if they want to spare themselves the bloodshed and other costs of a civil war. – J.Z., 13.11.07, 14.1.08. - DIS.

LAND MONOPOLY: The political “ownership” of land, on the scale of whole countries and their populations – is the worst crime of all. – J.Z., 7.12.73. – It is also the precondition for all the other crimes committed by officials without the individual consent of all of their subjects. – J.Z., 21.11.07. - COUNTRIES, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, STATES

LAND OF THE FREE & BRAVE: This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.” – Unknown. - Where, when and for how long did this ever happen? - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. – Just a few liberties, nation-wide respected, do not yet make a free country or a free population. – J.Z., 14.1.08. – As a single territorial nation it is never the land of the free and brave only. – TERRITORIALISM, VS. VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

LAND REFORM & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, by John Zube, in PEACE PLANS 5 & 506. - See: INTERNATIONAL LAND REFORM OR ABOLITION OF NATIONAL LAND TENURE: Plan 120, from PP 5, page 12, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. - When no uniform land tenure system is territorially imposed, then diverse land reform systems can be tolerantly practised at the expense of their supporters. But the land so used must be rightfully acquired under present conditions. - J.Z., n.d.

LAND REFORM: Any attempt to introduce any land reform on an involuntary basis is like a declaration of civil war against all those not agreeing with this particular land reform. Thus anyone, who loves peace, rights and freedom, ought to ponder the tolerant and voluntaristic introduction of the kind of land reforms that he favours. – J.Z., 9.11.92. - CIVIL WAR THREAT

LAND REFORM: Full freedom of contract for all land reform options, according to their principles and assumptions, all only for volunteers and always at their expense and risk. Land for this purpose can always be peacefully purchased on terms, at least by groups that are large enough and in favour of one or the other land reform scheme. Also under suitable terms, with stable value clauses and free choice of means of payment and repayment. All of these experiments of volunteers should be independent of territorial laws and jurisdiction. Freedom to experiment in this sphere as well. But not on the basis of simple occupation of existing land, without agreed-upon and prior indemnification or a free purchase price for the current owner. – J.Z., 3.8.90, 14.11.07.

LAND REFORM: When no uniform land tenure system is territorially imposed, then diverse land reform systems can be tolerantly practised at the expense of their supporters. But the land so used must be rightfully acquired under present conditions. – See especially PEACE PLANS No. 5. - J.Z., n.d. - UNDER PANARCHISM

LAND RIGHTS: Allow all Aborigines to secede from all Australian territorial governments, federal, state and local ones, and to establish their own exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers under their own personal laws – and most of them could soon be wealthier than most white people in Australia are now – if they adopted all economic liberties for themselves and fully used them. – All our possession of Australian lands did not solve e.g. our tax-, inflation, deflation and unemployment problems nor those of our involvement in wars. In the first World War alone Australian lost ca. 60 000 soldiers directly and as many later, as a result of wounds and sicknesses due to the war. And that in a war on foreign soil. That is 120 000, i.e. 6 times as many as Aborigines are said to have been killed, mostly in early in clashes with whites, since Australia was occupied by the latter. – All the attempts to solve the problems of Australian Aborigines through white administrators have also cost us fortunes and barely advanced the Aborigines by such paternalism. - J.Z., 1.12.07. - FOR ABORIGINES?

LAND RIGHTS: By all means, claim the whole of Australia as your living space, even the whole world, but only under your own kind of exterritorial autonomy and personal law. Living your own way, on your own, should not be confined to land rights on your own tracts of land, peacefully acquired. – J.Z., 8.9.93. If you think that all of Australia belongs to you, show me the title deeds to prove that. Mere faith and false assumptions, those of legalism, territorial constitutionalism or juridical monopolies cannot convey any such right. No one on this spaceship Earth was born with any territorial privileges. – J.Z., 1.12.07, 25.5.12. No more so than with any monarchical or aristocratic or majority-democratic privileges. – J.Z. 14.8.08. - OF AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES

LAND RIGHTS: If there is such a thing as rightful Aboriginal land rights and if the thesis of Robert Ardrey of the African Genesis of man is correct, then e.g. the Australian Aborigines, as well as e.g. “white” people everywhere, not just Negroes, should be able to claim “land rights” in Africa as well. Why should such claims be recognized only backwards for, let us say, 200 years, and not for 2,000 or even 50,000 years? If we have all the same ancestors, going back long enough, then why should any branch of our family have any exclusive claim to any continent or country? If all of us have been victims of conquests and land robberies, repeatedly, over thousands of years, then how could we possibly return to a “just” state of land ownership? - What mainly threatens our survival now is not private and cooperative land ownership or land rights claims but the national, territorial and collectivistic land “ownership” or land monopoly, which has turned whole countries and all their people, into targets for ABC mass murder devices, as long as territorial statism prevails. – J.Z., 28.9.93, 14.1.99, 25.5.12. - & TERRITORIALISM

LAND RIGHTS: Let them be the first group in Australia exempted from compulsory taxation and allowed to use their own contributions only for their own purposes. Let them live under personal laws rather than territorial ones. Let them live without white leaders, politicians and bureaucrats, if they want to. And exempt also all other Australian from subsidizing them endlessly. Those who committed crimes against them are, mostly, long dead by now. The few who haven’t died yet should be individually and juridically dealt with. Only as volunteers or as criminals against the members of other communities should Aboriginals be subjected to the laws of other communities of volunteers. To apply territorial laws to them is as wrong as to apply them to any other kind of human beings. -  J.Z., 25.11.96, 20.11 07, – FOR ABORIGINALS OR, RATHER EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR THEIR VOLUNTEERS? PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

LAND RIGHTS: National, ethnic, cultural, religious, racial and exclusive collectivist “land rights” – apart from private and cooperatively owned properties – are not right but belong to the greatest remaining wrongs and evils in this world. – J.Z., 23.8.95. - TERRITORIALISM

LAND RIGHTS: Neither Aborigines nor other early settlers nor later ones can rightly claim exclusive land rights towards a whole country, continent or a planet. How much land you can use to live and work on has to be peacefully settled with your neighbours - by adopting one or the other land tenure or land reform system that you can agree upon, while all of them peacefully compete for adherents and practitioners. All land title transfers and usage contracts are to be by mutual consent, under conditions agreeable to the contractors. All kind of purchases or leases ought to be permitted, all kinds of usage conditions and time limits. No uniform land law ought to be imposed upon all people living in a territory. No transfer undertaken via force or fraud is to be considered valid. - J.Z., 4.11.00. – TERRITORIALISM, LAND TITLES, LAND TENURE SYSTEMS, PROPERTY RIGHTS

LAND RIGHTS: Neither conquests, births, first occupation, legalized usurpations, marriages of rulers, papal doctrines, international treaties of government or deals with native chieftains can justify national territorial monopoly claims. – J.Z., 26.11.93. - NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM

LAND RIGHTS: Neither we, nor the Aborigines, do have the right to monopolized a whole continent. – J.Z., 20.11.93. Neither native Aboriginals nor native “white” Australians nor any other immigrants have the right to usurp the continent of Australia for their own exclusive use. – J.Z., 22.11.93. - LAND RIGHTS: - ABORIGINES, NATIVES, AUSTRALIA

LAND RIGHTS: No country or continent belongs exclusively to any race, religion, ideology or culture – but this whole world belongs to everybody on it, for all his or her peaceful activities, within the limits of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 9.10.93. – The “illegal immigrants” have just as much right to it as the legal ones. – J.Z., 1.12.07. – Do we really have a genuine right to keep out genuine aliens, if they arrive here, some time in the future, as illegal immigrants? – J.Z., 14.1.08. - OF ABORIGINES? - Q., IMMIGRATION

LAND RIGHTS: No one and no group can rightfully own the world or a continent or a whole country or territory, going beyond some private real estate. They do rightfully belong to mankind and not to “the” man or to the ruling party. – J.Z., 20.1.98. - TERRITORIES, COUNTRIES, PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP

LAND RIGHTS: The worst kinds of land monopolies claimed are the national or State or ethnic ones that keep “foreigners” or “aliens” out and monopolize whole territories to particular groups of people. Australia does not belong to us or to the Aborigines or to Asians – but the whole world does belong - to all human beings. (Or all sufficiently rational and productive beings. – J.Z., 14.1.08.) We all have the right to achieve permanent settlement and jobs via contracts anywhere, any time, through free migration. Neither any natives nor any newcomers have any exclusive territorial and collective land rights, no matter how old and traditional such a custom is. We are all citizens of the world, occupants of space ship Earth. If one goes back long enough in history, one would find out that almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants and also that we are almost all of mixed blood, i.e. “bastards”, there being hardly anyone left who can still be considered “pure-blooded” as far as historical records or memories go back. – J.Z., 30.7.95. - NATIONAL ONES, RACIST & COLLECTIVIST ONES, FOR ABORIGINALS? OR FOR WHITES OR ANYONE ELSE?

LAND-RIGHTS: A free society or as many free societies as they want for themselves, would allow them to earn enough to buy much land, individually and collectively, as much as they could economically manage. They and ourselves as well, ought to be freed, though, from all coercive government intervention with and imposed burdens upon all land titles. – J.Z., 19.11.93. - FOR ABORIGINALS?

LAND-RIGHTS: Land-rights are another claim by natives against state and federal governments, primarily upon crown lands, based on need, compensation claims, traditional, cultural and religious ties and ultimately upon the claim of first discovery and occupation. (1) Seeing the age of man, the lack of records and insufficient archaeological discoveries, we do not know the ethnic origins and first discoveries and settlements, neither for particular areas nor for whole countries or continents. Anyhow, such first-comer claims are no more rightful than are the exclusive claim captain Cook made for the whole of Australia. (2) Whether such “titles”, if they existed at all, can be inherited over thousands to tens of thousands of years or even millions of years, is also doubtful. Moreover, we cannot undo and are not morally obliged to try to indemnify the descendants of all former victims for all the wrongs and crimes of former conquests or occupations, wars and civil wars, all atrocities that some of our ancestors have or may have committed. But we ought to see to it that no further conquests and crimes occur, in these as in other spheres and that each individual gets a chance to e.g. peacefully acquire land for housing, industrial, business or agricultural etc. use, alone or in free association with others. (3) Further doubt arises on land ownership of nomads as opposed to agriculturalists, who cultivate land with their labour and capital. (4) To confine land claims to racial and ethnic groups only and “their” countries is wrong. Everyone now born in a country is to that extent a native and he or she is not to be held responsible for any crime that any of their ancestors have or may have committed. Collective responsibility extending over generations is wrongful, too. (5) All people, as inhabitants of this planet, or spaceship Earth, could lay equal claims to it, which are not confined to any country or any continent. No one could rightly claim a larger share of this planet than anyone else, unless he has compensated others for their claim in a free deal, i.e., one to mutual advantage. (6) There are a number of different schools of thought regarding “land rights”. The “right of first use or occupation” is just one of them. “Present and legalized occupancy” is another. A free market in land titles is another. Another is that of “open cooperatives”. Another is that of allocation by central authorities. The question of “land reform” is not yet settled, not even in the most advanced countries. Nor is the question settled of the rightful or optimal transition from one to another land tenure system. Freedom of title transfers and free pricing for such titles still seems optimal, regardless of the land tenure system that is applied, in the future, to land peacefully acquired, in a business-like way, by any of the various land reform groups. A civil war can be avoided in this way. Thus such acquisitions could become relatively cheap, even if high land prices have to be paid them. Either the reformers will make good enough use of the land so acquired, to cover the purchase price over a period or they will have only themselves to blame. (7) The question is: Can almost all the different land tenure systems proposed become voluntarily, i.e. peacefully realized, in a business-like way, under free contracts and in a free market for land titles? Can all the different systems be tolerated in the same territories and peacefully coexist in free competition with each other, like e.g. various religions and self-management schemes? Or could some of them only be realized if they could rightfully claim an exclusive monopoly over a whole territory? (8) I hold that no “intolerant” land reform system ought to be recognized at all, but that all tolerant ones ought to be recognized and respected for their adherents. (9) Among the tolerant ones I personally favour the system of “open cooperatives” for all agricultural use, for parks and nature reserves and the exclusive private or cooperative title for homes, business and industry buildings and sites. (10) However, all other systems could be practised, tolerantly, side by side or site by site, and established, by business-like purchases under free market conditions, freed from all legally or juridically imposed conditions, like e.g. building and zoning-restrictions. (11) Crown land or government land claims have deprived all people in a country or state of their land rights, not only the original natives. (12) If all the politicians and bureaucrats and their “public” capital assets were expropriated for the benefit of their subjects, then these subjects could utilize their shares to acquire much land, if they wanted to. See PEACE PLANS No. 19 c. (Online on a CD of mine at – J.Z., 3.12.92. – What is needed is something like an association of tolerant and experimentalist land reformers. – J.Z., 16.11.07. - FOR ABORIGINES ETC.?

LAND-RIGHTS: Rather than Mabo legislation for Aborigines, passed by white politicians, let them have their own personal laws and voluntary communities, not confined to any particular reserves or territories, but applying to them all over Australia – and the world. – J.Z., 19.11.93. – But then we are likewise territorially colonialized and should be free to opt out of that condition and establish our own communities of volunteers, not confined to any territory. – J.Z., 1.12.07, 25.5.12. - FOR ABORIGINES ? AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL, PERSONAL LAW

LAND: Original Message from: "Christian Butterbach" - To: "John Zube" - Sent: June 06, 2003. Subject: land rights. - My friend Brad Spangler's opinion on land rights: I had almost forgotten that I owe you a reply on the topic of land rights and (by extension) ocean rights. - Currently, my opinion is that any resource that could even remotely be considered scarce will only be properly taken care of if treated as private property in a market system. Land and fishing territories are scarce. The scarcity is worsened by governmental control of vast tracts of land in the US, but even without a state there would only be a finite amount of land on this earth. - Now as to the matter of "whose" private property ... that, sir, is a different matter. - Private property may be owned by one individual or jointly by several (and several could mean a family, a for-profit company, a non-profit yet traditional company, a radical cooperative group, a charitable association, a church, a confederation of Masonic lodges, Mrs.Oglesby's 9th grade biology class, an informal investment club, friendly transsexual alien drag queens from Mars in some previously unknown social grouping -- whatever). - A critique of state-granted title in land or other property (the State seizes automobiles frequently around here for trivial offenses and auctions them off to new "owners", for example) is not the same thing as a critique of private property "per se". - I think much work needs to be done on the topic of establishment of valid title to property. The body of work on that is, as far as I know, somewhat incomplete. - Anyway, that's the way I see things currently. I reserve the right to change my mind in the future, though.  :) - [C.B.:] Do you have an answer to that? - - From: "John Zube" - - To: "Christian Butterbach" - Subject: 030606 Christian Butterbach Re: land rights vs. tolerant land reforms, to each his own! Date: Friday, 6 June 2003. - Dear Christian, - "my" fundamental answer to that question, as to most other remaining "problems" and proposed "solutions" is the usual: Free experimentation among volunteers, at their own risk and expense: The panarchistic solution approach to the land question that I suggested early-on in PEACE PLANS 5, which you should have in digitized form. - That requires, naturally, for the transition period, not confiscation, nationalization, municipalisation, syndicalisation, compulsory transfer into coops, land reforms via government legislation and actions, illegal occupation, new tax system a la Henry George, an uprising by peasants and landless people, etc., but the PURCHASE of the required land by groups of volunteers. How? - That purchase does not require cash but could be done the free market or capitalistic way, with bonds issued by the volunteer community, with gold clauses or indexed and redeemed, ultimately, by accepting them and their interest coupons etc., when due, in payment for any goods, produce or services supplied by that community. - A proper take-over bid, by a new kind of management that believes it could manage this resource much better than was the case so far. - In this way even vast estates could be relatively cheaply and easily acquired, by those willing to acquire them and able and willing to work them productively, with the acquisition in the free-market or capitalistic way, even for various kinds of socialistic or communistic land uses intended. - Repayments would be easy in this form and also not a burden in height, if only the new form is more productive than the old form, which most of the various land reformers do believe that it would be. - These experiments will not always be successful. So some well meaning and idealistic investors in such bonds will suffer some capital losses, although the main value, the land itself, will probably remain almost as valuable as before, if not slightly improved. So what. Should we try to prevent such losses? I do not hold with that. - This kind of transformation does not require a struggle with the present owners but merely a business-like agreement with them. - Nor will it require a battle with the State police or other armed forces, since only peaceful title-changes are involved, hopefully profitable for both sides. - This change-over can also be very gradual or the gradual steps might follow each other so rapidly that it could, in summary be a very fast one. - Mutual tolerance is possible and obligatory in this sphere as well. - For what is the alternative of, supposedly, "pure justice" in this sphere - in dozens of various asserted forms? - Unjust legislated "solutions" on this, wronging and harming one side or the other, if not both! - Civil war, with its bloodshed and destruction and all kinds of counter-productive results. - These are much too high "prices" to be paid, just like for the "coercive" or "legalized" takeover of all private enterprises by the State. - What are the total losses economic losses State socialism caused in Russia and China alone, apart from the losses of lives and the losses of liberties, and the masses of cripples produced, and of sick people? Simple purchase by volunteers, businesslike, would have been fast, cheap and almost without troubles and mostly beneficial for all concerned. No losses via strikes, sabotage, go-slow and work-by-rules resistance, either. Land owners do not strike against themselves. Self-managers don't have an employer to blame and act against. - To each the land reform system of his or her dreams - at the own expense and risk. - Even my father, otherwise an advocate of panarchies and open coops, because he was addicted to the land reform system that HE favored, was not for tolerance in this sphere but demanded acceptance of HIS land reform program, not only for Germany but for the whole world, at the same time, by all. In that respect, too, he was an incurable fanatic and intolerant. But that kind of stand is quite common among land reformers, as well as among money reformers. - Generally, it is as difficult to get land reformers to talk about the tolerant and self-responsible practical realization of their particular land reform dreams or serious proposals, as it is to get money reformers to take the tolerant and experimental approach, or economy reformers or insurance reformers, or peace advocates, or self-management advocates, or international trade reformers. - You choose your own further examples. - But this is the ONLY way that is quite just, rational and practical and would cause the least trouble, apart from the self-made ones of the reformers, who themselves have to suffer under their own mistakes. - It is also an efficient way and the fastest way, for human beings as they are. One might also call it a scientific and experimentalist approach, a pragmatic one. It is the only one just for all the participants, from my point of view. - There exists no "know-it-all" person in that sphere, either. - And it is a very important one and thus must be settled rightly and justly, not in attempts to favor one or the other "system" while neglecting and or even outlawing all others. - Not "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer!" - in this sphere, either, but, instead, individual choice, voluntarism, experimentalism, tolerance, self-selected communities doing their own things for and to themselves, panarchism, polyarchy, exterritorial autonomy, personal law rather than territorial law. - It may be that a long time will have to pass before most, not all people, will come to agree on the ideal land-title system and how best to utilize it once that title is attained. - In the meantime, every day thousands of land titles do change hands, quite peacefully, and that option should be utilized by all land-reformers. - It should be extended to free choice of land-title systems, too. Not land title system should any longer be imposed by any territorial government. - Nor are governments entitled to tax and regulate land use. That should all be left to the volunteer communities that various land-reformers would set up. - The very successful ones could, afterwards, expect that many land titles would be donated to them, to be used according to their system. That happened in India in the Grandam (?) system and can be predicted also for tolerantly and sensibly practised "open coops" of the Hertzka / Beckerath system, once they have successfully operated for a while. Or for any others that are successful. - May the best one win, soon, voluntary support, world-wide, by almost everyone of the present land-holders. - - Land titles for houses and gardens are another matter. Here the open coop system, to pick only my favored one, would not work perfectly, either, or necessarily better than the present system. - Michael Green, a libertarian Georgist, said that ultimately such land titles - have to be confirmed by one's neighbours. - That would also be a kind of open coop approach though not advanced as such and not as open as the proposed open coop system of Hertzka and Beckerath. - If the land for agricultural etc. utopian land reform experiments is not outright acquired then the alternative would be LEASES. But they should be really long-term rather than short-term leases. - Experience showed that 5-year leases are too short and lead to injustices, with the landlords demanding higher rents when the land has been improved, after 5 years, or refusing to prolong the lease. Thus such leases should be at least for 15 years, with an outright purchase option at the end, for an additional sum. - - Quite essential would be to eliminate initial or installment payments in cash. Instead, the own means of payment, of a currency and of a financial security kind, should be used here, too. - B. was one of the very few - actually, I do not know of others, who seriously considered that aspect of the problem and suggested the best - in my opinion - solution. - With other land reformers one can, mostly, not talk at all rationally about this or other monetary and financial freedom approaches. - The truly ideal solutions, at least for human beings as they are and likely to be in the foreseeable future, will be revealed in free and self-chosen practice and various voluntaristic experiments, carried out over considerable periods and among many different people from various cultures etc. and in the comparisons, studies and discussions of them. - I do hope that this answers your question sufficiently, for the time being. - PIOT, John. (Slightly edited today. A comprehensive anthology of all the land reform proposals, with all their pro and con, seems to be still amiss. - J.Z., 31.8.11, 25.5.12.) - LAND REFORM, LAND RIGHTS, LAND MONOPOLY, LAND TITLES, REAL ESTATE, FREE MARKET IN LAND, PURCHASE OF ENTERPRISES, THEODOR HERTZKA, OPEN COOPERATIVES, HENRY GEORGE, KURT ZUBE

LANDAUER, GUSTAV: Gesellschaft ist eine Gesellschaft von Gesellschaften von Gesellschaften; ein Bund von Buenden von Buenden." - Zitiert aus ROLF CANTZEN, Freiheit unter saurem Regen, S.31. - Landauer, reproduced the 1909 Nettlau article on panarchy, ca. 1920, in one of his magazines, pamphlets or books. - I do not know whether or how he commented upon it. - J.Z., 27.8.11.

LANDAUER, GUSTAV: Ich fuehrte zunaechst einen meiner Lieblingsgedanken aus, dass es neben den autoritaeren Zufallsgemeinschaften, die uns umgeben, noch eine andere, groessere gibt, die mit dem schoensten Wesen des Individuums zusammenfaellt ... Wenn wir diese Gemeinschaft mit der unendlichen 'Vergangenheit' in us herstellen, werden wir reif zum Bruch mit der Zufallsgemeinschaft der Gegenwart, werden wir die Liebe finden zu den Mitmenschen, die ja dieselbe Gemeinschaft in sich selber tragen, wie wir, und werden den Mut finden, um der Gemeinschaft willen und um der Vorbilder willen, uns zu neuen Lebensgemeinschaften zusammenzuschliessen. ..." (An Hedwig Lachmann, 21.6. 1900, ueber seine kuerzliche Ansprache an die "Neue Gemeinschaft". - Quoted from "Hinter der Weltstadt", No. 5.) – (First of all I explained my favorite idea that aside of the authoritarian and accidental communities which surround us, there is another and larger one, which coincides with the best features of the individual. ... When we constitute this community with the endless 'past' in us, then we become ripe for the breach with the accidental community of the present, then we will find the love to our fellow human beings, who carry in themselves the same community as we do and will find the courage, for the sake of that community and of its precedents, to associate in new communities for our lives.) - Individual secessionism from States is contained in this, but not yet awareness of the multiplicity of competing voluntary communities that would arise from the remaining differences between people. The consciousness of a common origin of humans, of life, of the universes, is not sufficient to establish "universal brotherhood" between all. - Nor is "cosmic consciousness'. Descriptions of alternatives can be uttered in too general terms to be useful. We need more genuine blueprints for liberty. -  J.Z., 16.9.04.

LANDAUER, REVOLUTION: S.43: "... Gesamtheit von Selbstaendigkeiten, die sich gegenseitig durchdrangen, die sich durcheinander schichteten, ohne dass daraus eine Pyramide oder irgendwelche Gesamtgewalt geworden waren. Die Form des Mittelalters war nicht der Staat, sondern die Gesellschaft, die Gesellschaft von Gesellschaften." - Zitiert in ROLF CANTZEN, Freiheit unter saurem Regen, S. 33/34. - Kann man so einfach von den verbleibenden Privilegien, Monopolen und anderen Gewaltsamkeiten absehen, die das natuerliche Wachstum und die Verallgemeinerung dieser beschraenkten Freiheiten verhinderten? - J.Z. (... The whole of the independencies, which mutually penetrated each other and sorted themselves out in this mixture, without thereby establishing any pyramid or any all-over power. The form of the Middle Ages was not the State but the society, the society of societies.") - Cited ibid. - Can one as simply ignore the remaining privileges, monopolies and other compulsions, which prevent the natural growth and the generalization of the limited liberties? - J.Z.)

LANDSHUT, SIEGFRIED: Jewish Communities in the Muslim Countries of the Middle East, London, 1950. "A valuable survey despite some inaccuracies." - Goitein.

LANE, ROSE WILDER, Moslem Justice, A Westerner who has seen a quarrel flare dangerously in an Arab bazaar will never forget it. One voice, one word, pierces that din of bargaining; the sound shocks the turmoil to utter silence. Out of it comes a mob-roar, 'Brothers! You are brothers! Moslems, remember you are brothers!' - With that roar goes a mob-rush. Get out of it, quick. - - It is over in a moment. Scores of hands tear the quarrelling men apart, snatch the knives from their fists or sashes. An unperturbed din of bargaining rises again, while small crowds of men, who can leave their own affairs, surround the angry men and go with them to the nearest Cadi who, if he wants to keep his reputation for wisdom, must then and there settle the quarrel in a way that satisfies everyone's sense of justice." - "You admire the method, because it works. But it is not law. Actually it is the way men always, everywhere, kept the peace, when no one of them has a recognized right to use force. Then each one feels his responsibility. This is the way Americans kept the peace on the frontier, and keep it now on fishing and hunting trips and in clubrooms." - ‑ Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, New York, The John Day Co., 1943, pp.110/11, quoted in the above-named book of Weaver, pages 128/129. - "The Main Spring of Human Progress." - Reproduced as plan177 in PEACE PLANS 8. - Is it really so difficult to apply this example to modern conditions? - J.Z. - ISLAM, MUSLIMS, JURISDICTION, COURTS, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS

LANGUAGE: Clemenceau had passed the rational judgment on that idea: “Mon Dieu! Must every little language have a country of its own?” – Poul Anderson, Conquests, p. 148. – Voluntarily, panarchistically and exterritorially they, or any other association or relationship, could, without anyone having any right or good enough reason to complain about this. – J.Z., 14.11.07. – On the other hand, must every country, no matter how diverse its population, have a single language of its own? – J.Z., 24.1.09. - NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM

LAOTSE, TAO TE KING, Das Buch vom Sinn und Leben, uebersetzt und mit einem Kommentar von Richard Wilhelm, Eugen Diederichs Verlag, erweiterte Neuausgabe, 1978, 1984. Erste Ausgabe: 1910. - Ulrich von Beckerath empfahl diese Ausgabe sehr. Ich erhielt nur diese Neuausgabe und sie erst in 1984. In dieser Version sind viele panarchistische Gedanken zu finden. Wann starb Richard Wilhelm? Vom Umschlage, hinten: "Des Himmels TAO ist foerdern, ohne zu schaden. Des Berufenen TAO ist wirken ohne zu streiten." - Ueber Panarchien koennte man Dasselbe sagen. Ebenso der Kommentar, von Richard Wilhelm, S. 141: "So nimmt das Tao in der Welt der Erscheinungen eine Doppelstellung ein. Es entlaest die Samen der Ideen ins Dasein, wo sie sich zu Dingen, die im Raum und in der Zeit ausgebreitet sind, entfalten." - Ibid, 157: "Durch dieses Nichtstreiten gewinnt das Leben immer neue Kraft, weil es keine Kraft durch den Kampf mit fremden, stoerenden Dingen verbraucht." - Eine panarchistische Besprechung dieser Uebersetzung und des Kommentars wuerde wenigstens einige Seiten brauchen. - J.Z., 31.1.99. - In the meantime I microfiche several versions of Lao Tse. Altogether probably many dozens of different translations exist. I collected about 2 dozen. - J.Z., 1.9.04.

LASKI, HAROLD: A Grammar of Politics, 1925. - According to Carl J. Friedrich (p. 51 of The New Belief in the Common Man, Vermont Printing Co., 1945), the early H.L. was a pluralist, one favoring individual sovereignty - while later on he adopted State Socialism. - How often does aging diminish the love for freedom, justice and peace? - J.Z., 19.10.11. - When a pluralist, he was most radical in his rejection of monistic sovereignty. (5) But later he adopted the most comprehensive state concept, namely, that implied in all-inclusive state socialism.  LASKI’S PLURALISM (chapter heading – J.Z.) Laski, it will be recalled, actually made the individual ‘sovereign’. The individual conscience is the only valid source of law. When the claims of various associations conflict, the individual conscience is the final arbiter of where the allegiance lies. In expounding such views, Laski offered a striking juristic application of the American folklore of anarchic democracy; his was a commentary upon Austin in Terms of Thoreau, so to speak. Indeed, Laski’s insistence upon the individual conscience as the court of last appeal in matters of political allegiance and obedience is a mere elaboration of the views so eloquently stated in Thoreau’s essay on Civil disobedience.” – Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, page 51.

LASSWELL, HAROLD D., The Garrison State. - Also worth reading is: Harold D. Lasswell (1941) The Garrison State. - Gian Piero de Bellis in his "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE

LATHAM, EARL: The Group Basis of Politics, Notes for a Theory, in: Elan, Heinz, Eldersveld, Samuel J; and Janovic, Morris, editors: Political Behaviour: A Reader in Theory & Research, N.Y., The Free Press, 1956, p. 235: "Private government is not only a legitimate but a much neglected subject of inquiry by political science." - The above was quoted by Evan, William M., ed., in "Law & Sociology, exploratory essays", The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962, p.165.

LATTER, Mr., The Government of Foreigners in China, LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW, vol. XIX, 19-3, p. 316.

LAUWERT, ANNA, Fascist Panarchies. An email she sent to a few on 1.8.05 stated: I have another problem with humans. Humans are part of the mammals such as cows, horses, cats, chamois, but also wolves or wild boars. How do they function? The female goes on heat and searches a male to impregnate her (that is exactly what woman do). When she is pregnant she does not care any more for the male who goes from other female to other female (and this is what males do). (*) - The female produces her offspring and when it begins to eat grass and is not sucking milk any more, the female goes once more on heat and the story starts again. Humans try to stay together to form a family. But a family (marriage for life) is against law of nature, therefore it is so difficult. That is one side of the problem. - The other side is that humans are also gregarious who live in communities - such as wolves or boars. The law in these communities is not democracy, but, the most quick, intelligent, clever and strong is the first to eat, and to impregnate the females and reproduce himself. The other members of the community submit or leave. The leader imposes a strong law based on violence ... - For this reason I think that panarchy is not working but, alas, humans are "programmed" for a kind of dictatorship. - - As humans we cannot escape from the law of nature ... we try to be "better" and have families and live as democrats, but I think we should not forget the law of our nature. It also helps us to understand our behaviour. Why so many divorces (for example in Europe) and why those strict laws about marriage, even stoning to death (for example in Muslim communities)? - Third part: over the world there are few democracies as we intend them: "Western" countries. So if the UN had to vote democratically, we would be governed by non-democratic countries. - Thus, speaking about Panarchy, democracy and so on, I suppose many people are going to vote (and fight) for democracy ... even "dictature of democracy" [majority despotism? - J.Z.] even if the democracy that we try to build is not perfect. - There is another strange phenomenon: when in a hen house there are 5 black hens and there comes a new white hen, the black hens kill the white one. To understand human behaviour (and government) we should learn more about animals. - Anne. - - Should all of the somewhat rational and moral human beings have to follow the instincts and practices of all kinds of mammals, even those of four-legged beasts of prey or of birds of prey? And since insects are also products of nature, should humans have to establish States like e.g. the ants and the bees do? Should humans, like microbes and viruses do, attack and destroy all other life-forms, whenever they can? Should we follow the best or the worst examples that nature has to offer us? Vegetarians not only refuse to eat other humans but also all kinds of animals. However, they do eat vegetables, which are also natural life-forms and vegetarians and others grow them, at free market prices, in abundance. Should we become like plants, using only the sun and other natural energies, the earth and the air to support us? We might, indeed, one day, come to produce all our food synthetically or only with the help of primitive small life forms, bacteria, virus kinds, fungi etc. - but should we also live as they do? - Most of the examples that nature has to offer us in the universe are dead. Should we all try to follow these examples? Panarchism is the opposite of Fascism and the Nazi ideology of "Herrenvolk" and, supposedly, great leaders and their "rightful" territorial powers. - Should we try to become, more and more enlightened, rational and moral beings or merely follow inborn instincts? - Should we adopt the racism of the chicken pen? - (*) Recently, but some days apart, I encountered in my village two elderly couples among the visitors. They still held hands, probably after x decades. I rather liked that rare sight. - Some animals do also form couples and do stay together. - J.Z., 30.9.11. - OBJECTIONS, DIS., NATURE

LAW & JUSTICE: Offer any kind of law to the ones who want it for themselves - and any kind of justice for all those more concerned with justice than with law and wanting to realize what they consider to be the most just system among themselves. - J.Z., 18.1.86.

LAW & LIBERTY: to a way of looking at society, which makes the replacement of law by liberty a condition of reaching the higher stages of social development." - John Morley, On Compromise, 250. - Replace uniform and territorial law, imposed also upon dissenters, by personal and individually chosen laws, via individual secessionism and associationism and the basis of exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 6.1.93.

LAW & NATURAL RIGHTS UNDER TERRITORIALISM AS OPPOSED TO EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY CLAIMED BY VOLUNTEERS FOR THEMSELVES: all a man's natural rights stand upon one and the same basis, viz., that they are the gift of God, or Nature, to him as an individual, for his own uses (J.Z.: or non-use), and for his own happiness. If any one of these natural rights may be arbitrarily (J.Z.: e.g. by majority vote or "professional" jurisdiction) taken from him by other men (J.Z.: when he himself has not offended against those of others), all of them may be taken from him on the same reason. No one of these rights is any more sacred or inviolable in its nature, than are all the others. ... The violation of any one of these rights by lawmakers, is equivalent to the assertion of a right to violate all of them." - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p. 30. - - If, e.g., under certain and restrictive circumstances, I can save the life of an innocent person by ignoring e.g. his right of freedom of expression and information or that of someone else, I DO intend to do so and would fill righteous and good about it. There are, after all, some primary rights and some secondary and further derived rights. By temporarily ignoring some secondary rights we can, sometimes, protect some primary rights. - J.Z., 15.1.93.  (I am grateful to two persons who, on two separate occasions, kept me forcefully out of the way of some vehicles I had not noticed and feel proud of once having forcefully stopped a really blind person, who would otherwise have been run over. He was frightened, but only for a moment, thinking that he was being mugged. Neither of these three rescuers received any complaints. - J.Z., 10.12.03.)

LAW & ORDER: Any system that leads to wars, revolutions, terrorism, genocide, dictatorship, totalitarian or democratic majoritarian despotism, economic interventionism and ABC mass murder devices isn’t really a “law and order” system. – J.Z., 1.9.97. - TERRITORIALISM

LAW & ORDER: The territorial law and order systems do produce a lot of “crimes” without victims (drug laws) and also a lot of crimes with victims (taxation, compulsory schooling and crimes committed to pay for the high costs of drugs caused by anti-drug laws) and neither prevent enough genuine crimes or punish or treat such criminals effectively. – J.Z., 10.9.03. – The “law and order” slogan presupposes the possibility of an ideal State system, which territorial States have never provided and cannot provide. – J.Z., 23.10.07. - CRIMES WITH OR WITHOUT VICTIMS

LAW OF NATIONS (?): 1930, a private draft by some professor, like the code of INTERNOSCIA, JEROME. Hint by Suzan Witt or Robert Swann? See: International Law.

LAW OF TERRITORIAL STATES: Im Inneren der Staaten selbst, wo die Menschen zur Gleichheit unter dem Gesetz vereinigt zu sein scheinen, ist es grossen Teils noch immer Gewalt und List, was unter dem ehrwuerdigen Namen des Gesetzes herrscht; hier wird der Krieg um so schaendlicher gefuehrt, weil er sich nicht als Krieg ankuendigt, und dem Befehdeten sogar den Vorsatz raubt, sich gegen ungerechte Gewalt zu verteidigen." - Fichte, Die Bestimmung des Menschen, 3. Buch, Glaube, S.131. (Within States, where human beings seem to be united under equality before the law, we have to a large extent still coercion and deception that rule under the honourable name of the law. Here war is all the more scandalously conducted because it is not announced as a war and deprives the victims even of the excuse of defence against unjust force.)

LAW REFORM: Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly 'reforming' their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they're always busy 'reforming' is an implicit admission that they didn't get it right the first 50 times." - Lawrence W. Reed, in "Where Are the Omelets", published on pages 17-18 of the October, 1999, issue of THE FREEMAN, the journal of the Foundation for Economic Education. - If these “reforms” were always only applied among volunteers - then they would be genuine learning experiences among these volunteers and for outside observers. But nonsensical and wrongful reforms are, instead, legally and territorially imposed upon the whole population of territories, thus maximizing possible and likely wrongs and damages, also minimizing responsibility for them. – Reed’s title is an apt response to the popular excuse for wrongful and coercive actions: “One cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs!” – J.Z., 5.1.08. - GOVERNMENTAL REFORMS, TERRITORIALISM, Q., PANARCHISM

LAW REPEAL & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM: I Hereby Repeal All Laws Pertaining to Me.” – Dangerous Buttons, No. 519.

LAW REPEAL: We don't enforce unconstitutional laws; we REPEAL them.” - Source? - - Many constitutional laws are wrongful, too. Generally speaking, this means all those, which were forced upon peaceful dissenters, who are not given their chance to opt out from under them and their territorial institutions. – J.Z., 2.1.08. - LAW REPEALS RATHER THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT

LAW REPEAL: Why not a legislative house whose sole duty is to repeal laws?” - Suggestion by Robert Heinlein in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. – Rather let all dissenting individuals and minorities opt out from under them – as long as they leave the remainder and each other alone. – J.Z., 24.1.09, INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY GROUP SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, PARLIAMENTARISM, DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION

LAW, GOVERNMENT, FREE CHOICE, CONSENT & INDIVIDUALISM: Law, and government, voluntarily chosen by individuals, merely to be agreeable to them, at least for the time being, or to be absolutely and for all and all times and all relations in full accordance with natural law and individual and human rights? The misunderstandings that do occur here are due, I believe, largely to the notion that the existence of rights and of the right to claim them, is supposed to oblige the individual to always fully claim and practise them. While it might be rational and ethical to strive in that direction, it can never be an absolute obligation for any individual. Your right to speak does not oblige you to speak all the time, your right to travel does not oblige you to travel all the time. Thus we should beware of the absolutist fallacy even when in favour of natural law and individual rights. However, these rights are "absolute" to the extent that if and when and to the extent that, an individual wants to speak and to travel freely, at his own risk and expense, then he should be at liberty to do so. No contract or withdrawal from a contract clause or contract penalty should become prohibitively long or large. And when primary rights are involved, then individuals should remain free to claim them fully and instantly, even when they had formerly renounced them or contracted them away. Then they would not have to give notice, either.  Listen to and ponder Spooner on this, in The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, p. 14, as quoted in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p. 125: "If, then, law really be nothing other than the rule, principle, obligation or requirement of natural justice, it follows that government can have no powers except such as individuals may rightfully delegate to it: that no law, inconsistent with men's natural rights, can arise out of any contract or compact of government: that constitutional law, under any form of government, consists only of those principles of the written constitution, that are consistent with natural law, and man's natural rights; and that any other principles, that may be expressed by the letter of any constitution, are void and not law, and all judicial tribunals are bound to declare them so." - I do agree with this but only with regard to the present territorial, monopolistic and compulsory constitutions. However, individuals and volunteer groups are to become free, too, to make contracts among themselves and binding only them, for the time being and as long as this pleases them, which are inconsistent with natural law and individual rights and liberties that are fully recognized, claimed and realized. And they do have the right to do so as long as they can stand or wish these restrictions upon their rights and liberties. When and if they do finally no longer want them, or when and if some individuals among them no longer do so, then they should be free to unilaterally reject them for themselves by individual or minority group secessions, especially when it comes to the infringement of primary rights and liberties. As long as the individualized delegation of individual rights and liberties, wholly or partly, was voluntary and continues to remain voluntary (by the maintenance of the right to individually secede), the contracted relationship is still right for the contractor, even when objectively to his disadvantage. Subjectively he thinks it to be in his favour. What he considers to be right for him, to delegate of his rights and liberties or not to use them himself, is right for him, for the time being, until he decides otherwise. Then he can fully claim them and no one can permanently hold him to his former renunciation. Just because a loving child has said, at 5, to his loving father: "Yes, daddy!"- does not oblige it to always say, even 20 years later and upon all fatherly advice, instructions and commands: "Yes, daddy!". Give people their maximum chance to grow up - even from primitive beginnings. - J.Z. 1.7.92, 15.1.93, 25.5.12.

LAW, MORALITY, LEGAL REALISM & PERSONAL LAW: Resourceful western legal scholars have now introduced the term 'legal realism'. By legal realism, they want to push aside any moral evaluation of affairs. They say, 'Recognize realities; if such and such laws have been established in such and such countries by violence, these laws still must be recognized and respected. .... but morality is always higher than law. This view must never be abandoned...' - Solzhenitsyn, Words of Warning to the World, p. 26. - Panarchism provides free choice among legal systems and ethical systems and free societies. Under it, I feel certain, most lawyers and lawmakers would either price and act themselves out of circulation or out of willing victims, unless they went way down with their "service" offers and "prices". Any ethical and moral systems that do satisfy volunteers will gain then more and more adherents, in spite of and because of their differences. Agreement has only to be achieved upon some basically rightful international relations between these volunteer groups. And for this purpose improved individual rights codes and international arbitration courts, supported by volunteer militias for the protection of claimed individual rights, will, probably, suffice. -  I do greatly doubt that the future free people in what was formerly the USA will still need one to two million lawyers. The laws of free societies of volunteers will tend to be fewer, more simple and more just. - J.Z. 15.1.93, 10.12.03, 16.9.04. 25.5.12. 

LAW, PERSONAL LAW, DESPOTISM, DISSENTERS, TERRITORIALISM & PANARCHISM: Territorial law is a criminal imposition upon all non-criminal (non-aggressive) dissenters. - J.Z., 5.1.97 & 26.6.01.

LAW, PERSONAL VS. TERRITORIAL LAW: The law should not be something one needs to submit to or to fight but, rather, something one is free to ignore or opt out from - to do or contract one's own thing, regarding one's own affairs. - J.Z. 19.1.88. What would then remain would be merely natural law and contractual relationships between these secessionists and exterritorially autonomous associationists. - J.Z., 3.4.89, 25.4.12.

LAW, SELF-GOVERNMENT, JUSTICE: We are self-governing in daily life and we use justice to regulate our private intercourse. But it is no longer operative in law. - Wolf De Voon, De Facto Anarchy.  - True for territorial laws. - J.Z., 16.9.04.

LAW, TERRITORIAL VS. PERSONAL LAW OR SELF-CHOSEN LAWS VS. TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAWS: There exists a vast literature on morality or ethics. But it seems those writings, which make this distinction, are still all too rare. - J.Z., 1.9.04. - Please point out to me any such titles that are not yet listed here. - J.Z., 16.9.04.

LAW, TERRITORIALISM & AGGRESSION: One law for all people in a territory means legalized aggression by some people in that territory upon others. - J.Z., n.d. & 24.6.01.

LAW: A judge-must rule according to established law. An anarchy, as well as a commonwealth, may have established laws, according to which judges form their decisions. But an anarchy, unlike a Lockean commonwealth, need have no one system of, and no single ultimate source of law.” – David Suits, JLS, Sum.77, p.200. – The radical alternative to a single body of territorial laws for all inhabitants is not merely a variety of anarchies but a variety of personal law systems that would still, at least for some time, include many different forms of governmenance – all only for the various kinds of statist volunteers. – But these would then only be “freely competing governments”, each only exterritorially autonomous for its own volunteers, and they would have to tolerate each other and also the various anarchistic and libertarian societies. Under voluntarism and personal laws this would be quite possible and even very convenient to those able and willing to make use of such opportunities. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - ANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIAL LAW, PANARCHISM

LAW: A law is a political measure, it is politics.” – (Ein Gesetz ist eine politische Massnahme, ist Politik.) – Lenin. - Most laws practise territorial power politics rather than justice. – Are our democratic and territorialist politicians and laws sufficiently different, in this respect, from those of the totalitarian States? – J.Z., 5.7.92, 25.1.09. - POLITICS, POWER, TERRITORIALISM, “REALPOLITIK”, “REASONS OF STATE”, STATE SECURITY ABOVE & AGAINST GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, Q.

LAW: A law not repealed continues in force, not because it cannot be repealed, but because it is not repealed, and the non-repealing passes for consent.” - Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, I, 1791. – Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson thus proposed to put a time limit for the validity of every law. That would certainly be an improvement but would not go as far as free choice in laws, personal laws and in communities for every individual. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – REPEALS, PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY TOWARDS COMMUNITY OFFERS, SUNSET LAWS

LAW: a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.” – Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. – in: Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.90. - Individuals and minorities should also be able to “repeal” laws – for themselves – by free secession and organizing their communities of volunteers under exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - LIMITED DURATION, SUNSET LAWS VS. FORMAL LAW REPEALS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

LAW: a society which (*) permitted the frustrated and psychotic to set up the laws and mores of behavior which resulted in the mass crippling of the whole human race.” Mark Clifton & Frank Riley, They'd Rather Be Right, part III of IV, ASTOUNDING SF, Oct. 1954, p.122. – (*) Territorial States permitted … - J.Z. - CUSTOMS, BEHAVIOURISM, RULE, TERRITORIAL STATES, CONSTITUTIONS, INTOLERANCE, HUMAN BEINGS, NATURAL LAW, FRUSTRATIONS, LEADERSHIP, POLITICS

LAW: a way of looking at society, which makes the replacement of law by liberty a condition of reaching the higher stages of social development.” – John Morley, ON COMPROMISE, p.250. – Only territorial, uniform and imposed laws need to be replaced – by personal laws, individually chosen for themselves by volunteers. That is the fundamental liberty required to rapidly reach higher levels of societal organization, peace, justice, liberty, security, prosperity and progress for almost all. It would free all self-help options for the most advanced human beings, the pioneers and innovators. – “Freie Bahn dem Tuechtigen!” & “Der Freiheit eine Gasse!” - (A free path for the able and willing ones!A path for liberty!) - J.Z., 1.9.07. - PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHY

LAW: Abolition of laws rather than enslavement by them. – J.Z., 1974. – But self-enslavement under corresponding personal laws, individually chosen, would still be morally right for such persons, as long as they are willing to stand such a condition. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - ABOLITION, ABOLITIONISM TOWARDS LAWS

LAW: Act ethically, out of respect for your own law.” - (Handle gut, aus Achtung vor Deinem Gesetz.) - Kurt Lasswitz, Traumkristalle, S.173. - That would, largely, happen in panarchies or polyarchies. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – One’s own law is only the law one has given or selected for oneself, not the law that others have territorially imposed upon oneself. – J.Z., 29.1.09. – Territorial laws, as such, do not deserve to be respected. – J.Z., 25.12.11. - TERRITORIAL VS. PERSONAL LAWS, GOODNESS IN ACTION, RESPECT

LAW: After having thus successively taken each, member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.” – Toqueville, Democracy in America, quoted in THE FREEMAN, 1/76, p.30. - Let them secede to do their own things for themselves and all their voluntary followers! That is the most important “vote” that anybody could have for his public life. – J.Z., 3.9.07. – In this respect local and State governments are often even worse then the Federal Government. – J.Z., 25.5.12. – REGULATIONS, LOCAL ORDINANCES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, RULES, VOTING, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, REGULATIONS, DOMINATION, DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENT, SUBJECTS, CITIZENS, CREATIVITY

LAW: After the LAW: disorder! Or: Disorder follows the laws. Natural order and harmony can only follow the natural laws, not the man-made laws. Unless the man-made laws are only made, applied or chosen for themselves by volunteers, in their own exterritorially autonomous protective communities. – J.Z., 19.7.91, 28.8.07. - ORDER, DISORDER & NATURAL LAW, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: Against the background of my many years of service in the Navy, I make this declaration: I do not fear the Russian Army, or the atom bomb, or the hydrogen bomb, nearly so much as I fear this concept of using the law to relieve individuals of the responsibility for their own welfare and to deprive them of their freedom of choice. We can all see the danger of a military threat to our freedom. If we are attacked we will fight, and we will win! But few of us appear to understand this insidious process whereby we use our own laws and our own government to destroy our own liberties just as surely as if some foreign conqueror had power over us.” - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.28. – Our external clashes are related to or even results of our internal clashes in territorial States. How many external clashes would remain if all internal dissenters became free to rule themselves? - J.Z., 25.1.09, 25.5.12. – Q., PEACE, WAR, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRORISM, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, TERRITORIALISM, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM, DEFENCE, LAWS DESTROYING OUR OWN LIBERTIES, RATHER THAN “ENEMIES”

LAW: All “positive” laws are positively counter-productive. – J.Z., 21.9.93. – Even when passed with the best intentions. – They should only apply to those, who do favour them, in their own personal law communities. – J.Z., 1.12.07. - POSITIVE

LAW: All law are unfair. – J.Z., n.d. – At least to some people. – J.Z., 6.9.07. – To all who did not individually subscribe to them – e.g. as voluntary members of personal law communities, and who are no criminals or aggressors against others. – J.Z., 20.1.08. - FAIR OR UNFAIR? PERSONAL & INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN LAWS OR LAW SYSTEMS VS. TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAWS. PANARCHISM

LAW: All laws are attempts to approach the intentions of a moral world order in one’s worldly and private life.” – Goethe. – I would rather say: All laws are attempts to distance oneself from the intentions or rules and consequences of the moral world order in one’s private and worldly life.  J.Z., n.d. (Alle Gesetze sind Versuche sich den Absichten der moralischen Weltordnung im Welt und Lebenslaufe zu naehern. – Goethe.) – Ich wuerde eher sagen: Alle Gesetze sind Versuche, sich von den Absichten, Regeln und Konsequenzen der moralischen Weltordnung im Welt- und Lebenslaufe zu entfernen. – J.Z., n.d. - At least the version by Goethe is largely true for personal laws of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. My qualification or reversal applies only to territorial laws like our present ones. – J.Z., 29.8.07, 25.5.12. - NATURAL LAWS, NATURAL RIGHTS, MORALITY, HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, LEGISLATION

LAW: All laws are tribal laws and should apply only to voluntary members of a tribe or other community – and to those, who commit genuine crimes or aggression against them. – J.Z., 20.5.81. - TRIBAL LAWS ALL, & CORRESPONDINGLY BACKWARDS & OBSTRUCTIVE STILL.

LAW: All laws should consist exclusively out of loopholes. – J.Z., 2/75. Anyhow, the more loopholes they have, the better they are. – The best or most suitable laws for people, at each stage of their mental development, will tend to be those, which were chosen for themselves by volunteers only. – J.Z., 28.8.07. – The main loophole or escape route for everybody (who is not a criminal with victims) should be the freedom of individuals to secede. – J.Z., 28.1.09. – LOOPHOLES, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: all public ends look vague and quixotic beside private ones. For, any laws but those which men make for themselves, are laughable.” - Emerson, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.150. - PUBLIC GOOD VS. PRIVATE GOODS, RIGHTS & PROPERTIES, IMPOVERISHING THE PRODUCTIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNPRODUCTIVE, TRANSFER SOCIETY, ZERO SUM GAMES, LEGALIZED EXPLOITATION & FAVOURITISM, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

LAW: All regulations and laws should be like games rules: Agreed upon and applied only among those wanting to play a particular game. – J.Z., 20.5.81. - REGULATIONS, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHY, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: All rights and laws are still transmitted, / Like an eternal sickness to the race.” (Es erben sich Gesetz und Rechte / Wie eine ew'ge Krankheit fort.) - Johann Wolfang von Goethe, Faust. Pt. i, sc. 4, I. 449. – Another version: “Laws are inherited like diseases.” – I, Faust 1, 1808. - So far one can no more opt out from under a territorial law or State than from a disease or pestilence. That is one of the aspects, which makes territorial laws wrong and harmful. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - INHERITED LIKE DISEASES, LIKE A PLAGUE, STILL SPREADING

LAW: All territorial laws are unfair, and unjust, if not to all then at least to some, if not to many. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - TERRITORIAL ONES & FAIRNESS OR JUSTICE

LAW: All territorial laws ought to become replaced by personal laws, applied only among volunteers, in their own exterritorially autonomous communities. – J.Z., 29.8.07. - PERSONAL VS. TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: All territorial legislative measures force their mistakes upon all people in a territory – instead of, like contracts, only upon those, who subscribed to them and did not opt out from under them. – J.Z., 2.6.86, 29.8.07. - TERRITORIAL VS. EXTERRITORIAL OR PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

LAW: All territorial political and economic monopolies, whether based on the constitutions, special legislation or regulations, are hereby completely and immediately repealed, without any indemnification. – J.Z., 7.2.84, 30.8.07. - No complete declaration of individual rights and liberties could or should demand any less. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - UNIFORMITY, NON-TERRITORIAL, FOR ALL PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHIES, POLYARCHIES: ONE KIND OF LAWS THAT IS NEEDED ABOVE ALL, PERSONAL LAWS VS. TERRITORIAL LAW MONOPOLIES & COERCION

LAW: All too many of our territorial laws merely legalize persecution, exploitation and suppression. – J.Z., 14.3.99, 29.8.07. - PERSECUTION, EXPLOITATION & SUPPRESSION

LAW: All too much of our lives gets wasted rather than protected through mass-produced and territorially imposed laws of power-seeking politicians. – J.Z., 19.9.07. - POLITICIANS, PROTECTION OR EXPLOITATION BY POWER ADDICTS

LAW: Although, personally, I do distinguish between “the law” as basically sound, like the common law and the relatively few just laws passed by parliaments (and would include all genuine individual rights and liberties in it), from “positive” laws by legislators who had other things in mind than pure justice, natural law and natural rights, most people still mix up these terms and so I have here (In my SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY) mixed up the various statements on both types. Neither the law nor the “positive” laws have so far sufficiently recognized the personal law option of sovereign individuals for their associations and communities in panarchies, under panarchism, polyarchies or whatever their name will be in the future: Associations, societies, communities of individuals under full exterritorial autonomy and making no claim to any territorial monopoly but only to their various private and associational properties. – J.Z., 23.4.09.

LAW: America needs fewer laws, not more prisons.” – James Bovard – I would rather say that it needs more laws, but all only personal laws for voluntary communities, all without a territorial monopoly. – Then it would also need many less prisons than it has now. The more genuine individual rights and liberties become known and are practised the less crimes will gradually occur. – Compare my article in PEACE PLANS 15: “Some Thoughts On How A Libertarian Society Would Tend To Reduce Crime”, with some comments, 9 pages. – This PEACE PLANS issue is among the few of the 1779 issues that I have digitized so far. It is online as part of a CD that C. B. reproduced on - J.Z., 26.1.09, 25.5.12. - PRISONS

LAW: An evil: Territorial law cannot be sufficiently reformed. They will always be an evil, like cancer, war and tyranny, at least for all peaceful dissenters. However, it can become reduced to an individually and voluntarily chosen evil. – J.Z., 8.6.93, 12.10.07, 18.1.09. - Like smoking, drinking and other drug consumption. – J.Z., 16.12.10. - PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: an intolerant … law … constitutes a menace, so long as it is in force.“ – S. D. Gotein, Jews and Arabs, 69. – That does apply to territorial laws but not to personal laws that are chosen by volunteers for themselves. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – INTOLERANCE, PERSONAL LAWS, & PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Anarchy is the total absence of any system of governmental authority. Under a Free Enterprise system, laws exist to protect peoples rights, not to infringe them.” – Giles Edwards, pamphlet “Free Enterprise”. – Anarchy includes also the option not to be free among like-minded people, to any extent desired by them. For voluntarism stands higher on the scale of values than equal rights or equal status for all members. Fully free enterprise includes also the option to offer statist services – but to statist volunteers only and only at their expense and risk. Under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy this can be done and would allow anarchists and libertarians of all shades to live in accordance with their own ideals, even while the majority, consisting of statists, still practice, ever hopefully, their all too flawed statist systems among themselves, in all their varieties. – Not even the best system is to be territorially imposed upon all – The attempt would retard its realization among its believers and would even endanger its continuance, because this coercive attempt would arouse maximum resistance from the various statists and religious fundamentalists. - J.Z., 6.9.07, 25.5.12. - ANARCHY, FREE ENTERPRISE, HUMAN RIGHTS, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION

LAW: Any fool can make a rule / And every fool will mind it.” - Henry David Thoreau, 1817-1862. Journal, Feb. 3, 1860. – “Mind it” in the sense of obeying it and not in the sense of objecting to it. – J.Z., 31.8.07. – I would rather have added: And most laws are made uncritically, by fools. Also: More wise men than fools object to most of the legally imposed rules. – J.Z., 20.11.85 & 31.8.07, 25.1.09. -  – Any fool has the right to make rules – but only for himself and other like-minded volunteers! – Foolishness, for fools, by fools, as personal laws among them. Wise rules for wise people as their options for their lives and communities. Neither should the fools legislate for the wise nor the wise legislate for the fools. – J.Z., 27.1.09, 25.12.11. – PANARCHISM, FOOLS IN POWER & THEIR RULES, LEGISLATORS, REPRESENTATIVES, RULERS, POLITICIANS

LAW: Any laws but those which men make for themselves, are laughable.” – Emerson, “Politics”. – Alas, they cannot be simply laughed away, regardless of their immorality and irrationality. – J.Z., 25.12.11. -  RIDICULOUS TERRITORIAL LAWS, LAUGHABLE LAWS VS. PERSONAL LAWS, SELF-MADE OR CHOSEN BY MEN FOR THEMSELVES, LEGISLATING FOR ONESELF, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: As long as laws perpetuate and allow errors and prejudices and permit insufficient arguments and ideas to prevail, reasonable and factual ideas and arguments have little chance against them. Progress does need not only freedom of expression and information but also exemptions, by individual choice, from presently territorially enforced laws and institutions for all, especially for dissenters who are prepared to experiment with alternatives at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 2.10.88. - If governments ever came to realize the importance of experimentation, then they might attempt, in their usual ignorant and clumsy fashion, to subsidize and regulate experiments - thereby destroying most of their creative and progressive potential and their self-education potential. The experimenters must fully feel the consequences of their own mistakes - and must be free to fully benefit from their correct actions. - J.Z., 3.4.89, 29.8.07. - PANARCHISM & PERSONAL LAWS & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

LAW: As long as we are still suffering under territorial laws rather than being free to choose personal laws and voluntary communities for ourselves, Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, proposed, several times: Before any law is put into force it ought to be tested for its constitutionalism and compliance with individual rights and liberties and this by an institution more suitable for doing this than a vested-interest-dominated parliament, senate, president or supreme court. – J.Z., 5.10.91. – Just because mass production is good in the supply of goods and wanted services, we should not apply it to legislation. – Or we should allow individual to buy laws or to refuse to buy them just like they buy or refuse to buy goods and services and, e.g., insurance or credit contracts or private protection or arbitration services. - J.Z., 21.1.08. - TERRITORIAL VS. PERSONAL ONES, EVEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONES, PASSED WITHOUT RESTRAINTS, PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY TOWARDS ALL “PUBLIC SERVICES”! PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

LAW: As long as you’re here, you’re subject to our law”, Gordon said. - “I don’t need your laws, I have my own.” – Cecelia Holland, Floating Worlds, p.136. – People should be intelligent enough to enable them to distinguish clearly between house rules and territorially imposed “laws” or legislation. – J.Z., 25.12.11. - TERRITORIAL VS. PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: As many as you like, but all only at your own risk and expense! – J.Z., 75. - WORLD FEDERATIONS, GOVERNMENTS, PARLIAMENTS

LAW: As to the second lesson, the law should be confined to codifying the taboos and intervening to prohibit any person's injury to others. It is none of government's business how or to what extent an individual injures himself. Injury to others is the societal problem, and this is the business of society's governmental agency. (*) Injury to self, be it drug addiction or suicide, is strictly a personal problem and its remedy is to be achieved solely by self-correction. (**) – Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, FEE, P.119. - - (*) Rather, the business of numerous diverse panarchies and of their federations, than of any single and however limited territorial government for all inhabitants and their federations. Read, to my knowledge, never sufficiently examined this rightful alternative in his numerous writings, although in every other sphere he favored voluntary self-help organizations or the free market. - - (**) Or asked for and given good advice. - J.Z., 3.9.07. - SELF-INFLICTED INJURIES

LAW: At last he came to Earth, here dreams must come true, for there is a law against their failure.” – Robert Sheckley, Pilgrimage to Earth. – At least panarchism and polyarchism would allow all kinds of dreamers the freedom of action among themselves that is required to either realize their dreams or come to realize the remaining flaws in their dreams. A law against failures or heroic attempts to prevent failures of flawed systems, would not be required at all or useful if it were passed. The failures would condemn themselves in the eyes of their practitioners and also of outsiders. Once sufficiently disillusioned and experienced, they may begin to dream of something much better and to plan how they could best and soonest realize the better dream among themselves. – J.Z., 31.8.07, 24.1.09. - DREAMS

LAW: Away with every law or regulation which stands against the release of creative energy.” – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 11/70. - CREATIVE ENERGIES, RESTRAINING RATHER THAN RELEASING THEM

LAW: Be consistent. Either be the friend of the law, or its adversary. Depend upon it that, wherever there are laws at all, there will be laws against such people as you and me. Either therefore we all of us deserve the vengeance of the law, or law is not the proper instrument for correcting the misdeeds of mankind.” - William Godwin, Caleb Williams, p.222. – Godwin, too, did not take into consideration the possibility and rightfulness of personal law communities of volunteers that one has chosen or established for oneself according to one’s own ideas of ideal laws, constitutions and societal relations. - J.Z., 6.9.07, 27.1.09. - FRIENDS OR ENEMIES?

LAW: Because law must be expressed in terms of categorizations and, to be universal, must make distinctions far fewer than the number of souls to be ruled; because general positive rules always lag behind changes in actual social conditions; because promises to act in a certain way at a future date (as in contracts) may run counter to one's highest moral obligations at the time the promises are supposed to be fulfilled — for these and other reasons there has always been a discrepancy between what positive law demands and what exact righteousness, might entail. And sometimes the discrepancy becomes enormous indeed.” - Milford Q. Sibley, The Obligation to Disobey, p.25/26. – The lawmakers and executives of personal laws and other members of voluntary communities, that are only exterritorially autonomous, have a much easier job. Fundamentally they do agree and have no large and dissenting minorities. Unanimity is extensive. Thus also obedience to their own personal laws. – Sooner or later “political science” must take note of this fact. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - TERRITORIALISM

LAW: But a government of laws, of course, is a mere phantasm of political theorists: the thing is always found, on inspection, to be really a government of men.” – H. L. Mencken, Essay in Pedagogy, in Prejudices, Fifth Series, p.231. – Personal laws and voluntarism would introduce a significant distinction of panarchies and polyarchies from territorial States and their laws, and rulers. In them the individual members could be as independent as they want to be and their rulers or executive as powerless as their members want them to be. – J.Z., 17.9.07, 26.5.12. - MEN, GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT BY LAWS OR MEN?

LAW: But human nature does not change with the speed of Acts of Parliament, and, as in the wider field of nature, society is composed of individuals in various stages of evolution.” – S. Hutchinson Harris, The Doctrine of Personal Right, p.387. - Some enlightened individuals and minorities, at least, tend to change and advance faster than territorial laws usually do. And they should be free to practise their advances among themselves. And whether any groups advanced or learned nothing from their mistakes or even regressed, they should never be granted any legislative powers over others than themselves. Men are not to be legally set up as beasts of prey or as sacrificial victims for others. J.Z., 6.1.93. - Thus all should get the chance to practise their better ideas and opinions as well as the errors and prejudices of their age, at their stage of evolution. Then and thus the overall evolution would become accelerated as much as is possible among human beings. Pioneers could then demonstrate their successful pioneering work undisturbed, as soon as they are ready for it. Neither progressive laws nor retarding laws should be territorially imposed upon all. Then the more enlightenment people would be free to set inspiring examples for all others, without forcing them to participate. – “Release all creative energies!” said Leonard E. Read, even though he did not clearly apply it in this sphere as well. - J.Z. 6.1.93, 1.9.07. - PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHIES, POLYARCHIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM OR FREEDOM OF ACTION FOR ALL, EVOLUTION, VOLUNTARISM, DEVELOPMENT

LAW: But in all those governments, where laws derive their sanction from the people alone, transgressions cannot be overlooked without bringing the constitution into danger. (*) They who transgress the law in such a case, are those who prescribe it, by which means it loses not only its influence but its sanction. … Thus in Holland, Switzerland, and Genoa, new laws are not frequently enacted, but the old ones are observed with unremitting severity. In such republics therefore the people are slaves to laws of their own making, little less than in unmixed monarchies where they are slaves to the will of one subject to frailties like themselves. …” – Oliver Goldsmith, The Citizen of the World, quoting Letter L, p.139, from Lien Chi Altangi, to Fum Hoam, first President of the Ceremonial Academy at Peking, in China. - - Laws of an individual’s choice or of like-minded volunteers, vs. laws of territorial collectives, would make a great difference in the behaviour under such laws. One sticks more to self-chosen contracts and relationships than to imposed contracts and relationships. – J.Z., 7.4.91, 1.9.07. - - In Switzerland local direct democracy still plays a large role. But it still cannot fully represent all dissenting minorities. Theses ought to be free to opt out and rule themselves, exterritorially, under their own personal laws. Only then will all the people in a territory be really self-governing or self-managing their own communities or societies in the various ways that they wish to do so. – The terms people and self-government ought to become properly defined and applied. - (*) Not these, but the rights of others are infringed then. Constitutions themselves have no rights. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 26.5.12. - PEOPLE, BY, FOR OR AGAINST THE PEOPLE? DEMOCRACIES, OBEDIENCE TO LAWS, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, SWITZERLAND & PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: But no legislation has ever improved with time.” – Eugene Guccione, THE FREEMAN, 9/75, p. 547. – The various Roman, French and German Civil Codes were, mostly, an improvement – but were far overshadowed by the flood of other kinds of legislation. – In some respects “Das Allgemeine Preussische Landrecht”, e.g. details on clearing, remained superior to the much later compiled “Buergerliches Gesetzbuch”. - J.Z., 15.10.07. – The worst aspects of the Roman legislation on slavery were gradually mitigated by reform laws. On the other hand, monetary and tax legislation as well as laws attempting to regulate the capital market, has tended to go from bad to worse. – All over, the coercive development has also been from personal laws to territorial laws, a great wrong and deterioration. - J.Z., 19.1.09. - LEGISLATION

LAW: But the giving of laws in this classic sense of the word is the least part of the tasks of the assemblies, which we still call “legislatures”. Their main concern is government. For “lawyers law”, as an acute observer of the British Parliament wrote more than seventy years ago, “parliament has neither time nor taste”. So much indeed are activities, character and procedures of representative assemblies everywhere determined by their governmental tasks that their name "legislature" no longer derives from their making laws. The relation has rather been reversed and we call practically every resolution of these assemblies laws, because they derive from a legislature - however little they may have that character of a commitment to a general rule of just conduct, to the enforcement of which the coercive powers of government were supposed to be limited in a free society.” – F. A. Hayek, Whither Democracy?, in QUADRANT, 11/76. – Alas, Hayek favoured only that one concept of law and government, ignoring that most people are statists and want their government and their parliaments to undertake all kinds of other things, via their decisions. These people should also be free to do their things among themselves – but only at their own expense and risk and that requires that all the different groups of volunteers become confined to exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, instead of all struggling with each other, with the aim that one group of them obtains and keeps a territorial monopoly for its system and imposes it upon all others. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - LAWYER’S LAW & THE LEGISLATION OF PARLIAMENTS, REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY OR “SELF-GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS VS. TERRITORIALISM, EVEN IN FORM OF LIMITED GOVERNMENTS

LAW: But you can’t have citizens taking the law into their own hands!” - - “… The law gets into a great many hands, most of them less safe than those of the average citizens.” – Jan Stewart, Billy the Kid, ANALOG 1/87. - Only legislative power over peaceful dissenters is wrong. Legislative power over people who unanimously granted that power is quite a different matter. - Panarchism would provide a safe and institutionalized system in which all people could take the law into their own hands, i.e. make laws to suit themselves, at their own expense and risk or choose communities of volunteers for themselves, that are already providing the kind of laws and community that they want for themselves. These communities would be exterritorially autonomous and have only “personal laws”, applying only to these volunteers. They would not permit, like the territorial States do, to lay down the law for peaceful dissenters and this much against their wishes and aims. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – Under the system of personal laws, individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and voluntary associationism - even into communities, which are exterritorially autonomous - people would get the kind of personal law - and protective as well as penal institutions - that they do prefer for themselves, instead of merely those laws and constitutions, rights and liberties, which politicians and bureaucrats are prepared to concede to or impose upon them. – J.Z., 20.11.07, 16.12.10. – The above-quoted popular prejudice implies that e.g. lawmakers, policemen and judges are not humans or citizens. And, indeed, their actions are all too often inhuman. – The rightful core of the above quoted flawed popular sentiment amounts only to: No one is a rightful legislator, policeman, judge and jury over the self-concerned actions of other people. – When aggression does occur then one may do one’s best to defend oneself but the ultimate judgment on how to deal with the offender, except within the requirements of self-defence, lies not with the defender but with whatever juridical system he subscribed to. - J.Z., 25.1.09. 16.12.10. – LEGISLATION, DIS.

LAW: But, inasmuch as the felt permanence of Law, and therefore of all matters of general or special regulation, is of the highest importance, as already shown, to individual enterprise, social well-being, and national prosperity, the whole genius of the Constitution requires that every new proposition shall undergo the ordeal of the fullest discussion, and have its truth and value tested in every way, before it can be adopted; a proceeding the very reverse of what takes place under the system of Centralization. Thus is every moral probability ensured that only what is truly good and valuable, and felt to be so by the great majority, will be adopted. And until it is,— after such tests, — adopted, the new proposition is not to be treated as standing on an equal footing with actually existing and established Law, but only as matter thrown out for discussion. This sound principle is curiously illustrated by the old rules of the House of Commons; under which, when a division took place on any new motion, those who supported the motion, be their numbers small or great, were those who were bound to withdraw, "for that they are for an innovation and to bring in a new law. …” J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization,1851, p.25. – (Microfilmed in PEACE PLANS No.22.) Now the “reading” of a new bill, before it is voted in as a new law, consists all too often merely out of reading out the name of the new law, usually expressed in propaganda or cover terms, like e.g. the “Patriot Act”. – J.Z., 15.10.07 – Whatever discussion there is of their contents takes place all too often only in committees and under the influence of lobby groups. When the whole parliament is involved in a publicized discussion then party politics and demagoguery, playing up to or down to popular errors and myths, often shared by these “representatives”, are the main aspects. Objective discussions are largely missing. People no longer having faith in these all too powerful talk- and decision-making shops, their often wrongful or senseless decision-making, called laws, should be free to secede from them and their associates. – Then, doing their own things among themselves, in accordance with their own ideas and opinions, either for themselves or to themselves, exterritorially quite autonomous, under their own personal laws, they would set either better or worse examples, whereupon, in the long run, the better examples would tend to spread, just like in competitions between free enterprises. - J.Z. 19.1.09. - LEGISLATION, PARLIAMENTS, CENTRALIZATION, SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

LAW: But, unfortunately, law [government] by no means confines itself to its proper functions. (*) And when it has exceeded its legitimate spheres of action, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than that; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own legitimate objective: if has been applied to annihilating the justice that it is supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights that it is supposed to respect.” - Frederic Bastiat in Dean Russel, Frederic Bastiat, Ideas & Influence, FEE, p.3. – (*) This applies especially to territorial laws. Personal laws, which volunteers pass only for themselves (and against criminals and other aggressors, who would infringe the basic rights of these volunteers), would have the tendency to confine themselves to whatever function the volunteers would have given them and would be enlightening in the long run, especially since the very neighbours of these volunteers might live under other and better laws. – Volunteers, for instance, would not forever increase their tax burden and give their representatives and executives unlimited powers. – They would also remain free to secede. - J.Z., 4.9.07. - GOVERNMENT VS. RIGHTS & JUSTICE, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PROTECTION?

LAW: By length of time and continuance laws are so multiplied and grown to that excessive variety that there is a necessity of a reduction of them, or otherwise it is not manageable.” - Matthew Hale: History of the Pleas of the Crown, 1736. - Their number and variety would not matter if all of them applied only to volunteers. It would be up to the volunteers to keep the number and variety of their laws at a level they can cope with. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - MULTITUDE, OVER-AGED LAWS, VS. FREELY CHOSEN PERSONAL LAWS FOR VOLUNTEERS ONLY, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: By most laws and regulations more crimes are committed against the individual rights and liberties of innocent people than are committed by criminals with victims against laws that deserve the name because they are attempting to uphold individual rights and liberties. Seen in this way, territorial States with their mass production machines for wrongful laws and regulations and their numerous enforcers, do amount to the greatest organized crimes syndicates – posing as crime fighters and protectors and defenders of the people while they constitute the greatest protection racket of them all. – J.Z., 14.1.00, 24.9.08. – STATES, PARLIAMENTS, CONGRESS, TERRITORIALISM, EXPLOITATION, TAXATION, PROTECTION RACKETS

LAW: By now laws have to be largely ignored because no one has the time to read all those he is supposed to obey. – J.Z., 21.1.87, 29.8.07. – Alas, we have not yet become free enough to safely ignore almost all of them – via individual or group secessions! – J.Z., 27.1.09. - Ignoring laws has become largely necessary. Panarchism would legitimize that for most people, criminals and other aggressors excepted. – J.Z., 27.1.09.

LAW: Can the law which - necessarily requires the use of force - rationally requires the use of force - be used for anything except protecting the equal rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution - so long searched for in the area of social relationships - is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.” – Bastiat, The Law, first part quoted in THE FREEMAN, 4/77, p.206. in Dean Russel, Frederic Bastiat: Ideas and Influence, p.8/9. - Do even the best laws protect rights better than the knowledge and appreciation of all genuine individual rights and liberties, and thus their practice, could protect them? – J.Z., 5.9.07, 16.12.10. - I wish he had added: For the voluntary members of communities organized for this purpose without the wrongful claim of a territorial monopoly for themselves. In that way their constitutions, laws and juridical and other systems could vary very much and could correspond to all kinds of beliefs and convictions, except those, which are intolerant towards, injurious or aggressive towards non-members. Naturally, between such communities justice has to be established as well but not one which demands their uniformity but merely their peacefulness towards other communities. – J.Z., 3.9.07. - SOURCE & PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM - FORCE & PROTECTION OF RIGHTS

LAW: Cease to make laws which will be broken and ought to be broken. – J.Z., 26.12.76. - Or allow all people (except criminals and aggressors with victims!) to opt out from under them! – J.Z., 31.8.07. - LAWMAKING, LAW BREAKING

LAW: Clever men are not wanted for the making of laws, because clever men and their laws are at the root of all mischief. Nature is a better guide …” LORD ACTON, Lectures on the French Revolution, ed. by Figgis & Laurence, MacMillan, 1932, p.15. – He did not have personal but territorial laws in mind. Personal laws are produced and spread or disappear, operating like nature does with is varieties. – J.Z., 1.10.07. - NATURE & CIVILIZATION, POLITICIANS, LEGISLATORS, RULERS

LAW: Congress Shall Make No Law.” - L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach, p.183, heading of chapter XVIII. – “Congress shall make no law.” – Walter Williams, 21.4.90. - What should Congressmen do? Publicly discuss the futility of all territorial legislation, taking fully into consideration all past and present experience with it. Then repeal the lot and take up some other useful activity. - J.Z., 30.1.02. – However, first it should repeal all its past laws! The same should be done by all States and Local Governments.– Alternatively, all dissenting individuals and minorities should become free to opt out from under them and to establish competing alternatives to them, on a voluntary and exterritorial autonomy basis. – J.Z., 24.1.09. – It would also pay us very well to retire the lot, with a golden handshake, and to ignore all their laws. – J.Z., 27.1.09. - PARLIAMENTS, LAW REPEAL, LEGISLATION & CONGRESS, CONGRESS, PARLIAMENT

LAW: Contract is generally made by a few lawmakers and subject to the disputations of individuals…” – “What is that supposed to mean? Surely you don’t claim that laws form any sort of valid contract!” – George Kysor, THE CONNECTION 64, p.21. – Territorial laws can hardly be considered as contracts – but personal laws could be, due to the voluntary membership in personal law communities, all of them, ideally, exterritorially quite autonomous and also subject to individual secessionism, as all territorial States ought to be. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – CONTRACTS

LAW: Cops enforce each law less and less as they must enforce increasingly more and more laws.” - Mick Marotta, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, 9.9.73. – The less most territorial laws are enforced the better off most of us would be. But why have territorial laws in the first place, rather like personal ones? In the significant public sphere of religion we do now mostly allow individuals their own choice, even the choice to have no formal religion or metaphysics at all. Why not the same for the many different political, economic and social systems, most of which have not any more ethical or rational basis than most religions have? We are still the victims of our most primitive and most uninformed notions. – J.Z., 1. 9. 07. - COPS, POLICE, ENFORCEMENT, MULTITUDE OF LAWS

LAW: Corrupt and corrupting laws, corruptly passed, corruptly enforced or left un-enforced, corruptly adjudicated and financed by extortion and robbery or the coercive collection of tributes from innocent people. – J.Z., 30. 6. 96. The greatest and longest lasting protection racked of all. Conducted by States, which are territorial States and as such, mostly, Warfare States, even when they are democratic or republican States. And all this is considered to be democratic or republican, representative, self-governing, “sovereign people”, supposedly acting in the national interest and for the common weal. All of this being widely regarded to be the only possible or most peaceful, just and progress promoting system. - That it is armed with ABC mass murder devices is a least a strong hint that “something is wrong in the State of Denmark”. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - CORRUPTION, DEMORALIZING & CORRUPTING LAWS

LAW: Dictatorial rule …. “overthrows the Rechtsstaat, the State based on legality, what we call in England the rule of law. The bulwark against the whims of an irresponsible ruler erected during centuries of struggle is removed. " His will is my law," says General Göring in speaking of his chief. It is a return to the primitive, before the conception of impersonal law was born.” – G. P. Gooch, Dictatorship in Theory and Practice, 36. – However, even in territorial democracies the totalitarianism of territorialism does remain and imposes its territorial laws upon peaceful individuals and minorities, not only upon criminals and aggressors. That wrong was institutionalized by “positive law” and the “Rechtsstaat” and “equal laws for all”, or “equality before the law”, however despotic the territorial law may be. – J.Z., 2.9.07. – As it is e.g. in the sphere of taxation, of monetary despotism and of immigration restrictions. – J.Z., 29.1.09. - RECHTSSTAAT, STATE, THE STATE OF LEGALITY, OF MORALITY, THE RULE OF LAW

LAW: Discard law after law. – J.Z., 9.4.73. Via individual secessionism and panarchism or polyarchies individuals and voluntary groups could freely do so, even in whole batches, according to their increasing experience and enlightenment. – J.Z., 31.8.07. – Discard even State after State, government after government, society after society, until you finally arrive at one that suits you. But it must be one without a territorial monopoly claim. – J.Z., 25.1.09. - DISCARDING LAWS, ESCAPING FROM THEM, ESTABLISHING PERSONAL LAWS AS ALTERNATIVES TO TERRITORIAL ONES, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, OPTING OUT, WITHDRAWING FROM ORGANIZED & IMPOSED WRONGS

LAW: Disobedience towards most laws is now morally more meritorious than obedience towards all of them. The gun, whereby individuals should be able to shoot down the imposition of wrongful, especially territorial laws and institutions, consists in the realized right of individuals and minorities to secede from any territorial State and, afterwards, from any exterritorially autonomous community, whose laws, actions and institutions do, in the opinion of individuals, no longer correspond to their own ideals. – J.Z. 30.8.07. - DISOBEDIENCE TOWARDS IT

LAW: Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law.” – Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus III, p.22. - - Yes, for yourself, in your own sphere or organized, together with like-minded people, but, never, towards the affairs of peaceful others, who are of different persuasions and associations, societies or communities. – In other words: All other people, who are not aggressors or criminals with victims, should be granted or conceded the same freedom. The remaining territorialists will become, willy nilly, exterritorialists, when all their dissenters have opted out of “their” State or territorial rule or domination. They would be free to keep their old statist institutions and laws unchanged, as long as they can stand them, always at their own risk and expense only. – Leonard E. Read put it in a nutshell: “Release all creative energies!” - J.Z., 31.8.07, 25.1.09. - INDIVIDUAL WILL, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, DIS.

LAW: Either one law or no law? No! Either one law imposed upon all in a territory or to each his own and personal law and panarchistic or polyarchic voluntary community that is exterritorially quite autonomous. – There are many slogans which try to frighten us into submission to territorial States. Nowhere are they so far systematically refuted, at least not according to my all too limited knowledge. - J.Z., 19.5.82, 30.8.07. - UNITY, UNIFORMITY, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, TERRITORIAL LAW, CHAOS, ANARCHY, LAWLESSNESS? DIS.

LAW: Essential as governmental law is, never look to it to set all things straight! Laws can do little more than to exert a mild pressure along lines favorable to the current consensus, be that good, bad, or indifferent. - Leonard E. Read in some FEE advertising matter, about 74. – Laws or rules and governments management schemes may be necessary for or against some people, but territorial laws and territorial governments are not. Few are so far aware of this distinction. – J.Z., 4.9.07, 17.12.10. - GOVERNMENT & GOVERNMENT LAWS, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: evaded by the people everywhere. The system was everywhere and universally condemned and despised, and considered as grievously unjust to the body of the people. This state of things held out a pernicious example to the country. An habitual trampling upon the laws was injurious to public morals (*), and to the stability of free government. (**) Apart from other considerations, this alone ought to prompt us to render the laws worthy of support."(***) – Mr. Merrick, Chairman of the P.O. Committee, 29.3. 1844, quoted in Lysander Spooner’s works, I, 38. – Or, rather, to ignore or repeal or resist all of them or opt out from under them and confined all future lawmaking and obedience to laws to the experimental communities of volunteers. - The lawmakers usually want us to love the chains they put on us. - That kind of “love” or statism is morally unobjectionable only for voluntary members of personal law communities. – - (*) It was, rather, expressing that the subjects had a higher standard of morality than the lawmakers had and their resistance sets an inspiring example even to people in other countries, for a long time. - - (**) Only those governments and societies can be relatively stable that are confined to voluntary members and exterritorial autonomy. All other “stable” governments, as territorial govenrments, are, largely, wrongful despotisms, even when, formally they are supposedly “free” and “enlightened” democracies or republics. Just look at the toll of their victims on battlefields, in prisons, and at the number of their tax slaves and of their parasites, the armies of bureaucrats: 46 million bureaucrats in China alone and many democracies have an even higher percentage, per population, of these legalized “public servants” or robbers and regulators, i.e., criminals with victims. – (****) Even parental love and good intentions can be despotically expressed and can thus do much harm and wrong. – We can expect much more of such consequences from “well-meaning” politicians and bureaucrats in “stable” positions of power. – How short could an almost comprehensive code of all individual rights and liberties be compared with the usual body of legislation in a country? – (***) to render support to laws that are worth? – (****) I read recently several reports on extreme corruption within the bureaucracy of China. Alas, how to get effectively get rid of it, without much bloodshed and destruction, is still not sufficiently known. If it were, it could not last long – except for its remaining volunteers. But these could then no longer exploit and oppress any dissenters. They could wrong and harm only themselves. And that might be very educational for them. - J.Z., 3.9.07, 26.5.12. - WORTHY OF SUPPORT OR NOT TO BE PASSED AT ALL

LAW: Even law can either be competitive or monopolistic. It can be optional or coercive, exclusive and monopolistic like a forced currency with legal tender power and an issue monopoly in relation to the alternative of various competing currencies of free note-issuing banks and clearing-houses. It can be an optional personal law, subject to refusal for an applicant or acceptance by him, if he is accepted as a suitable new member into a community of volunteers, like a privately or cooperatively issued and accepted competing currency can be. Various political, economic and social systems and communities should also become market-rated by their sovereign consumers, applicants and members. That process should be continuous, apart from agreed-upon withdrawal or giving notice periods. Individual secessionism should also apply to panarchies and polyarchies, not only to territorial States. – The voluntary acceptance principle should also be realized in the sphere of communities. All obligations must be self-imposed or contracted for rather than imposed by others. - J.Z., 21.11.82, 30.8.07. - COMPETITIVE OR MONOPOLISTIC, TERRITORIAL OR EXTERRITORIAL, PANARCHISTIC OR IMPOSED, COMPULSORY OR FREELY CHOSEN BY SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS FOR THEMSELVES, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, JUST LIKE MONETARY FREEDOM VS. MONETARY DESPOTISM

LAW: Even the worst laws are somewhat bearable, at least for a while - if one has chosen them for oneself and is also free to secede from them once one has learnt one’s lesson about them. – J.Z., 29.1.09. – VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, LEARNING EXPERIENCES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

LAW: Every age and must be free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave in the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies?” – Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man. - Even “age” and “generation” are collectivist notions here and wrongly assume that territorial unity of views does exist. But everywhere there are many dissenting individuals and minorities and they do have the right to choose different laws and institutions for themselves, without any sunset laws regulation having expired first for any particular law that they dislike for themselves. – Individual and group secessionism and personal laws rather than merely time-limited territorial laws! – J.Z., 6.9.07. – One panarchy might differ from another only by a single law, continued in the one panarchy and repealed in the other. E.g. the one with a compulsory fluoridation or vaccination law and the other without. Few minds are as yet ready to reject for themselves whole batches of the existing laws. – J.Z., 17.12.10. - FORMALLY PERPETUAL ONES INSTEAD OF TIME-LIMITED ONES

LAW: Every great robbery that was ever perpetrated upon a people has been by virtue of and in the name of the law.” (*) – Albert Parsons, on being sentenced to hang, 1886. - (*) And in the name of an all too insufficiently defined “people”. Only volunteers can constitute a genuine people or communities. The territorially defined peoples, nations, communities and States are fictions or impositions rather than genuine peoples, communities, States and societies. These flawed definitions have also led to quite false forms of “self-government”, far removed from really self-governing panarchies or polyarchies of volunteers under personal laws. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – PEOPLE, LAW, ROBBERIES, TAXATION, LEVYING OF TRIBUTES, SUPPOSEDLY IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.

LAW: Every law is illegal. Every government is illegal.” (*) – Bob Marley Rasta, singer and religions leader, Reggae, founder of new pot smokers, a Jamaican sect. He wanted to take 2 million Jamaicans back to Africa. In other words, he, too, has still no idea of the of exterritorial autonomy and individual and group secessionism without making any territorial monopoly claims. – Perhaps panarchistic ideas could be promoted widely by such people? Preferably, after a few attractive panarchistic reggae songs were produced by someone? – Upon panarchistic ideas a better religion could be developed than most of the existing intolerant territorialist ones. – Many young people nowadays can be reached only by songs rather than written texts. - J.Z., 30.8.07. – (*) They may be formally quite legal and yet illegitimate or immoral. – J.Z., 26.5.12. - ILLEGALITY, DRUG LAWS, GOVERNMENT, SONGS FOR PANARCHISM AS A PROPAGANDA AVENUE?

LAW: Every law is the resulting compromise of the conflict between at least two absolute power claims.” – (Jedes Gesetz ist die Resultante aus dem Zusammanprall mindestens zweier absoluter Machtansprueche.) – Hilsbecher. – As territorial power claims both, or all of them, are wrong and so is their compromise. All territorial laws should be replaced by personal laws, freely chosen by individuals and their groups for themselves. Then, for the affairs of communities of like-minded volunteers, no compromises or only few and relatively trivial ones will be required. Larger disagreements will then be settled by secessions. – J.Z., 19.10.07. - COMPROMISES, PERSONAL LAWS INSTEAD, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, DIS.

LAW: Every man is by nature free and no one has the right to impose a law upon him except himself.” - („Jeder Mensch ist von Natur frei, und niemand hat das Recht, ihm ein Gesetz aufzuerlegen, als Er selbst.”) – J. G. Fichte, „Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische Revolution“. - S. 356, quoted from a collection of very old German reviews of this book, which considered this remark as typical for the whole book. - FREEDOM, RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL, NATURAL LAW, STATE, LEGISLATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, NATURAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM

LAW: Everyone to be his own lawmaker, alone or in association with other and like-minded volunteers, but for personal laws only, applying only to him and his voluntary associates – and to aggressors against them. – J.Z., 14.4.95. - LAWMAKING, PERSONAL LAWS, INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN LAWS, PANARCHIES

LAW: External law must always be false.” – Edward Carpenter. – Only personal laws can be quite right – for those, who wanted them for themselves. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – However, criminals with involuntary victims and other aggressors should be subjected to the laws of their victims. - J.Z., 17.12.10. - EXTERNAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: For Locke, and for the later theorists of Whiggism and the separation of powers, it was not so much the source from which the law originated as their character of general rules of just conduct equally applicable to all which justified their coercive application.” – F. A. Hayek, Economic Freedom & Representative Government, p.11. – Precisely in the application to all people in a territory, who have not given their individual consent and who are not criminals and aggressors, lies the wrongness of this utopian concept of Hayek. It assumes that a society or State with compulsory membership, i.e. involuntary subjects, could be rightful. Only to communities of volunteers, willing to remain members, and responsible for their actions, could his idea be rightfully applied. – J.Z., 2.9.07, 17.12.10, 26.5.12. - GENERAL RULES FOR JUST CONDUCT, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM: COMPETING PANARCHIES OF VOLUNTEERS, ALL UNDER PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: For the just men no laws and for the wise men no advice.” – Gracian, Handorakel, Vorrede an den Leser, according to Schopenhauer. (“Dem Gerechten keine Gesetze und dem Weisen keine Ratschlaege.”) – How can one find the wise and the just? They should be free to sort themselves out from the masses – by individual secessionism. – J.Z., 17.12.10. - WISE & JUST MEN

LAW: For the laws are, of necessity, always general rules which set down what should be done in certain types of cases. Since the incidents of human life, however, are infinitely varied, even the best laws are too rigid to deal adequately with this infinite variety.” – Aristotle, Constitution of Athens & Related Texts, The Hafner Library of Classics, Hafner Press. – View ascribed to Plato in Politics, in introduction p.35. – Nevertheless, this utopian attempt was made again and again. Personal law systems, individually chosen, are likely to come much closer to the variety of rules that volunteers do want for themselves. – J.Z., 17.12.10.

LAW: for the maxim there is, - 'what pleases the prince has the force of law;' whereas this is, - that the kingdom shall be governed by no other laws than 'those which the folk and people have made and chosen.'"  - Sir Roger Twysden, Certaine Considerations upon the Government of England, p. 83/4, quoted in J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-government and Centralisation, p.15. - I would add: And the “folk” or “the” “people” shall consist only of volunteers. - J.Z., 30.6.92.

LAW: For the people, truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatsoever; but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having those laws by which their lives and goods may be most their own.” - Charles I. of England. – We hear the same false pretence from our democratic or republican leaders almost every day – but none of them got as yet decapitated for his lies and wrongfully legalized actions. – J.Z., 4.9.07. – Charles I., too, had the wrongful and false notion of a single territorial people in mind. Starting with a wrong premise one can only arrive at wrong conclusions. – J.Z., 17.12.10. - LAWS VS. LAW, EVEN WHEN PASSED WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, PEOPLE, PROPERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY

LAW: For your own affairs follow your own laws. – J.Z., 20.5.76. – Pass and apply your own laws to yourself. – J.Z., 20.5.76. - OWN AFFAIRS, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: Freedom comes from human beings, rather than from laws and institutions.” - Clarence Darrow - “DANDELION”, Fall 79. - - Freedom derives from our moral and rational natures rather than from laws that were territorially imposed upon us, by centralized decision-makers whom we, individually, have not empowered to do so. – J.Z., 12.7.92, 1.9.07. – Freedom would also come from competitively supplied and voluntarily accepted institutions and personal laws. – J.Z., 25.1.09. – FREEDOM, MAN, DIS., STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, HUMAN NATURE, RIGHTS, INSTITUTIONS, CONSTITUTIONS

LAW: Friedrich Schiller said: „The law is the friend of the weak.“ – (“Das Gesetz ist der Freund des Schwachen.”) In practice, however, the law is the friend of the strong, who either make it or get it made to suit themselves, e.g. via influential and well endowed lobby groups. Only natural law, natural rights and individual rights and liberties are on always also on the side of the weak and give them their chances. – J.Z., 5.7.92, 26.5.12. – Minorities will only be able to fully enjoy all their rights and liberties, to the extent that they want to do this, once they are free to secede and to establish their own exterritorially, autonomous communities and personal laws for themselves. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – Even when poor people get some privileges and hand-outs through laws, do they benefit from these as much as they are wronged and harmed by other laws? – J.Z., 26.1.09. – WEAK & POOR PEOPLE BENEFIT? – DIS., Q.

LAW: Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbours (*), the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection." If laws are in agreement with the beliefs of those who are to be affected by them (**), little enforcement will be required. If laws are in conflict with those beliefs, continuous enforcement will be required and even then will be ineffective. - - An extensive discussion of this principle is to be found in Spooner's TRIAL BY JURY with some background in NATURAL LAW. In the latter he says, "Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter, easily understood by common minds ... And almost all men have the same perceptions of what constitutes justice." (***) Mike McMaster, OPTION 5/78. - - (*) Which is relatively easy to do, once they are free to associate with likeminded people in the own and exterritorially autonomous communities, under personal laws. Then they could much easier become tolerant of the diverse ideas and practices of their immediate neighbours, belonging to different communities and thus doing their own things for and to themselves only. – The unchecked premise and the spleeny notions of territorialism can then be overcome, all the easier when the first practical examples of this kind are set and widely reported. - - (**) Something that is inevitable within communities of volunteers! - - (***) If that were the case, then we would have had an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties long ago. As it is, even questions of monetary freedom and abortion vs. the right to life are still very controversial even among freedom lovers like anarchists and libertarians. - J.Z., 1.9.07. - NATURAL JUSTICE, NATURAL LAW, TOLERANCE & PEACE

LAW: genuine law is, in some sense or other, discovered rather than made.” – Norman Barry, The Tradition of Spontaneous Order, Literature of Liberty, Sum. 82, p.15. – Most of the advocates of “spontaneous order”, freedom of contract and free enterprise, free markets, laissez faire, sovereign consumer relationships and individual sovereignty, even of secessionism, have not yet applied these ideas and practices to panarchies or exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers under personal law. So backwards are the social science ideas still, even among most libertarians. – J.Z., 14.1.08. - GENUINE LAW, DISCOVERED RATHER THAN MADE, NATURAL LAW, NATURAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, SPONTANEOUS ORDER, PANARCHISM

LAW: Good men must not obey the laws too well … Hence the less government we have the better — the fewer laws and the less confided power ... To educate the wise man the State exists, and with the appearance of the wise man the State expires. The appearance of character makes the State unnecessary. The wise man is the State.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), Essays: Second Series (1844), "Politics”, 1841, Complete Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, vol. 1, p. 300 (1929) - I would rather say that the wise man is next to nothing in the territorial State. - It makes the scum rise to the top and keeps it there. At most it becomes replaced by other scum. - An honest man there would still act under delusions of grandeur, i.e., would be mentally defective enough to imagine that he could run the lives of millions of other people better than they could - if they were free to do so. - By now there are many more laws that morally require disobedience rather than obedience. - We need more law-breakers of the wrongful laws and less law-breakers of the rightful ones. - J.Z., 25.11.02. – Any wise man (even an unwise man) free to establish an alternative society, together with his followers, is quite another matter. Such societies are self-correcting via individual secessionism. – J.Z., 24.1.09. - CRIMES WITH VICTIMS & “CRIMES” WITHOUT VICTIMS, DISOBEDIENCE, OBEDIENCE, LAWBREAKERS & FREEDOM, DIS.

LAW: Good men need no laws, and bad men are not made better by them.” – Ascribed to Demonax of Cyprus, ca. 150. A.D. - Few if any are needed or really wanted by enlightened and peaceful people. All should be only personal law or international treaties on upholding wanted rights and liberties of communities of volunteers. – J.Z.

LAW: Government can easily exist without law, but law cannot exist without government.” – Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, 1950. - For really needed, wanted and just rules one does not need a territorial government. – J.Z., 28.8.07. – Even kids easily learn to play by self-given rules, in games and social interactions they invented for themselves. Why should adults be less free in the games and interactions that interest them? – J.Z., 25.1.09. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, WANTED RULES, Q.

LAW: Governments always regulate the kinds of business they allow. Economics is a legal matter, a system of laws.” – Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, p.146. – Capitalism and every other system works much better for its volunteers without controls imposed by outsiders, other ideologues. To each his own system! – J.Z., 3.8.06, 9.11.07. - REGULATIONS, ENFORCED UNIFORMITY, GOVERNMENTS, CONTROLS, TERRITORIALISM, CAPITALISM, HIERARCHIES & COMPULSION, DIS., FREE MARKET, VOLUNTARISM, LAISSEZ-FAIRE ECONOMICS, PROPERTY RIGHTS & FREE EXCHANGE & FREE ENTERPRISE, COMBINED WITH CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

LAW: Have laws ever fully achieved their objectives? A survey should be made with the percentage of failures and successes indicated, e.g.: positive results: x %; no observable positive effect: y %; negative results: z %. – J.Z., 27.7.84. - Herbert Spencer had proposed a still much more detailed survey of all the English laws but could not find a sponsor for all the labour involved. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – This job would be much larger now, since legislation has been multiplied. On the other hand, the Internet facility could mobilize enough manpower for it and appropriate computer programs could greatly lessen the chore. – Perhaps one should start it with just the legislation of one country and there with just those laws passed by each of the major two parties and this before an upcoming election, so that these two parties could or would use these records to cut each other down. – Alternatively, all the evidence against particular types of interventionist laws, e.g. protectionist ones, price-, wage- and rent control laws, immigration restrictions, gun laws, the laws of monetary despotism, progressive taxation, any compulsory taxation, could be digitally collected and published separately. However, the right to simply secede from any territorial governments and to live under self-chosen personal laws and management systems would be much more effective. - J.Z., 17.12.10. – The right to ignore territorial laws is much more effective than the right to criticize them. Individual rights and liberties – rather than avalanches of legislation. – J.Z., 26.5.12. - HAVE THEY EVER BEEN SUFFICIENTLY RIGHTFUL, SUCCESSFUL, LIBERATING & PRODUCTIVE OR, MOSTLY, JUST THE OPPOSITE? Q.

LAW: Haven’t all laws under all governments, even under divine ones, corresponded to human weaknesses? Aren’t they outlawing virtues to permit the vices of human hardness? … Thus there are, under all governments, introduced vices and outlawed virtues.” - Helvétius, De l’esprit, introduction. („Haben sich nicht die Gesetze unter allen Regierungen, selbst unter der goettlichen, nach der menschlichen Schwachheit gerichtet? Werden in ihnen nicht Tugenden untersagt und der menschlichen Herzenshaerte Laster erlaubt? ... Daher gibt es unter allen Regierungen eingefuehrte Laster und durch die Gesetze verbannte Tugenden.“) – Helvétius, De l’esprit, Vorrede. ) – I hold that self-chosen personal laws and institutions will improve that situation, gradually all-over and for some voluntary communities immediately. – J.Z., 19.10.07. - HUMAN WEAKNESSES, VIRTUES & VICES, TERRITORIAL LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: Here are but a few of many examples of things now out of bounds for American citizens: (1) It is against the law to grow as much wheat or cotton or peanuts or tobacco as you choose on your own land. (2) It is against the law, regardless of where you live, to refuse to finance thousands upon thousands of local fancies such as the Gateway Arch in St. Louis or the Fresno Mall. (3) It is against the law to refuse to finance the rebuilding of urban centers deserted in favor of new and more preferable centers. (4) It is against the law to refuse to finance putting men on the moon. (5) It is against the law to refuse to finance socialistic governments the world over. (6) It is against the law to be self-responsible exclusively, that is, to refuse to be responsible for the welfare, security, and prosperity of anybody and everybody, no matter who or what they are.” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, 62. – He left out e.g. that monetary and financial freedom, individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers and free migration are territorially outlawed. – J.Z., 17.12.10. - RIDICULOUS OLD LAWS, FORMALLY STILL IN FORCE BUT, NORMALLY, NOT APPLIED, SUBSIDIES, TAXATION, WELFARE STATE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation. - - This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.” - Frederic Bastiat, The Law, quoted in THE FREEMAN, 4/77, p.206. – Let individual citizens be free to make the choice between these two systems and all others – for themselves and at their own expense and risk. Under voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy under personal laws that would be possible and rightful. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - SOCIAL ENGINEERING, PHILANTHROPY BY LAW, WELFARE STATES, PANARCHISM

LAW: High live the territorial laws, so high that no one can reach them any longer! Better still, shoot all of them into space or declare all of them to be invalid from now on and all future law and legal institutions to be optional and personal for individuals, who are not aggressors or criminals against peaceful communities and individuals. Does that cover it? – J.Z., 1.9.07. - PERSONAL LAW

LAW: His declaration of rights has been passed over. (*) … It remained that he should compose the working machinery for his essential doctrine, that the law is the will of him that obeys, not of him that commands. To do this the Abbé Sieyès abolished the historic Provinces, and divided France into departments. There were to be eighty, beside Paris; and they were designed to be a nearly as possible equal to a square of about forty-five miles. … (**) - LORD ACTON, Lectures on the French Revolution, ed. by Figgis & Laurence, MacMillan, 1932, p.119/120. – - (*) I have never seen it as yet! - - On page 102 are also mentioned declarations of rights by Mounier and Lafayette, which I have not yet seen, either. - - (**) That implies voluntary membership in communities that are only exterritorially autonomous. There is no territorial solution to this problem. A territorial collective, wrongly termed “the people”, cannot rightfully take the place of sovereign individuals and their voluntary communities - J.Z., 1.10.07. – LAW NOT AS DECREE FROM ABOVE BUT AS A CHOICE BY FREE CITIZENS, I.E. PERSONAL LAW, PRIVATE HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS AS ASSEMBLED IN PEACE PLANS 589/590.

LAW: Holding that laws only create new problems, while failing utterly to remedy the situation at which they are aimed, Spencer would limit the State solely to the function of protecting the life and property of citizens and repelling invasions. (Social Statics (*), Man vs. the State & Principles of Ethics, Pt. IV, Study of Sociology, pp. 270-271.)” – W. A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories, Recent Times, p.390. ) - (*) Here he defended, in the early edition, the right of individuals to secede. - - Moreover, territorial States have, in practice, become the greatest threats to the lives and property of their subjects, e.g. through their wars, indiscriminate warfare, lack of just war and peace aims, revolutions and civil wars and internal persecutions, nuclear war preparations, tax laws and endless regulations. – J.Z., 29.8.07, 17.12.10. - PRODUCE STILL MORE PROBLEMS RATHER SOLVING THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY PAST LAWS

LAW: Hopefully, many people are already above most of the present laws in their thinking. – J.Z., 27.9.79. – But, certainly, not yet enough, as long as these relatively enlightened people are not yet free to secede from territorial states. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - LAWS, TERRITORIAL ONES, STILL OUTLAWING PERSONAL ONES

LAW: How can all these diverse and contenting ideas meet in a law and be united by it?” – Proudhon, Republik & Demokratie, S.9. – It is really an impractical and utopian notion that this could be done territorially. But via panarchies or polyarchies all the diverse groups could have their own kinds of personal laws for themselves and would no longer territorially conflict with each other. Exterritorial tolerance and autonomy would work as peace, justice and freedom promoting in the political, economic and social spheres as it does already regarding religion to a large extent, and for literary, artistic, musical, technical, scientific and other freely experimental efforts. There are no imposed laws upon songs and poetry, dance and design, except the laws of nature. What happens when even such spheres are legislated upon or centrally regulated we have seen in the Soviet Union. – J.Z., n.d. – TERRITORIALISM, Q., PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW

LAW: How can we, born into a time that has minced law with the extra-juridical chopper of justice and that holds that law is law because it is just, whereas for the Roman the law was just because it was the law.” - J. O. Y. Gasset, “Concord & Liberty” 29. – This ancient Roman view is also the usual excuse of legislators, policemen, lawyers and judges. – J.Z., 14.1.08. – The optimal chopper, an ideal declaration of all individual rights and liberties, has either not yet been compiled or published. It’s overdue and may come to serve as our best defence, better than any existing democratic or republican constitutions. It would also contain some rights that, if known, appreciated and applied, become self-realizing and would greatly help to realize the rest. Just like freedom of expression and information are supposed to do. Among them the right of volunteers to experiment under full exterritorial autonomy in all spheres now monopolized by territorial governmentalism. – J.Z., 25.1.09. – To me Gasset’s distinction is not clear enough. Is in our time law only law because or when it is just? – Does the formality of its passing sanction it sufficiently? - J.Z., 17.12.10, 26.5.12. - JUSTICE, PANARCHISM

LAW: How small, of all that human hearts endure, / That part which kings or laws can cause or cure!” - Samuel Johnson: Inserted in Oliver Goldsmith: The Traveller, 1764. – Although most laws can hardly ever do any good, some laws can do a lot of damage and wrong! And many, all too many of these, do. How many innocent unborn were and are killed every year, additionally, through legalized abortions, even subsidized ones, at the expense of tax payers, who, often, are anti-abortionists? Probably many more than through wars. And there are many laws that can be blamed for wars and civil wars, especially the bodies of territorial laws, which always provoke resistance, and strife, going to terrorism, bloody revolutions, civil wars and international wars. The laws of monetary despotism cause mass unemployment and inflation and poverty and these, in turn, lead to political territorial despotism and wars. The drug problem has been increased and not diminished through anti-drug laws. And so have many other problems. – We would all be much better off without any territorial laws and confining ourselves at most to personal laws quite tolerantly practised among volunteers in their exterritorially autonomous communities. - Who will produce some appealing verses and songs about this freedom option? Theoretically, they could conquer the world, or many of its minds, within hours, via electronic media. – Secede rather than terrorize! My alternative suggestion to: “Make love, not war!” – Or: Personal law over territorial law! – Political institutions, like churches, sects, insurance companies and sports activities do depend upon individual consent or voluntary membership. – No territorial monopolies any longer! You are still at least free to attempt to coin attractive slogans. Try it. You might succeed and your slogan or slogans might conquer the minds of the world! - J.Z., 10.7.86, 1.9.07, 26.5.12. - TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS VS. PERSONAL LAWS & PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM, SLOGANS, POEMS, SONGS

LAW: How we may succeed in working our way through that trap is the subject of my final chapter. The point I wish to make here is that once an anarchist society has been established, good law ceases to be a public good. Instead it is bad law - more precisely, the reintroduction of government - which becomes a public good. Or, rather, a public bad.” – David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p.215. – Only personal law, in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers can become a “public good” in the opinion of their volunteers. Anyhow, it would only be their private law, their private “good”, by their own standards and not a territorially law imposed upon others. That would be their best feature. Others, however, have, to some extent, to respect the prejudices of the members of volunteer communities under personal law. But personal law restrictions upon e.g. freedom of speech, freedom to read and freedom to exchange would only apply to the own voluntary members, except when it comes to the use of such freedoms on the properties, like the homes or churches of e.g. religiously prejudiced people. There, common sense and the laws of hospitality, should lead them to abstain from what the hosts would perceive as offensive behaviour. Outsiders, acting outside of these private spheres, would not be bound by such restrictions and could not be rightly punished by what members of religious groups, among themselves, would perceive to be offences. “Sticks and stones can hurt my bones but words can never hurt me.” – Such common sense insights would have to spread even to the least enlightened and most prejudiced communities of volunteers, who are not entitled to impose their distorted views of realities upon the rest of mankind. – But orthodox Muslims might e.g. exclude from their properties people, who are not dressed according to Islamic prescriptions and Christians or atheists might exclude, from their own properties, Muslims dressed in accordance with their religious beliefs. To legally and territorially enforce the same form of dress in public and in private would be wronging one side or the other. – But different house rules could be continued. – The egalitarians and coercive equalizers would have to become more tolerant, at least in public places. And these could be largely privatized as well. - J.Z., 4.9.07. – Instances; Malls and proprietary communities as well as gated communities. Voluntary segregation and also voluntary integration, on a private property basis. – J.Z., 17.12.10. - TERRITORIAL STATES TURN IT FROM A POTENTIAL PUBLIC GOOD OR AT LEAST HOPED-FOR GOOD, INTO A PUBLIC BAD, WITH WRONGS & DISAPPOINTMENTS ALMOST GUARANTEED

LAW: hundreds of thousands of laws that increase, at times, at the rate of a couple of thousand per legislature, the fact is that the inflation of laws in itself discredits the law. Nor is it only the excessive quantity of laws that lessens the value of law, it is also their bad quality.” – G. Sarton, Liberty & Law, p.38. – Just like a flood of forced and exclusive paper currency discredits the paper currency. – J.Z., 8.6.80. – Laws, with their compulsory acceptance and compulsory value can and are being inflated just like the monopoly paper money of the State, its exclusive and forced currency, with legal tender power, is being depreciated by being multiplied. – J.Z., 14.10.07. – Territorial laws should no longer have monopoly and legal tender power towards their involuntary victims! – They should become refusable and market rated, too, applying only or being accepted only by their voluntary victims, just like money tokens under full monetary freedom. - J.Z., 19.1.09, 26.5.12. - Laws with “legal tender” for them, i.e. with a territorial monopoly for them and territorial “validity” or “enforcement”, when it suits the territorial rulers, can also flood a country and become almost valueless like inflated and forced monopoly currency. On the other hand, laws that individuals and minorities can reject or change for themselves or opt altogether out from under them, cannot be flooded for these people beyond their desires for them and their acceptance of them. The laws they would accept or pass for their own affairs would be really democratic ones, almost unanimously approved in most cases. Just like sound local currencies would pass in their sphere at par with their nomial value and would locally to accepted at par by all who are obliged as or by the issuers to so accept them, e.g. the debtors of the issuing centre. Whoever among them would object to any of the personal laws and this quite strongly, would be free to secede from that community or might even become excommunicated by the other members. But he would also be free to establish or join a competing panarchy. – I just read in THE SUN HERALD, 21.12.08, under the heading: “Zimbabwe is mine”: Mugabe defiant …” that Mugabe’s government in Zimbabwe has issued $ 10 billion notes, worth only $36 in Australian dollars. – All too often government by black leaders imitate merely the worst instances of governments misled by white leaders. – What is needed for governments, their legislation and institutions, as well as their paper money, is voluntary acceptance or refusals, market rating and quite free competition from better societies and from sound currencies. – Panarchism and monetary freedom are closely interconnected – and so are territorial rule and monetary despotism. – Let good societies drive out the bad ones and good monies the bad ones. – What reflux, value, acceptance foundation or cover or guaranty does his regime have to offer for such notes? Only a despotic rule and the tributes it can still manage to collect in that currency. In other words, its money is even worse than mine, if I tried to issue such notes. All my personal property could not cover more than a tiny fraction of such of an excessive note issue by myself. But I could not issue them to excess because I do not have wanted consumer goods and services to offer for redemption. This my banknotes would be rightly refused. At most I could issue some IOUs or clearing certificates to those knowing my financial situation. All of Mugabe’s private property (How much of it was stolen form his subjects?) could not, either. –Nor could his daily tax “revenue” preserve his over-issued notes in their purchasing power through “tax foundation”. But their acceptance is enforced. One can only discount them by increasing one’s prices. – (I wish one could still similarly escape subjection to a territorial government!) It is issued by the “Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe”, which “promises to pay the bearer, on demand, Ten Billion Dollars”. How? Naturally, only in other such notes! – Its reserves consist essentially, apart from its political powers, out of its printing presses, stocks of paper and ink! - J.Z., 23.1.09. – As Mises said somewhere, in essence, “it takes a government to turn two valuable commodities like paper and ink into worthless scrap.” – From my flawed memory only. - J.Z., 26.5.12. - INFLATION OR FLOOD OF LAWS, LEADERSHIP, VOLUNTARISM, MARKET RATING, PANARCHISM & MONETARY FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALISM & MONETARY DESPOTISM. - INFLATION, LEGAL TENDER, FREE CHOICE AMONG LAW SYSTEMS, GOVERNMENTS, SOCIETIES

LAW: I did not initiate, vote for or consent by signature to the existing territorial laws, nor did I vote for the lawmakers nor could I have rightfully “inherited” the existing laws. They are not my laws. They are imposed upon me and thus they cannot, morally, exact any more obedience from me than can be, quite immorally, enforced from me. I would approve of them only to the extent that they do fully agree with natural law and individual rights and liberties in their best formulations, but believe, that this is only very rarely the case. For the time being I cannot think of a single instance. Can you? – J.Z., 28.3.83, 30.8.07, 26.5.12. - TERRITORIAL ONES, ARE WRONGS. ONLY PERSONAL LAWS CAN BE RIGHTFUL FOR THOSE, WHO WANT THEM FOR THEMSELVES, IN GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT

LAW: I firmly believe his calls for legislation to stop the public being misled are misleading the public. But I won’t call for legislation to stop him.” – Terry Arthur, 95 % Is Crap, p.123. – Anyhow, misleading political advertising does do much more wrong and harm. – J.Z., 15.10.07. – And laws themselves are often the most misleading advertisements for territorial statism. They give the wrongful impression that something positive is being done about a problem. When they cause further problems, in addition to the problems caused by previous laws, then still more laws are called for, which then make matters still worse. - At least in religion, when more prayers are called for, matters are not made worse by the additional worship, apart from the additional waste of time and energy involved. – J.Z., 19.1.09. - ON ADVERTISING & PRAYERS

LAW: I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent enforcement.” - Ulysses S. Grant, 1822-1885. – I know of no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” – Ulysses S. Grant (1882-1885), U.S. President, Inaugural Address, 4 March 1869. Quoted in A. Andrews, Quotations, p.227. - - So the most tyrannical laws ought to be most strictly enforced rather than immediately repealed or most widely resisted and disobeyed? - J.Z., 12.10.02 - For many to most cases this seems to me one of the worst fallacies. I much more admire judges in the U.S., who, occasionally, declared that the enforcement of such and such a law would be "un-American"! - Ignoring laws e.g. via black market activities, tax evasion or tax strikes and monetary revolutions and smuggling seems to me to be a much more principled and rightful as well as effective approach. I also believe in the right to resist. But should one have to resist each of the wrong laws separately, in possibly long and costly struggles? The best way to resist them effectively might be, in the future, individual and group secessionism, a complete declaration of genuine individual rights and liberties and an ideal militia force of volunteers to uphold them against criminals and other aggressors. - Naturally, as far as possible, the territorialist legislators and bureaucrats, passing and applying them, should also be held personally responsible, with all their property. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – What’s wrong with ignoring or resisting them or opting out from under them? - J.Z., 4.6.07, 5.9.07. – This argument by U. S. G. on its own is already a sufficient argument against all law-making – except within communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - Death penalty for all red-heads? - Kill all red-heads, if the law demands this? – J.Z., 27.1.09. – If U. S. G. had been right, then all tax laws would have been abolished long ago. – J.Z., 25.12.11. - BAD ONES, SHOULD THEY REALLY BE STRICTLY ENFORCED TO SPEED UP THEIR REPEAL? SECESSIONISM, MILITIA, PANARCHISM, DIS. - ENFORCING THEM TO ACHIEVE THEIR REPEAL?

LAW: I know well, How some thinkers are swayed on this point. They say, as did one of the gang who tried the Merchant of Venice, that the Court exists to uphold a principle embodied in the laws of the realm, and so forth. But, I ask, why should any principle, or any law be considered of more importance than human life, than human happiness? (*) If it be urged that no laws could be enforced if exceptions were allowed, I reply: the need for the exception shows the foolishness of the laws. Cease to make any more laws, and put those you have upon the shelf. (**) Badcock, Slaves to Duty, p.27. - - (*) Rather: … than individual human rights and liberties. With them assured, better than any territorial State does and can, every individual will have the right to look after his own life and happiness. That is his responsibility. – (**) If you think you must have some laws and governance, establish or choose your own, together with likeminded people and practise them without claiming a territorial monopoly for yourself, them and your system. - J.Z., 3.9.07. - HUMAN RIGHTS, LIFE, HAPPINESS & FREEDOM TO BE UNDER THE LAW? – PANARCHISM, DIS.

LAW: I like to see free men make the laws they live under, just as they make the houses they live in.” – Voltaire, according to Maurice Cranston, Political Dialogues, p.86. – Did he really favour personal laws or merely the territorial laws of a republic or democracy? - J.Z., 17.12.10. - PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: I propose a Moratorium, a final Law, an Amendment to the Constitution creating a 100-year prohibition on legislative activity of any kind within the borders of the United States of America, during which the only thing a legislature could do would be to repeal old laws, …” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.312. –– Each individual or group secession that is not territorial, amounts to a wholesale law repeal for that individual or group. This change process would make much faster and more radical changes possible for all who are interested in them. – J.Z., 17.12.10. – LEGISLATION, REPEAL OF LAWS,

LAW: I think it must also be admitted that there are cases in which revolution is justifiable. There are cases where the legal government is so bad that it is worthwhile to overthrow it by force in spite of the risk of anarchy (*) that is involved. This risk is very real. It is noteworthy that the most successful revolutions — that of England in 1688 and that of America in 1776 — were carried out by men who were deeply imbued with a respect for law. (**) Where this is absent, revolution is apt to lead to either anarchy or dictatorship. Obedience to the law, therefore, though not an absolute principle, is one to which great weight must be attached, and to which exceptions should only be admitted in rare cases after mature consideration.” (***) – Bertrand Russell: Authority and the Individual, p.83. - - (*) Rather, the risk to the imposed unity of territorial governments, for which masses of people are still sacrificed every year, rather than letting dissenters secede and form their own communities of volunteers, that are only exterritorially autonomous. Such a right and liberty would not represent chaos or anarchy in the sense of chaos, but, rather, introduce a natural order under natural laws, individual rights and liberties. - - (**) Rather for natural laws and human rights and liberties, although they still knew all too little about them, but more than they could possibly know about all the statute laws imposed upon them. - - (***) Revolutions can be avoided altogether or be made much less bloody once they aim at allowing all minorities and the majority full exterritorial autonomy. Thereby they could fundamentally please and do justice to all of the people of a country. Alas, this is still not recognized by our territorial politicians, their voters and the current crop of “political scientists” as their advisors. - J.Z., 6.9.07. – Should be respect them for that ignorance? – J.Z., 26.1.09. - REVOLUTIONS, MINORITY AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL, UNDER PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: I think that we should be men first and subjects afterwards. (*) It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” – David Henry Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849. - That respect will be the natural result of allowing people their personal law communities, with full exterritorial autonomy, in accordance with their own convictions and individual choices. – J.Z., 29.8.07, 26.5.12. – Perhaps an ideal code of individual rights and liberties requires for its development the free competition between very diverse panarchistic communities of volunteers, in which any idea and proposal can be tried out among volunteers, at their expense and risk only. Majority approval or consent of all the experts or of the men in power would not longer be required for any significant reform or experiment. – (*) In accordance with one’s own individual choice in this matter! – J.Z., 29.8.07. - Why should we be territorial subjects at all, rather than free men in societies of our own individual choosing? – J.Z., 6.9.07. - DISOBEDIENCE, MEN, RIGHTS, RESPECT, OBEDIENCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SUBJECTS

LAW: I urge you to take the advice of this book and become an international person. As Emerson said: Choose which laws you will (or can) live under. You're not stuck with any set of laws. The limitations are the windmills of your mind. Go forth. Grow forth. Good luck and welcome to the world.” – Harry Schultz, in a foreword. – One should not have to emigrate to choose one’s law. – J.Z., 5.6.82. – Moreover, thereby one only escapes one set of territorial laws to be subjected to another one, or to a variety of them. The choice is all too limited, apart from escapes from all too openly despotic States to only democratically despotic States. The difference can be significant but is still quite insufficient to the radical freedom lover, who needs the internal escape hatch of individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy among like-minded volunteers. - J.Z., 5.9.07. - Instead of merely the international escape hatch: somewhat free and legal migration or illegal emigration and illegal immigration. – J.Z., 16.1.08. – We need free choices not only between territorial offers but between exterritorial offers. – J.Z., 27.1.09. -EMIGRATION, INTERNATIONALIZING ONESELF, PANARCHISM.

LAW: I wish no law or ruler over me to which or to whom I have not freely given my individual consent - as long as I do not infringe the genuine individual rights and liberties of anyone but, at most, myself and of like-minded volunteers. - J.Z., 24.5.00, 24.1.09. - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, CONSENT, VOTING, INDIVIDUALISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: I would rather have law without power than power without law or law with power. – J.Z., 8.3.76. - Personal laws instead of territorial laws! – J.Z., 17.12.10. - POWER.

LAW: If a majority wants a particular territorial law then it is usually as wrong as the majority usually is. And if only a minority wants a territorial law then it is usually as wrongful as the legal privilege desired by that minority via a special legislation to introduce and uphold it. - J.Z., 16.5.01. However, the majority and all the diverse minorities should all become free to make their own personal laws for themselves - to suffer or to benefit from them. Only then will rightful and sensible actions become free to spread and get the chance to finally prevail. - J.Z., 30.1.02, 17.12.10, 26.5.12. - PRIVILEGES, WRONG, IMMORALITY, MINORITIES, CHOICE OF LAWS, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE, COMPETITIVE LEGISLATION

LAW: If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain, if, after a while, the law follows his example.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes. – When the laws do not respect individual rights and liberties then we should not be surprised when many individuals thereupon do not do so, either. The number of privately committed crimes with victims is, probably, also related to the number of officially and legally committed crimes with victims. – J.Z., 24.1.09, 17.12.10. – Territorial States set an enormous wrongful but legalized example. Can we safely assume that it is entirely ineffective upon the behaviour of their subjects? – All too often man is all too adaptable. It is not only primitive and barbaric customs and traditions, which are thoughtlessly continued for centuries or even thousands of years. - J.Z., 17.12.10. - ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS

LAW: If all laws could be and were strictly enforced, we would almost all be in prison. To the extent that they are enforced, they turn national territories into prisons. For of millions of legal rules, unread by us and thus unknown to us, we would, unknowingly, breach at least a few. – J.Z., 14.3.99. – ENFORCEMENT, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: If all men had the same interests, there would be less harm in permitting a part of the people to legislate for all; but this is not the case. (*) There is a great conflict of interests between the possessed and the dispossessed, between the poor and the rich ... between the ruler and the ruled ... between the producer and the appropriator, which is apparent in existing laws made by those powerful enough to take advantage of the State and of the law-abiding sentiment of the people. That their laws conflict [with?] justice is no concern of theirs, for profit and not justice is their object. The object is legitimate because they make it legitimate. ... The game they play is lawful because they make the law to uphold their game.” – Charles T. Sprading, Liberty & the Great Libertarians, p.18. - Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals, quoted in The Heretic’s Handbook of Quotations, p.28. - The ideological conflicts are mainly produced and maintained by factors, which their victims do not clearly recognize, e.g. the territorial monopoly and the laws of monetary despotism, which suppress exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities and alternative and freely competing payment and clearing communities. From full monetary freedom would result the avoidance of deflations, inflations and stagflations and their mass unemployment. – Full financial freedom would also lead to the cooperative and partnership type of self-management, which would do away with the dissatisfactions and clashes of the employer and employee relationship. [For much less than their current tax burden most employees could purchase the enterprises they work in. – J.Z., 26.5.12.] Not even the territorial monopolization of the “right” or authority to decide upon war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties has so far been generally recognized as a great wrong, one with disastrous consequences. – Nor are most people aware that in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers they could come very close to have only the laws of their own personal choice and to a large extent a common interest. – Neither territorial governments nor their “voting” victims have so far recognized and respected all individual rights and liberties or showed even sufficient interest for them. - J.Z., 6.9.07. - (*) Not, as a rule, with territorial laws but, rather, as a rule with personal laws chosen for themselves by the volunteers of exterritorially autonomous communities. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - INTERESTS, DIFFERENT ONES, CANNOT BE TERRITORIALLY SATISFIED, PERSONAL LAWS COULD HARMONIZE THEM, BY TAKING FULL ACCOUNT OF THEM & DEMANDING ONLY JUSTICE TOWARDS MEMBERS OF OTHER SOCIETIES. LAWS TERRITORIALLY EQUALLY FOR ALL INHABITANTS, IN SPITE OF THEIR DIFFERENT IDEAS, IDEALS, OPINIONS & INTERESTS

LAW: If any of the members wish more than this, - if they claim to have acquired a more extended knowledge of justice than is common to all, and wish to have their pretended discoveries carried into effect, in reference to themselves, they must either form a separate association for that purpose, or be content to wait until they can make their views intelligible to the people at large. They cannot claim or expect that the whole people shall practise the folly of taking on trust their pretended superior knowledge, and of committing blindly into their hands all their own interests, liberties, and rights, to be disposed of on principles, the justness of which the people themselves cannot comprehend.” – Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, II/131. – Perhaps this is as close as Spooner ever came to panarchistic thinking. But then many of his manuscripts were burnt with Tucker’s library. We do not know what treasures, written by him, were lost in that fire or has Spooner left any record at least of the title of the manuscripts that he had given to Tucker? – The above suggestion by Spooner is, naturally, insofar a utopian one as most of these politicians have only the ambition to lay down the law for others and impose the costs and risks of their schemes upon others. They are not, as a rule, successful entrepreneurs or practical innovators and pioneers, but, usually, impractical dreamers, ideologues and schemers. – But one should give them the “power” to appeal to voters to form experimental communities, exterritorially fully autonomous, in accordance with the schemes that they propose or wish to continue with their followers. However, no tax subsidies should be promised to any of these experiments. Only tax exemptions. – That might be attractive enough to many volunteers. - J.Z., 1.9.07, 26.5.12. - LEGISLATORS, PANARCHIES OR POLYARCHIES ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATORS?

LAW: If laws could realize, increase and multiply justice then they would have done so, long ago, by their enormous and every increasing number and length, on almost any subject matter. Instead, they tended to increase and perpetuate injustices. – J.Z., 14.11.04. – Nevertheless, no individual or minority wronged by them is set free to opt out from under them. – J.Z., 29.10.07 - VS. JUSTICE

LAW: If legislation is a business then I fear the business relations it has. – J.Z., 24.5.91. - But this tends to apply only to territorial laws not to self-chosen personal laws. – J.Z., 28.8.07. - LEGISLATION & BUSINESS

LAW: If men are tired then they fall into anarchy but when they are quite awake, happy and strong, then they establish habits and conventions. Then they make themselves, inevitably, laws and rules.“ – My attempt to translate the German version back into at least my form of English: „Wenn die Menschen muede sind, fallen sie in Anarchie, sind sie aber froh und kraftvoll, so schaffen sie sich Gewohnheiten, Konventionen – sie machen dann unweigerlich Gesetze und Regeln.“ – Chesterton.– Once human beings are wide awake to their freedom options, then they will proceed towards anarchy or self-governments, not based on territorial laws and institutions. They will still have or develop habits, customs and make contracts and rules for themselves, but no longer for involuntary victims. They will refuse to impose their own favourite laws, regulations, customs and judgments upon others, who are not members of the own voluntary association and have not acted aggressively towards them. – J.Z., 5.7.92. – Man isn’t necessarily a law-making animal but also one inclined to follow only the own rules or rules and associations voluntarily chosen, at least within those spheres, which they do, normally, take into their consideration. – J.Z., 19.10.07, 2.11.07. - Anarchists are rather tired of an excess of laws, government regulations and interventions! - Extreme case: In WW I, general Nivelle, the “blood-drinker”, as his soldiers called him, drove his soldiers up to 40 times in a row and always in vain against fortified German trenches, barbed wire and machine guns. Sometimes with a French artillery barrage behind them, to drive them forward. Finally, the survivors rebelled. Should they not have become tired of this procedure? Should we not become, finally, tired of tax slavery and the bureaucracy it finances? – J.Z., 19.1.09. -  More than the publication of any further governmental scandals, as are now revealed by Wikileaks, it would help to finally compile and published an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and to establish an ideal militia for their protection. Without these the territorial authoritarians have the game going their way, without sufficient enlightenment and resistance. – J.Z., 17.12.10. CONVENTIONS, RULES, CUSTOMS, ANARCHY, PANARCHY, DIS., HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, MILITIA

LAW: If men recognize no law superior to their desires, then they must fight when their desires collide.” – R. H. Tawney. - Why, when they could still practise their desires among consenting adults and under personal law systems, which they have voluntarily chosen for themselves? Only uniform territorial laws for all cannot satisfy all aspirations. - J.Z., 12.7.92, 7.1.93. – Why not let them practise their desires among consenting adults? Capitalism, free exchange, fully free markets, but also any kind of anarchism, socialism and communism among consenting adults! The whole world turned into an interesting and educational exhibition, and also a peaceful international competition, like the Olympics in sports, instead of revealing only the posing and wrongs of territorial monopolists and power mongers! - Why not let all dissenters have, individually and in their various voluntary groups, the kinds of laws and institutions that correspond to their rightful desires for their own affairs? This would tend to pacify them and, at least in some instances, it would also set enlightening examples for others and in the other cases deterrent examples. Both are needed to speed up enlightenment and progress, just like in businesses, arts, crafts, entertainment, successes and failures do. – J.Z., 12.7.92, 1.9.07, 18.12.10. - DESIRES, CONSENTING ADULTS, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM TO AVOID CLASHES & FIGHTS & ASSURE PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE, VS. EXTERRITORIALISM & TOLERANCE, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: If the best laws are those a man makes (*) for himself, then the worst are those made by a remote, impersonal State, be that State a tyrannical dictatorship or a representative democracy.” (**) – Joe Fulks, THE CONNECTION 135, p.54. – (*) or chooses! – (**) Or even a direct democracy, in which the individual has only one vote among all too many others. – J.Z., n.d. - BEST & WORST ONES, PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: If the legislature only can make new law and can do nothing else but make law, whether a particular resolution of that body is valid law must be determinable by a recognisable property of that resolution. Its source alone does not constitute a sufficient criterion of validity.” – Hayek, The Confusion of Language …, p.32. – Perhaps the first panarchy, within which each territorial law decided upon should be tested, would be that of the law-makers and all their assistants. Then it should be declared, after a while, by that community, as a good one, a model proposed for all other communities of volunteers, or, most likely, serve as a warning to them not to adopt that law for themselves. That would be one of the criterions that I would like to see applied. Another criterion would be the number of individuals and minority group people who would declare their secession upon the news that a particular new law is being proposed. Still another would be the resolutions of local militias, federated with each other, on whether they would uphold or resist such a law, as either being in agreement or opposed to genuine rights and liberties. Least of all would I rely upon a Supreme Court or special constitutional court of a territorial government or upon a principle or text designed by government officials, to test the validity of a new law. – Robert Heinlein, in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, demanded that laws should have to be supported by 80 % of the votes and that 20 % of the voters should at any time be free to throw them out again. But, this, again, takes only territorial laws into consideration and not free choice of laws, societies and governments for every citizen and minority group. – A genuine science of politics is still only in its beginnings. One’s own values and reasoning should determine one’s laws, just like consumer sovereignty and free enterprise determine the goods one buys or produces. – The law and justice enterprises or purchases of others should be no concern to anyone but these purchasers and entrepreneurs, no more so than their purchases of consumer goods or services or the activities of other enterprises. - J.Z., 1.9.07, 18.12.10. - LEGISLATION

LAW: If there are still some untainted politicians around, then they ought to resign from that criminal club, called a parliament or congress or senate – to demonstrate their innocence. – J.Z. 24. 5. 93. To some extent, in spite of all their pretences, the institutions of territorial States can be classed with organized crime syndicates, in spite of being “sanctioned” by constitutions, laws, supreme courts and all too many ignorant, prejudiced and duped voters. Greedy heirs and other pigs assemble at their common trough, filled by involuntary tax slaves. In other words, they are protection rackets, too. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - POLITICIANS & PARLIAMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

LAW: If we could make a great bonfire of the thousands of laws we have in this country, and start all over again with only the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments, I am sure we would get along much better.” - Coleman Cox. - We do not have to burn the laws or the law-makers - once we are free to ignore them or to opt out from under them. - J.Z., 25.11.02, 26.1.09.

LAW: If we would relax our grip on certainties, we wouldn't be living with so many lies in the form of laws. Every judgment we make forms a boundary around our consciousness unless held lightly and easily released in the light of expanding awareness. A law is just an opinion that becomes a wall - and is as hard to remove.” – Joan Marie Leonard, in THE FREEMAN, Sep. 76, page 566. – Most heads are just bundles of fixed ideas, myths and prejudices that are ingrained and so these notions find themselves also into most laws, just like the superstitions of the past. An encyclopaedia of the best refutations so far found of these fixed ideas, errors and prejudices does, unfortunately not yet exist and is not publicly prepared on the Internet - as far as I know. What can one do with such people otherwise and quite rightfully, than give them freedom of action to suffer under their own errors and thereby, perhaps, becoming gradually enlightened? But they must become deprived of all means to force their notions territorially upon their more enlightened or otherwise dissenting fellow men. To each school of thought – or thoughtlessness or prejudices – its own panarchy! In the long run the ideas of the more enlightened panarchies would spread, because they would be more successful in almost every way. – J.Z., 31.8.07, 28.1.09. - LIES & COERCION, FIXED IDEAS & PREJUDICES IN FORM OF LAWS, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: If you cultivate a low profile and use your head, be devious and sneaky, you can get away with quite a lot. It matters very little what the law says. What matters is what laws they can enforce. and they can enforce very little. Most laws stand only because people enforce them against themselves. The feeling that you can do nothing in the face of repressive government is only psychological paralysis, not based on a reasonable analysis of the facts.” – Jim Stumm, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION No. 65, p.31. – For many relatively trivial acts this is quite correct. But millions have been severely punished for e.g. merely smoking marijuana, conscripted into armed forces and all are taxed, at least indirectly and suffer from the government’s money issue monopoly in one way or the other and all territorial governments are still authorized to impose risks and costs of wars against other territorial governments upon their subjects. – I am not opposed to evading wrongful laws when one can do so but I do not consider these few options to be sufficient to assure all my rights and liberties. – We are still kept in nation-wide territorial prisons although we are mostly innocent. Indeed, even convicted prisoners in prisons still get away with quite a lot. But they are certainly not free and at least they do know it. Those in the nation-wide prisons do still largely imagine themselves to be sufficiently free. - J.Z., 5.9.07. – Even private criminals with victims do get away with numerous crimes, in spite of all penal laws. Should citizens acting also illegally but morally, in accordance with genuine individual rights and liberties, be always less successful than these criminals? If they formed rightful militias, properly armed and trained, enlightened and motivated to uphold nothing but genuine individual rights and liberties, the present situation would be greatly changed for the better. – J.Z., 26.5.12 - EVADING IT. MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION AGAINST WRONGFUL LEGISLATION & ITS ENFORCEMENT.

LAW: Ignorance of the law excuses no man: not that all men know the law, but because ‘tis an excuse everyone will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him.” – John Selden, Table-Talk, 1689. – That is one of the minor problems with all territorial laws. People wouldn’t be so ignorant of self-chosen laws. Nor would they adopt more of them than would be manageable for them. – J.Z., 17.10.85 & 29.8.07. – Most people would not be so ignorant of an ideal and complete code of genuine individual rights and liberties as they are, inevitably, of most territorial laws. – J.Z., 25.1.09. - KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAWS, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, GENUINE HUMAN RIGHTS, IGNORANCE

LAW: Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because it can be always pretended.” - Thomas Jefferson: Letter to M. Limozin, 1787. – If every law were sent to every citizen, the citizens might soon rebel. Ignorance of the law keeps them quiet. What applies to territorial law would not apply to personal law, chosen by individuals for themselves, because they do like it. Ignoring territorial laws or opting out from under them - and protecting that right with a revived and improved militia for the protection of individual rights and liberties - would take the wind out of the sails of the makers and executors of territorial laws and shut up all the windbags among them. – J.Z., n.d. - IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, UNKNOWABLE LAW, UNREADABLE LAW IN ITS TOTAL QUANTITY, PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: Ignore what a man desires (*) and you ignore the very source of his power, run against the grain of a nation's genius and see where you get with your laws.” – Walter Lippmann, "The Making of Creeds," A Preface to Politics (1914) – A genuine political science will begin only once individual secessionism, personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers are fully realized, i.e., all territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions are repealed or ignored. Much of the “political science” of the past will then be consigned to the rubbish bins. - (*) and his ideals – J.Z., 1.9.07. - ENEMIES OF MAN, HIS RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PANARCHISM

LAW: In conflict with Dunoyer's insistence that the voluntary acceptance of truth by each person was the sole means of gaining acceptance, in which case legislation was either evil or needless, the Saint-Simonians held that on the discovery of a truth, the compulsion to observe it had to be imposed on each person. For the Saint-Simonians the position advocated by Dunoyer was anarchism. In response to the "critical" approach and its rejection of his scientism, Saint-Simon had declared: ‘you, gentlemen, are nothing but anarchists’." – L .P. Liggio, Charles Dunoyer and French Classical Liberalism, JLS., Sum 77, p.171. – The truths about social relationships will be seen much sooner and by many more people once individuals can choose the laws and institutions under which they want to live. – J.Z., 21.11. 82, 26.5.12. - LEGISLATION, TRUTH, ACCEPTANCE, TRUTH, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: In fact, the government is no more qualified to develop and apply law than it is to provide any other service; and just as religion has been separated from the state, and the economy can be separated from the state, so can every other state function, including police, courts and the law itself." - Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty, p.235. – Rothbard, “reason”, 3/73. - However, people should be free to subscribe to rather comprehensive package deals of services for themselves, in their own exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, living under their own personal laws. - M. N. Rothbard had not taken this possibility sufficiently into his considerations, in spite of the strong tendency of many people to live in communities of like-minded people and under the same laws and institutions, not necessarily territorial ones. (*) All attempts to achieve this territorially, apart from relatively small private or cooperatively owned real estate, (**) have failed so far to satisfy the majority as well as numerous minorities. – J.Z., 29.8.07. - - (*) Compare the numerous private associations of volunteers doing their own things exterritorially, - although, today, still subject to the government’s territorial laws. - (**) As a compromise between exterritorially autonomous communities and territorial ones there are the enclaves with degrees of extraterritorial autonomy or private rules for residents. Among them are the “gated communities”, not yet exterritorially autonomous, on which Ruth Pollard in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Dec. 27/28, 2008, – p.18, reports, under the heading “Lock up your quarters”, the somewhere written-up experience of Andrew Blechman, in the US & Australia, with “gated communities”. “Blechman says in America more than 10 million people live in communities protected by some form of fortification. In Australia it’s more like 100,000.” – “…a purpose-built, age-segregated, gated community. – This is “The Villages” in Florida, USA, … The largest gated retirement community in the world, it has 75,000 inhabitants on 8000 hectares with dozens of separate, walled districts connected by more than 100 km of golf cart trails. – And the icing on the cake? It’s child-free. – You’ve got to be over 55 to buy; no one under 19 can live there and, while children may visit, their stays are limited to 30 days a year. Like many other rules, this is energetically policed. – There are no garden ornaments, no satellite dishes, and definitely no politics. You either agree happily with the rules or leave. …” – Definitely no alternative political or economic systems are practised there, although they could be, under freedom, for their volunteers. The real estate size involved, and the population, at least in this case, comes close to the smallest territorial States. – Territorial laws did not have to be changed or abolished to make such communities possible, no more so than for large shopping centers or hotels. Underlining by me. - J.Z., 14.1.08, 24.1.09. – TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, GATED COMMUNITIES WITH THEIR OWN RULES, GOVERNMENT, PARLIAMENTS OR BUREAUCRATS AS LAWMAKERS, PROPRIETARY COMMUNITIES

LAW: In modern states (and it must be said, in many ancient ones as well) the law has turned away from its essential purpose of protection and adjudication, and has become a tool for redistribution, subsidization and other forms of social engineering.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.72. - - That would not be so bad is it were always done only by and for volunteers. – Then such efforts would be self-limited and enlightening. – J.Z. 2.10.07, 24.1.09. - FROM PROTECTION TO PLUNDER

LAW: In the Politics, Aristotle explains the character of law well. He recommends that there be as few laws as possible, and that they be altered as seldom as possible. The reason for this is that law should be an extension of our normal sense or right and wrong, so that people can observe it, for the most part, simply by living what they regard as morally upright lives. Law should seem to be impersonal, applying equally to all, rather than the expression of any special or partisan will or interest. (*) The less frequently it changes and the more permanence it has, the more citizens will feel reverence for it.” – Joseph Sobran, Back to First Principles, in: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed., The Economics of Liberty, Mises Institute, 1990, p.165. - With the wisdom of modern and supposedly higher “civilization” we have done, for all too long years, exactly the opposite or, rather, have seen it done to us, by our supposed representatives. - - (*) Within personal law communities of volunteers it should. But the laws of any personal law communities would not be territorially applied to all other personal law communities – unless they adopt them, voluntarily, for themselves. - J.Z., 4.10.07, 26.5.12.

LAW: Inasmuch, then, as every possible law that can be made by lawmakers, must either give to some one or more persons more “liberty” than the law of nature – or the law of justice – gives them, and more “liberty” than is consistent with the natural and equal “liberty” of all other persons (*); or else must take from some one or more persons some portion of that “liberty” which the law of nature – or the law of justice – gives to every human being, it is inevitable that every law, that can be made by lawmakers, must be a violation of the natural and rightful “liberty” of some one or more persons. – Therefore the very idea of a lawmaking government – a government that is to make laws of its own invention – is necessarily in direct and inevitable conflict with “our liberty”. In fact, the whole, sole, and only real purpose of any lawmaking government whatever is to take from some one or some persons their “liberty”. Consequently the only way in which all men can preserve their “liberty”, is not to have any lawmaking government at all.” (**) – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.26, in Works I. - - (*) In voluntary communities the liberties and personal law rights of their members might, by their own individual choice, not be equal. Very many people are submissive rather than love independence. That, too, is their right and part of the general liberty, namely, not to be as free as they could be, by their own choice. – We see degrees of submissiveness even among some marriage partners, rather than insistence upon equal rights. – - (**) In voluntaristic and externally also tolerant panarchies or polyarchies they could have any kind of law-making arrangements and institutions that would suit their volunteers, without any outsiders having any right to complain about that. – Even Spooner, in some of his thoughts, remained stuck on the territorial model. - J.Z., 31.8.07. ) - LAWMAKERS, GOVERNMENT, JUSTICE, NATURAL LAW & LIBERTY, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Indeed, one of the major reasons Rand rejects state legislation is that it induces a confusion concerning the nature of laws. Persons tend to confuse state laws, which are the arbitrary product of human whim, with immutable, given, ultimate and eternal laws of existence.” – Moshe Kroy, A Critique of Objectivism, p.57. Such ideal laws have still to be found or defined. Panarchistic or polyarchic competition is probably the best way to find or develop them. Even the Roman Law took a long time to develop. So did the Common Law of England, the Civil Law of France and Germany and neither of them was ever perfect or is close to perfect as yet. – I have not heard or read of Moshe Kroy as a libertarian for many years! - J.Z., 30.8.07. – Upon his name Google offered me today over 400 references. – J.Z., 16.1.08. - NATURAL LAWS, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES. IDEAL LAWS?

LAW: Indeed, the law, if reasonable and just, will not, in any significant way, impose prohibitions that a reasonably righteous people would not self-impose.” – Leonard E. Read: The Coming Aristocracy, FEE, p.107. – Territorial imposition of reasonable and other laws or free choice among laws and legal systems offered as supposedly reasonable and just to various groups of believers? Prohibitions, territorial ones or personal laws? – J.Z., n.d. – Here Read assumed a lot which does not apply to most of the territorial laws and to most of their territorial subjects. – J.Z., 18.12.10. - PANARCHISM, Q., CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM & FREE ENTERPRISE IN EVERY SPHERE.

LAW: Individuals taking the law into their own hands? That leads only to chaos!" - "Any other kind of law's a dangerous illusion, …" - L. Neil Smith, Taflak Lysandra, p.49/50. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PERSONAL LAW, CHOICE AMONG LAWS, DIS.

LAW: Interpretation is the dry rot of law. One interpretation, and the law is modified; two, the law is distorted – three hundred million, and there is no law at all, there is pure anarchy.” – Damon Knight, Double Meaning, in “Rule Golden”, p.174. – Alas, we are not at all free to choose our own interpretation of territorial law for ourselves nor are we free as yet to choose our own kind of personal laws for ourselves. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – INTERPRETATION, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

LAW: Is it not a cleverly designed scandal that all of us are supposed to live in accordance with laws which we were subjected to since our birth, unasked, laws we have no made and which we neither know nor understand and to overcome this barrier we have to pay an essentially completely superfluous caste, like the lawyers?” – Horst Stowasser, Leben ohne Chef und Staat, (Life without Boss and State), p.107. - (Ist es nicht ein intelligent ausgedachtes Gaunerstueck, dass wir z.B. nach Gesetzen leben muessen, denen wir seit unserer Geburt ungefragt unterworfen sind, die wir nicht gemacht haben, die wir weder kennen noch verstehen und zu deren Bewaeltigung wir ein eigentlich voellig ueberfluessige Kaste wie die Rechtsanwaelte bezahlen muessen?).

LAW: Is it not better for men not wholly to own and possess themselves, but to live under conditions which may save them, at all events to some extent, from their own folly and wrongdoing?" - - To which question I first answer that to live in a state of liberty is not to live apart from law. It is, on the contrary, to live under the highest law, the only law that can really profit a man, the law which is consciously and deliberately imposed by himself on himself. As Emerson has said, "If any man imagine that this law is lax, let him keep its commandment one day." – Auberon Herbert, quoted by Mack in his book on Auberon Herbert. – While people often do not live up to their best resolutions for the future, they certainly would tend to obey those laws more which they have individually chosen for themselves by subscribing to a protective community of volunteers with the kinds of laws that they like for themselves. Only those laws which are territorially imposed upon dissenters will encounter much resistance rather than approval, at least from these dissenters. – J.Z., 5.9.07. – Compare e.g. how widely the anti-drug laws are broken, in spite of savage enforcement attempts and severe penalties upon convictions. – J.Z., 26.5.12. - SELF-IMPOSED LAW, PERSONAL LAW, DIS.

LAW: It cannot be helped, it is as it should be, that the law is behind the times.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, speech at Harvard Law School Association of New York, New York City, February IS, 1913. - Speeches by Oliver Wendell Holmes, p. 101 (1934). - Only the third part, underlined by me, is correct. - J.Z., 12.10.02. - Under personal laws one could be as much behind the time or as much in advance of it as one wants to be or is able to be. - J.Z., 25.11.02. – DIS., PERSONAL LAW

LAW: it costs vigilance and exertion to be self-governing. It costs far more vigilance and exertion to be so under the democratic form, where we have no aids from tradition or prestige, than under other forms. (*) If we are a free, self-governing people, we can blame nobody but ourselves for our misfortunes. No one will come to help us out of them. It will do no good to heap law upon law, or to try by constitutional provisions simply to abstain from the use of powers which we find we always abuse. How can we get bad legislators to pass a law which shall hinder bad legislators from passing a bad law? That is what we are trying to do by many of our posed remedies.” - W. G. SUMNER, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, p.94. - - (*) Mostly if would cost much less, if not immediately then in the future, if people had to live only under their own and self-chosen laws and systems. For even the democratic ones are still statist and collectivist ones, under ideas and prejudices not shared by all and, nevertheless, uniformly and territorially enforced. They are still States, however “representative”, from which one can still not freely secede individually or in groups. In communities of volunteers, who would have to pay all the bills for their self-selected systems themselves, many would soon be strongly motivated to reduce these bills – by cutting expenditures of their communities, of everything no longer wanted by most voluntary members, as essential for them or not at the prices that would have to be charged for them. - A trivial but typical instance: What collectivism means there even for small voluntary and social events: I remember equal per adult charges for social events among work mates and their families. They meant, in practice, that bachelors, and parents with few kids had to pay for those families with many children and those, who drank no beer or little beer but only some soft drinks, had to pay the drinking bills for those, who drunk much beer. That did not find the approval of the few “victims”, who thought about it. But at least they could abstain from such events in the future, as long as this financial system persisted for them. - - During the last few days the newspapers reported, that the Liberal government, still in office over Federal Australia, and since it has come to office a few years ago, has spent over 2 billion Australian dollars of tax funds on what was practically self-advertising, which it called educational expenditure to enlighten the public regarding its entitlements. – Not that the ALP, if it had ruled, would have done any better. - J.Z., 3.9.07. - SELF-GOVERNANCE, GENUINE PROTECTION, VIGILANCE, EXERTION, COSTS

LAW: It has been aptly stated that "history teaches us that bad laws are made operable only when citizens have lost the courage to disobey them." – Francis B. Willmott: A Philosophy of Production, p.73. – It should not need courage to disobey an unjust law but just the recognized and often practised right of individuals and groups of dissenters to opt out of a community of volunteers and, naturally, out of all present States with compulsory membership and subordination. By this right any armed and other resistance and violent revolutions would become largely superfluous. To overcome all territorial laws and institutions may require more insight and persistence than courage. – J.Z., 6.9.07, 26.512. - DISOBEDIENCE & COURAGE AGAINST BAD LAWS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL ASSOCIATIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM OR PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.” – James Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat, 1838. - What is true for territorial States is not necessarily true for exterritorial autonomous communities of volunteers, doing their own things only to or for themselves and this always subject to individual and group secessionism, so they will not go too far astray, in most cases and then only at the own risk and expense. The territorial States do not contain sufficient self-correction factors, rights and liberties. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. – LAW VIA PUBLIC OPINION, TYRANNY OF THE MASSES, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, VOTING, FRANCHISE, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.” – Calvin Coolidge - The best protection consists in the right to ignore them or to secede from under them. – J.Z., 2.1.08. - LEGISLATION, BILLS, PARLIAMENTS, REPEALS OF LAWS TO PROMOTE THE LAW

LAW: It is not enough for law to be meticulous; it must also be just. It is not enough for law to be meticulous and just, it must be understanding. It is not enough for law to be meticulous, just and understanding, it must also be compassionate. It is not enough for law to be meticulous, just, understanding and compassionate, it must be rooted in absolute truth. If man is to rise above mere beast-hood, then he must obey just laws, formulated by just men. I repeat, just laws, formulated by just men, and not random and expedient law which is the servant of tyrants.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero. - Where in the world can such an ideal body of laws be found? – J.Z., 9.10.07. – Free choice for individuals among legal systems, independent of where they work and live. – J.Z., 21.1.08. - JUST LAWS, Q.

LAW: It is rather foolish to believe that everything would be just what institutions and laws of peoples declare to be just.” – Cicero, On Laws. („Hoechst toericht ist die Meinung, dass alles gerecht sei, was Einrichtungen und Gesetze der Voelker dafuer erklaeren.“ – Cicero, Ueber die Gesetze.) – He, too, did not distinguish between territorial laws and personal laws, although in his time personal laws were still wide-spread. Nor did he distinguish between the generalization for territorial populations, called “people” and the real and often very diverse kinds of people living in the same territory. When people are free to voluntarily sort themselves out, individually and into like-minded groups, under the kinds of personal laws and exterritorially autonomous institutions that they prefer for themselves, then these laws and institutions are just for them, for the time being, in accordance with their degree of enlightenment. – Then individuals and whole groups can advance, if they want to, from one stage to the other, independent of the opinions of outsiders. Or they can go on stagnating or even relapse towards more primitive institutions and laws, only harming and wronging themselves (considered as rational beings) thereby. Their public laws might then be considered to be merely private vices. – However, even then, human sacrifices would be rightfully opposed by outsiders just like in the future, perhaps only a distant future, “mere” abortions, i.e. the murder of the most innocent human beings, might be considered as cases for external intervention. But, for the time being, the abortionists and the anti-abortionists should merely be allowed to form their own voluntary communities, exterritorially quite autonomous, rather than engaging in a civil war between them. – J.Z., 19.10.07. – PERSONAL LAWS, PEOPLE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, ABORTION

LAW: it is the personal interest of the law makers that determines the character of the laws.” – Martin Rittinghausen, Direct Legislation by the People, p.27. – The illusion in this book is that “the people” are one body with a common interest, instead of very diverse peoples, all with numerous and somewhat dissenting minorities. The laws passed thus would at most please the majority. Only volunteers can form a “people” in his sense and be really self-governing or self-administrating the personal laws of their own individual free choices. – J.Z., 1.12.07. - DIRECT LEGISLATION, DIRECT DEMOCRACY

LAW: It is the rule of rules and the general law of laws that every man shall obey that of the place where he is.” – Michel de Montaigne, Essays, I, 1580. – How many millions of victims has that doctrine had so far? Territorial laws lead to the greatest crimes and the greatest number of crimes with victims. – The sooner we replace them by personal laws, for volunteers only, the better off we well be. - J.Z., 1.9.07, 26.5.12. - TERRITORIAL ONES OR PERSONAL ONES?

LAW: It is the shame of our age that a legislature takes pride in the number of bills it has passed to clutter the books and reduce human freedom.” – Perry E. Gresham, THE FREEMAN, 6/73. – Why blame all the people of an “age”, instead of merely the “representatives” and their voting cattle or sheep, those sometimes called “sheeple”? – And merely blaming them does not help. Seceding from them and setting better examples among volunteers would help, at least these volunteers. - J.Z., 15.1.08. - LEGISLATION, PARLIAMENT

LAW: It is the territorial laws themselves which make most laws disrespectable and even the somewhat respectable ones suspect. It is they which encourage and cause disobedience towards and avoidance of the laws. – Mostly they are imposed laws, i.e., laws which free individuals would not have chosen for themselves or for their communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 8.2.97, 29.8.07. – Personal laws would tend to be respected by all those, who opted for them and as long as they prefer them for themselves. Afterwards they would be free to secede, one by one or in whole groups of like-minded volunteers, trying to achieve some better laws and institutions for themselves. – J.Z., 26.1.09, 26.5.12. - RESPECT & DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: It is then the law that causes our misery. The law is killing us, in the absolute sense of the word. And if we wish to live we must change the law.” - Greg Lindsay, FREE ENTERPRISE, last issue, 1976 – Change it, mainly by abolishing most of it or by allowing only volunteers to continue with as much of it as they want, but only among themselves, as personal laws, under full exterritorial autonomy. – All the rest should be free to opt out from under them and their territorial institutions. – J.Z., 28.1.09. - MISERY & CRISES CAUSED BY LAWS

LAW: It is thus not necessary that the elected supreme body has any other power than that of making laws in the logical sense of general rules of individual conduct; or that there should be any power of coercing private citizens other than that of enforcing obedience to the rules of conduct thus laid down; not that all other branches of government, including an elected governmental assembly, should not be bound and limited by the laws of the assembly confined to true legislation. That would secure a genuine government under the law.” – F. A. Hayek, Whither Democracy, QUADRANT, 11/76. – Here he does not even mention the existence and role of individual human rights and liberties and, again, seems to have only territorial governments in mind of the limited government type that he preferred for himself and like-minded people. Most of the other scholars that he studied thought the same. What territorially imposed laws are still justified and needed when all individual human rights are recognized and abided by? – J.Z., 5.9.07. - LEGISLATION IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: It is to be noted in this regard that the opposite of government is not, as so many critics of anarchism erroneously suppose, social disorder or chaos. Anarchism for Proudhon, as for all anarchists, "is not inconsistent with association, but only with enforced association; not to rule, but only to obligatory rule. (29) Where men are encouraged to follow their own unaided understanding of the social relations of which they find themselves an integral part, law and order is as natural to them as the seasons of the year are compelling to birds and trees. This is why Proudhon was so insistent that we must not allow the distinction between state and society to become blurred in our thinking. As Professor Franz Oppenheimer was to point out, years after Proudhon, the state is primarily the sum of the "privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra economic power" enforced by the power of government.” - J.L.S., Winter 80, p. 89. – Underlining by me. – J.Z. - ORDER & ANARCHISM

LAW: It is widely believed that this omnipotence of the representative legislature is a necessary attribute of democracy because the will of the representative assembly could be limited only by placing another will above it. Legal positivism, the most influential current theory of jurisprudence, particularly represents this sovereignty of the legislature as logically necessary. This, however, was by no means the view of the classical theorists of representative government. John Locke made it very clear that in a free state even the power of the legislative body should be limited in a definite manner, namely to the passing of laws in the specific sense of general rules of just conduct equally applicable to all citizens. That all coercion would be legitimate only if it meant the application of general rules of law in this sense became the basic principle of liberation.” – F. A. Hayek, Economic Freedom & Representative Government, p.10 &11. - Alas, he ignored the rights of sovereign individuals and of dissenting minorities and insisted on territorial rules, which can never be quite just to all inhabitants of a territory. E.g., compulsory voting, compulsory vaccination, compulsory fluoridation of the water supply, compulsory taxes, compulsory military service, all supposed to be “justified” by the public interest. – J.Z., 2.9.07. – Did Hayek ever specify his “general rules of just conduct equally applicable to all citizens” into a draft of individual rights and liberties? Not to my knowledge. He remained a mere territorial legalist – with the signification exception that he wanted to end monetary despotism or denationalize money. – J.Z., 26.5.12. - LEGAL POSITIVISM OMNIPOTENCE, SUPPOSED, OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT & LEGISLATURE

LAW: It is, in fact, impossible to imagine any graver situation in a society than one in which the law becomes an instrument of injustice. And if this fact gives rise to such dreadful consequences in the United States, where it is only exceptional, what must be its consequences in Europe, where it is a principle and a system?” - Frederic Bastiat quoted by G. C. Roche III, in Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.206. - - This overlooks that to the extent that a law is uniformly applied to all in a territory it is inevitably oppressive, towards all the peaceful people who do disagree with it and to the extent that it forces all to finance its application, it is inevitably a legalization of plunder. - J.Z. 6.6,73, 25.1.09. – INJUSTICE, INSTRUMENT OF PLUNDER, TAATION

LAW: It seems to be forgotten that other bodies can make laws besides the State. The Stock Exchange and the Jockey Club at once present themselves as instances of private bodies making laws which are virtually accepted by the whole country. The customs of the Lancashire cotton trade are the finest example of commercial law in the world. Every club, every society and association, makes its own laws, which are sufficiently sanctioned to meet with respect and obedience, quite as uniformly as the laws of the land.” - Wordsworth Donisthorpe, Liberty or Law? - STATISM, PRIVATE LAW

LAW: It should be at least as easy to repeal a law as to enact it.” – Charles H. Chandler, ANALOG, 4/78, p.176. – Perhaps we should count the number of votes cast for a law in a parliament. Then as few citizens or as many free citizens should then become free to decide to repeal a wrongful or flawed law for all the people in a territory, - as long as territorialism persists. If that would greatly reduce the number of laws still in force, all the better. - Better still, With the abolition of the territorial monopoly and the introduction of individual secessionism, as few people, or even less, could start their own exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers and say to the rest of the people in a territory: Go to hell, if you like, with your kind of laws. We are starting our own kind of heaven on earth or paradise, quite in accordance with our own ideals and independent from yours. We claim and will practice, quite tolerantly, full ideological liberty in the political, economic and social sphere as well as in the religious one and leave you alone, with your own laws and institutions for yourself. More you cannot rightly expect from us. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - REPEAL & ENACTMENT, SECESSIONISM, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

LAW: it was said that the government was one of law and not of men, but yet ‘men sit upon benches to decide finally what the law is and may be.’ ” – R. Dale Grinder, on Mencken, in “LIBERTARIAN ANALYSIS”, I/3-49. – The free jury system would, to some extent, put all men above the law rather than under the law. – Still much more could be achieved via the right to secede from the State and to establish exterritorially autonomous communities of panarchies or polyarchies under personal laws. - J.Z., 23.12.76, 30.8.07. - MEN

LAW: It was the boast of Augustus, that he found Rome of brick and left it of marble. But how much nobler will be our Sovereign's boast when he shall have it to say that he found law dear, and left it cheap; found it a sealed book - left it a living letter; found it the patrimony of the rich - left it the inheritance of the poor; found it the two-edged sword of craft and oppression - left it the staff of honesty and the shield of conscience.” - Lord Brougham, 1828, in C. Bingham, Men & Affairs, p.231. – I would rather like to see all individual rights and liberties fully recognized and realized, at least among some exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, as shiny examples to all others, than try to turn all “positive” laws territorial laws into just laws, which seems to me to be a task that cannot be fulfilled and need not be fulfilled - with people as they mostly are now, in their great variety, with very conflicting views on almost everything, full of ignorance, errors and prejudices. – Let each and everyone advance towards full rights and liberties at their own speed, by their own individual choices. - J.Z., 6.9.07

LAW: It will never make any difference to a hero what the laws are.” – Emerson. - Byington Sticker No. 33. – Also quoted in Sprading, VII, p.143. - Alas, it still takes a heroic effort to ignore or to break many of the numerous wrongful laws – and to get away with this. – J.Z., 30.8.07. Personal law, under panarchism, would not require a heroic effort but merely an individual subscription to another panarchy after one has left one that is no longer satisfactory to oneself, usually after an agreed-upon withdrawal period and after having paid all one’s dues to it. – It should, make a difference, to every hero, when even heroic productive and innovative efforts are obstructed or penalized under territorial laws. – J.Z., 7.9.07. But should any heroes be sacrificed to any wrongful laws? And should not heroes be able and willing to distinguish between wrongful and rightful laws, the avalanches of the former and the few of the latter? – J.Z., 1.12.07. - HEROES, PANARCHISM

LAW: It would be better to have no laws at all than it is to have so many as we have.” - MICHEL DE MONTAIGNE: Essays, III, 1588 – No laws at all or only personal laws for volunteers. The ill informed or stupid volunteers could have all the laws they want for themselves, at their own expense and risk and no one else would have a right to complain about that and the members of such communities would only have themselves to blame. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – MULTITUDE

LAW: Just laws are no restraint upon the freedom of the good, for the good man desires nothing which a just law will interfere with.” - J. A. Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects: Reciprocal Duties of State and Subject. – Just territorial laws are a delusion. Only just personal laws are possible. Even the just laws of free enterprise, free exchange and private property rights have their opponents and to force these objectively just laws upon dissenters would be wrong – for them. Let them try to live without such rights and liberties in their own communities, under corresponding laws of their own choice. – J.Z., 29.8.07, 5.9.07, 26.5.12. - JUSTICE & FREEDOM

LAW: Just laws deserve to be obeyed.” – William M. Evers, JLS, Sum. 77, 185. – That may be true, but they ought to be enforced only against criminals with victims and aggressors against the own and self-chosen community of volunteers, which has adopted just laws for itself. Less wise people should be free to adopt for their internal use, in their community of volunteers, even unjust laws, under which only they would have to suffer under, as long as they can or want to put up with them and do not secede from such communities. – I for one would not mind it if in a community of robbers, thieves and murderers these would rob or steal only from its other members or even murder them. That would be their “internal affair” or “business” – J.Z., 5.9.07, 18.12.10. – Just how many quite just laws are there in most countries? What percentage do they form of all its territorial laws? – J.Z., 25.12.11, 26.5.12. – Q., OBEDIENCE

LAW: Justice Holmes, who was long claimed by the Liberals as their own, repeatedly exasperated the Liberal by his insistence that Law had no meaning without Power – that the power to enforce was the essence of really functioning Law.” – John Campbell, ANALOG, 12/76. – I would rather love to see really well known and applied all individual rights and liberties, at least among the first volunteers who fully appreciate them. They would make most other laws between them superfluous and under these rights and liberties these volunteers would add only their own kind of laws to them, at their own expense and risk, in their own personal law communities. – Armed collective power would then be largely in the hands of voluntary militias organized to uphold rights and liberties and nothing else. - J.Z., 3. 9.07, 26.5.12. – How many quite rightful and fully functioning laws are there? – J.Z., 26.1.09. - POWER, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, MILITIAS FOR THEIR PROTECTION, POLITICS AS USUAL, Q.

LAW: Kant, like most Enlightenment liberals, views law as having primarily a negative function - protecting freedom against interference.” – Jeffrey G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy or Right, 139. – As such the territorial laws and institutions constitute largely a utopia that cannot be fully realized by its very nature. The ideal Kant and others aimed at can at most be realized gradually, among competing personal law communities, all only with voluntary members and striving to come as close as they can to their particular ideals. How far would scientists, technicians, artists, writers, playwrights, musicians, novelists etc. have got without free experimentation? – J.Z., 5.9.07. – Just remember how few genuine individual rights and liberties were known and protected in Kant’s time and are, even today! – All have not even been sufficiently published and “declared” as yet! – J.Z., 26.1.09, 26.5.12. - PROTECTION VIA TERRITORIAL LAWS OR PERSONAL LAW & INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES?

LAW: Knowledge of and respect for liberty and rights is more moral, just and useful than knowledge and respect for the law. – J.Z., 28.10.94. - That applies mostly to territorial laws. Personal laws can be right and useful, at least indirectly. They do place the responsibility for lawfully created messes right where it belongs, shame the culprits and teach them and their victims a good lesson - relatively soon.– J.Z., 30.8.07. – As long as they can impose the risks and costs of their wrongful and irrational laws upon non-consenting victims, they will not learn sufficiently and fast enough from them. – J.Z., 15.1.08, 26.5.12. – LIBERTY, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: Labour can’t be liberated through new laws but only through the repeal or the ignoring of old ones. – J.Z., 24.11.93. - & LABOR

LAW: Lacking justice, law and the state have no more moral authority over our lives than the rude oaths of pirates and brigands.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.136. - JUSTICE & THE STATE, MORAL AUTHORITY, CRIME & CRIMINALS

LAW: Law - understood as a set of-moral limitations on the actions of men - would naturally arise from the wills of men regarding their property. - - Parenthetically, it is no coincidence that laws enacted by governments are nearly universally coercive. The enactment of any law implies that the lawmaker has authority over the use of any property affected by the law. But since the only moral authority over any property is that of the private owner(s), all government-enacted law is either redundant (expressing the already extant wishes of owners), or coercive (in violation of such wishes.) If this analysis is correct, it follows that the objection of Crosby, Wheeler, et al., to the effect that, government is necessary to insure law in a society, is entirely vacuous. On the contrary, proper law, that is, law that accurately reflects the decisions of men regarding their property, can only be generated outside a governmental context by the free, contractual interactions and decisions of private owners.” – Don Franzen, Reply to Peter Crosby, in THE PERSONALIST. Date? - MORALITY, PROPERTY

LAW: Law [is] licensed breaking of the peace.” - MATTHEW GREEN: The Spleen, 1737. – I am often surprised how old some genuine insights are. However, this one applies only to territorial laws. Personal laws, widely introduced, would mean the introduction of lasting peace, based on respect for genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 26.5.12. -PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW

LAW: Law as a command set by a person or persons politically sovereign to a person or persons politically subject." - Austin's famous lectures on Jurisprudence, according to David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.52. - This applies only to territorial law, not to exterritorial or personal law. - J.Z. 29.2.88. - The latter becomes, in practice, an individually chosen law, when practised within volunteer communities. Within such communities formally compulsory membership fees or taxes do also, through the voluntary membership, become voluntary taxation. - J.Z. 2.4.89. - TURN IT FROM COMMANDS INTO CONTRACTS OR FREELY & INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN LAWS OR LEGAL SYSTEMS, SOVEREIGNS VS. SUBJECTS, PANARCHISM

LAW: Law grinds the poor, and the rich men rule the law.” - Oliver Goldsmith. – The Traveller, 1764. – Since there are many more poor men than rich men, why don’t the poor men properly associate and do make the best possible laws or contracts among themselves? Alas, they do not take sufficient interest in their own affairs and “fates” to do that. It is so much easier to complain about the rich, beg from them or rob them. – J.Z., 1.9.07 – Most of them have still the employer-employee mentality, combined with class warfare and industrial warfare notions, hatred of the “boss” and of “capitalism” and are without free enterprise spirit, which would induce them to buy out their boss, on terms, satisfactory to both sides and introduce one or the other self-management system among them and also full monetary and financial freedom, which would soon make them much better off. Goldsmith’s statement is at best only a part-truth. The poor and other minorities have today, to some extent, become a privileged class, living at the expense of hard working people and rich people and businessmen have become persecuted and highly penalized people. – To each his own kind of laws would lead to currently optimal solutions for different minority groups and, in the long run, promote general political, social and economic progress and enlightenment faster than any other way.- J.Z., 6.9.07, 26.5.12. - RICH, POOR, FOR THE RICH & AGAINST THE POOR? “ONE FOR THE RICH, ONE FOR THE POOR”? - DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF LAWS. DIS.

LAW: law has assumed the character of plunder. Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty.” – Dean Russel, Frederic Bastiat, Ideas & Influence, FEE, p.3. – Tax laws introduced tax slavery, military laws introduced military slavery and education laws educational slavery. – Territorial governments are still our feudal lords. - J.Z., 4.9.07. – SLAVERY, FEUDALISM, SERFDOM, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Law has become so complicated that the self-governing citizen is seldom able to understand the enactments which in theory he has himself made. Thus there is revealed a line between administering the law and actually making laws which is often difficult to draw, and that line is definitely overstepped when officials begin to ‘allow’ and ‘grant’." – Ernest Benn, Modern Government, p.115. - Under territorialism self-government is usually nothing more than a popular fiction. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - COMPLICATED, LARGELY UNKNOWN, UNCERTAIN RESULTS

LAW: Law in its simplest, least complicated terms, is the body of the legislation of this country which purports to protect and advance the real interests of the people; the word itself has no intrinsic majesty.” - ACT President Mr R. J. Hawke, THE AUSTRALIAN, 8.8.72. – Among the unchecked premises: That all people in this country need or should have the same territorial law. That “the people” should be equated with the population, in spite of their numerous disagreements. Why should they have to “buy” and obey the same laws although they are free to fill their shopping carts and book shelves differently, eat different meals, view different shows, dress differently and act differently in thousands of ways every day? Their real and main interests are not the same. Their means and ends differ. They do not really form a nation but are compulsory members or subjects of a territorial State. - If free to do so, most would choose very different societies and laws as well as voluntary taxes, subscriptions, contribution or insurance schemes for themselves. The people are not equal robots but all are different individuals. Also different are their aims and aspirations. Only the criminal and aggressive ones among them must become sufficiently restrained. “Release all creative energies!” – wrote Leonard E. Read, often, in various versions. One territorial law for all, even if it is the best possible one, is oppression for its peaceful dissenters. Consider e.g. how many dissenters there are, e.g. on subjects like abortion, global warming, monetary reform, land reform, healthy exercise, meals, life styles, fashions. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - PRETENCE OF TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: Law is (*) the expression and the perfection of common sense.” – Ascribed to Joseph H. Choate, 1832-1917, in G. J. Clark, Great Sayings by Great Lawyers, 1922. – (*) If only it were, But this is only rarely the case. However, with all its flaws, a personal law chosen by individuals and for themselves only, in a panarchy or polyarchy, is just right for them, at their stage of development. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 15.11.07. - COMMON SENSE, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM DIS.

LAW: Law is a bottomless pit.” - John Arbuthnot, title of a pamphlet, 1712, quoted by Thorold Rogers, “First Nine Years of the Bank of England”, p.122. - Law is a Bottomless-Pit, it is a Cormorant, a Harpy, that devours every thing.” - John Arbuthnot, The History of John Bull, ed. Alan W Bower and Robert A. Erickson, chapter 6, p.10 (1976). - If only we could easily bury all territorial laws in it! – J.Z., 1.9.07. – If we could freely secede from them then they might as well not exist – for the secessionists. – J.Z., 26.1.09. - MULTITUDE, ENDLESS STREAM, OR AVALANCHES OF LAWS, NO ESCAPE CLAUSE LIKE INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, INSOFAR WRONG

LAW: Law is a pickpurse.” – James Howell, Familiar Letters, I, 1545 (March 20, 1621.) - I prefer the formulation, particularly with regard to taxation: Law is a pickpocket. However, that is very far from being the only crimes with victims that the territorial law commits, daily by the millions. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 18.12.10. – The solution to this problem: Let no one except aggressors and criminals with victims be subjected to any laws but those that he has freely and individually chosen for himself, usually within his own and self-chosen community of volunteers, which should be exterritorially quite autonomous. To each his own law, then he can complain only about himself and has the solution on hand: Individual secession. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 18.12.10. – What works for religious differences, sports- and other clubs and associations would work in this sphere, too. – J.Z., 26.1.09. - PLUNDER, ROBBERY, TAXATION, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, FREE ASSOCIATIONS OF VOLUNTEERS, OPERATING IN ALL SPHERES, ALL WITH THEIR OWN RULES.

LAW: Law is but a heathen word for power.” - Daniel Defoe: The History of the Kentish Petition, 1701. That applies particularly to territorial law and territorial power. Without them the power and the laws would tend to become limited, in accordance with the preferences of individuals, finally responsible for their own affairs, regarding their commitments to public affairs, and that would be very educational and enlightening for them, so that they would strongly tend to grow from mere voting cattle or “sheeple” into genuine citizens, mature and self-responsible as well as informed human beings. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – A “heathen” or a camouflage word? – It is as much abused as the words “democracy”, “consent”, “mandate”, “public interest”, “common good” and “voting” are. -J.Z., 26.1.09. – POWER

LAW: Law is nothing unless close behind it stands a warm living public opinion.” - Wendell Phillips. - And both may be quite wrong and frequently are! Let dissenters opt out, not only in the religious sphere and in private matters. - J.Z., 25.11.02. – PUBLIC OPINION, DIS.

LAW: Law is often not a social decision procedure but a very anti-social or asocial monopoly of a few. Why should we be bound to such "contracts", or, rather, impositions, when they do no longer satisfy us, while we can dissolve all other contracts? And why would it be odd to claim this choice as a right? It is an aspect of many other rights relating to contracts, property, trade, pursuit of happiness, free pricing, free enterprise, consumer sovereignty etc. - J.Z., 7.1.93.

LAW: Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.” – Aaron Burr, ca. 1835. – Ascribed to Aaron Burr, in James Parton: Life and Times of Aaron Burr, 1858 - Why should we submit to the assertions, pretences, and excuses of others? Or their decrees? Especially if we are not statists and territorialists? – J.Z., 31.8.07, 24.1.09. - If Burr was right, then minorities could and should thus establish their own personal laws for themselves. But like most generalizations, it limps or even stumbles and falls over itself, if closely examined. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - It is almost as difficult and costly to get a new territorial law passed as it is to get an old territorial law repealed. The natural rights answer lies in personal laws. To each his own. Free choice among personal laws and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers and a free market, free contracts, free experimentation for entrepreneurs to establish them or to try to establish and maintain them, just like corporations or share companies, do, for their institutions and house rules, but providing constitutional, legislative, administrative services or “public services”, instead, in accordance with the needs, wishes and effective demands of their members and potential customers. Such governments will tend to be competitively self-regulating, limited, and relatively peaceful and harmonious compared with territorial, monopolistic, coercive and collectivistic ones that are difficult hard or impossible to escape from, apart from the limited emigration options – which only lead to other territorial governments. – J.Z., 7.9.07, 18.12.10. - ASSERTION, PLAUSIBILITY, EXCUSES & JUSTIFICATIONS, PERSONAL LAWS, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, DIS.

LAW: Law means nothing but what is in the interest of the stronger party.” – Butler D. Shaffer, “Violence as a Product of Imposed Order”, p.38, transposing Thrasymachus and critical of that state of affairs. – Only the self-chosen personal law systems are likely to be in the subjective interest of their volunteers, however weak and small in numbers they might be. – J.Z., 25.1.09. - MAJORITY, STRENGTH, TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW, MINORITY AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM

LAW: Law repeal rather than law reform. – J.Z., 27.2.89. However, the introduction of panarchism would allow all the options to be tried out: E.g. communities without laws and communities with even more laws than the present territorial ones and communities with all kinds of different laws, but, mostly with their laws greatly reduced in number, to satisfy all their volunteers and keep them happy. – J.Z., 29.8.07. - REFORM OR REPEAL?

LAW: law should be a contract the people make among each other.” – Poul Anderson, Conflict, 122, story: The Pugilist. - Provided only "the people" are properly defined as a number of volunteers. - J.Z., 2.4.89. - Rather: Which some people make on their own affairs. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - The people, the nations, the common or public interest are a territorialist fiction, which disregards all too much the basic rights of minorities and of individuals. – Individual consent should always be required, except from aggressors and other criminals with victims. - J.Z., 29.8.07. – We should rather speak and think of groups, societies, communities and organizations of volunteers than the VERY diverse populations of whole territories. – J.Z., 27.1.09, 26.5.12. PEOPLES, NATIONS, THE PUBLIC, CONTRACTS, PERSONAL LAW, COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS ONLY, PANARCHIES, POLYARCHIES

LAW: law to be ethically valid must conform with the requirements of the system of rights the purposes of which the state exists to maintain.” – Harold J. Laski, The State in Theory and Practice. – Since no State has ever explicitly recognized and stated all human rights and liberties and all their bills of rights are flawed and incomplete, one can hardly rightfully state, that States exist for the protection of individual rights and liberties. Usually, they were established and maintained contrary to these rights and liberties and have only belatedly and with all too many qualifications and legal restrictions, recognized some of them. – J.Z., 6.9.07. – The territorial State is, as a rule, the worst guardian for individual rights and liberties. Are any further proofs required for this than the laws and actions of all territorial States? – J.Z., 25.1.09. - ETHICS, STATES & HUMAN RIGHTS

LAW: Law, and government, voluntarily chosen by individuals, merely to be agreeable to them, at least for the time being, or to be absolutely and for all and all times and all relations in full accordance with natural law and individual and human rights? The misunderstandings that do occur here are due, I believe, largely to the notion that the existence of rights and of the right to claim them, is supposed to oblige the individual to always fully claim and practise them. While it might be rational and ethical to strive in that direction, it can never be an absolute obligation for any individual. Your right to speak does not oblige you to speak all the time, your right to travel does not oblige you to travel all the time. Thus we should beware of the absolutist fallacy even when in favour of natural law and individual rights. However, these rights are "absolute" to the extent that if and when and to the extent that, later, - an individual wants to speak and to travel freely, at his own risk and expense, then he should be at liberty to do so. No contract or withdrawal from a contract clause or contract penalty should become prohibitively long or large. And when primary rights are involved, then individuals should remain free to claim them fully and instantly, even when formerly they had renounced them or contracted them away. Then they would not have to give notice, either. - Listen to and ponder Spooner on this, in The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, p. 14, as quoted in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p. 125: "If, then, law really be nothing other than the rule, principle, obligation or requirement of natural justice, it follows that government can have no powers except such as individuals may rightfully delegate to it: that no law, inconsistent with men's natural rights, can arise out of any contract or compact of government: that constitutional law, under any form of government, consists only of those principles of the written constitution, that are consistent with natural law, and man's natural rights; and that any other principles, that may be expressed by the letter of any constitution, are void and not law, and all judicial tribunals are bound to declare them so." - - I do agree with this but only with regard to the present territorial, monopolistic and compulsory constitutions. But individuals and volunteer groups are to become free, too, to make contracts among themselves and binding only them (for the time being and as long as this pleases them), which are inconsistent with natural law and individual rights and liberties that are fully recognized, claimed and realized. And they do have the right to do so as long as they can stand or wish these restrictions upon their rights and liberties. When and if they do finally no longer want them, or when and if some individuals among them no longer do so, then they should be free to unilaterally reject them for themselves by individual or minority group secessions, especially when it comes to the infringement of primary rights and liberties. As long as the individualized delegation of individual rights and liberties, wholly or partly, was voluntary and continues to remain voluntary (by the maintenance of the right to individually secede), the contracted relationship is rightful for the contractor, even when objectively to his disadvantage. (Subjectively he may think it to be in his favour.) What he considers right for him, to delegate his basic rights and liberties or not to use them himself, is rightful for him, for the time being, until he decides otherwise. Then he can fully claim them and no one can permanently hold him to his former renunciation. Just because a loving child has said, at 5, to his loving father: "Yes, daddy!" - does not oblige it to always say, even 20 years later and upon all fatherly advice, instructions and commands: "Yes, daddy!" Give people their maximum chance to grow up - even from primitive beginnings. - J.Z. 1.7.92, 15.1.93, 18.12.10. - GOVERNMENT, FREE CHOICE, CONSENT, INDIVIDUALISM, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: laws … the only thing the State can create.” - Joseph DeJan, “The Freedom Adventure”, p.7. – They are not created things but imposed mythsor decrees or commands. – J.Z., 23.6.90. - However, all the numerous government institutions, boards, committees, administrations and parliaments themselves are “things”, “lawfully” created by territorial governments, to restrict our natural and human rights and liberties in their nation-wide governmental zoos and forced labour camps, as far as the imposed tax burdens go. Inside them we have large degrees of educational, military and tax slavery. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - STATE CREATURE, THE ONLY CREATION OF THE STATE

LAW: Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” - Thomas Jefferson. - - Territorial laws and institutions will not and cannot do this, at least not sufficiently or fast enough. - J.Z., 25.11.02. - INSTITUTIONS, TERRITORIALISM & PROGRESS

LAW: Laws and privileges are inherited like an eternal disease. They are carried from generation to generation and place to place. Reason becomes absurdity, welfare a plague. Woe to you for you are their grandson and heir.” – Goethe. – Naturally, this applies only to territorial laws and States from which dissenting individuals and minorities cannot freely secede. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - PRIVILEGES, AN INHERITED DISEASE

LAW: Laws are enforced opinions and as long as they are territorially imposed there is no general freedom of opinion and expression, for this includes also the freedom to act, at one’s own risk and expense, to attempt to realize ones ideas, opinions and knowledge, experimentally, alone or with like-minded people, unless one classes e.g. the cries of sheep, led the slaughter house, as an instance of freedom of expression. – J.Z., 8.6.82, 6.9.07. - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PROTESTS, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Laws are giving Law a bad name. – J.Z., 15.1.08. – VS. NATURAL LAW

LAW: Laws are made and enforced by “pickpockets”, are of a corresponding quality and benefit these kinds of people rather than us, their much more honest and decent subjects and victims, in the vast majority of cases. – By all means, name, if you can, many exceptions from this rule. – J.Z., 25.12.11.

LAW: Laws are mostly, nowadays, legislated and enforced nonsense, based upon ignorance, prejudices and vested interests, using the legislative body for the legalized monopolies and privileges that they desire for themselves. And the “representatives” of the people are the brokers in this pillage. Already Bastiat called it a mutual plunder, a plunder bund. – Individual dissenters and minorities ought to be free to opt out of it - to do their own things among themselves, i.e., among volunteers only. No more legalized victimizations! – J.Z., 28.7.93, 1.12.07.

LAW: Laws are so much easier to enact than real solutions – and they are the major obstacle for real solutions, to be tried by people free to experiment with all rightful options. – J.Z., 21.9.93, 1.12.07. - VS. REAL SOLUTIONS

LAW: Laws are the problem, not the solution. – J.Z., 31.10.92., 29.8.07. Solutions are arrived at by trial and error, by freedom to experiment. Experimentation should not be monopolized by territorial governments, which thereby would also spread their numerous and great failures as wide as they can. – Since they can also finance their failures with stolen funds, they will be less careful and reasonable in their experiments than those, who would have to pay their costs themselves. When territorial governments they fail, as they mostly do, they will not discontinue their experiment but throw more stolen money and more bureaucrats into it. - J.Z., 29.1.09, 26.5.12. – TERRITORIAL LAWS, PROBLEM CREATORS RATHER THAN SOLUTION PROVIDERS

LAW: Laws are to become a matter or individual and exterritorially free choice rather than one of territorially uniform compulsion upon all people living in a territory. The personal laws of panarchies can be adapted to the knowledge and wisdom but also the idiosyncrasies of their voluntary members, their spleens, prejudices and beliefs. However, they can also be reduced to a minimum or even abolished altogether among those with sufficient self-control. – J.Z., 8.6.97, 10.1.99, 19.12.10, 26.5.12. - PERSONAL LAWS, TERRITORIAL LAWS & PANARCHISM

LAW: Laws are valid only to the extent that they do fully correspond to natural justice. Otherwise they are arbitrary impositions, like e.g. the prohibition laws against alcohol and other narcotic drugs. Personal laws, as contracts of individuals, with communities of volunteers, are exceptions from this rule. – J.Z., 14.3.99, 29.8.07. - NATURAL JUSTICE

LAW: Laws can prove their usefulness only in free competition with other laws adopted by members of other volunteer communities that are likewise exterritorially autonomous, i.e., when people become free to ignore laws to which they have not given their individual consent, as far as their own affairs are concerned, in their own volunteer communities. - J.Z., 20.9.00. - We are already used to ignoring the laws of dozens of other countries while we are living in our own. That practice has merely to be extended to volunteer communities applying their own political, economic and social systems. It exists already in the numerous private associations we are involved in. - J.Z., 30.1.02. - PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

LAW: Laws could become rightful only if they became optional for peaceful and productive individuals in their various communities of volunteers. Territorial laws are disservices to peaceful and productive citizens – until they are finally replaced by quite optional laws for them. – J.Z., 20.4.93., 31.8.07. - OPTIONAL & THUS RIGHTFUL, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

LAW: Laws do not reveal the nature of a people but merely that what is foreign to it.” – Nietzsche. („Gesetze verraten nicht das, was ein Volk ist, sondern das, was ihm fremd erscheint.“) – They express what is supposed to be believed by or asserted to be for „the” people, while the real population consists of numerous diverse groups with greatly diverse characters, beliefs, habits, abilities and interests, largely not represented at all or territorially representable or protectable, no more so than all sports, all arts, all institutions, can be properly covered by a single system of rules. – Imagine bridge, poker and chess being covered by the same rules for all players! – Or the same cooking instructions being applied to all chefs for all meals. - J.Z., 19.10.07, 19.1.09. – PEOPLE? PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: Laws eventually must replace morality, replace conscience, replace even the religion by which you think you govern.” - Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah, p. 171. – That is only a strong tendency, inherent in them, when they are territorial laws for compulsory members and subjects instead of personal laws chosen by volunteers for themselves. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - MORALITY, CONSCIENCE, SELF-RELIANCE, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Laws exist in vain for those who have not the courage and the means to defend them.” - T. B. Macaulay: Burleigh and His Times, 1832 ( Edinburgh Review, April ) – Most laws are not worth defending but only worth repealing or ignoring, for they rather tend victimize than protect innocents, via taxes and budgeted government spending and xyz wrongful restrictions and prohibitions. Their victims are numerous and cannot rely upon State policemen, courts and judges to always defend them sufficiently. Nor would the States’ military forces always do this. On the contrary. But the victims of territorial States and their legislation are very numerous. They could and should form ideal local militias for the defence of their basic rights and liberties. If enough victims were interested in their rights and liberties, then such formations could become the supreme protective power in every State. It should also uphold the right of the various panarchies to do their things for and to their voluntary members. Macaulay wrote well on Cromwell’s militia. Why did he not propose it for his and our times, with some added improvements? – J.Z., 1.9.07, 19.12.10, 26.5.12 - COURAGE & MEANS TO DEFEND THOSE, WHICH ARE RIGHTFUL BUT VIOLATED, IDEAL MILITIAS, DIS.

LAW: Laws Follow Beliefs.” - Dean Russell, THE FREEMAN, 12/73 – The law mostly follows the popular prejudices, errors and myths, shared by legislators, voters and judges. Only within personal law communities would that constitute no wrong but would be strongly educational for the victims of such laws. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - BELIEF, FAITH, PREJUDICES, ERRORS, FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, FLAWED CONCLUSIONS

LAW: Laws go as kings like.” (Allá van leyes do quieren Reyes.) – Cervantes, Don Quixote, Pt. I, ch. 45. Nowadays the current crop of laws corresponds to the ignorance, errors and prejudices of political party leaders or mis-leaders. How often or, rather, how rarely, do they represent any genuine truth? – Nevertheless, and only among their voluntary followers should they be free to practise their notions as long as they can. – But no one (except genuine criminals and aggressors with victims, and this by individual rights and liberty standards) should be subjected to their rule and laws. – Their consenting victims should be left alone to learn their lessons as fast or as slowly as they can. - J.Z., 5.9.07. - POWERFUL MEN

LAW: Laws have usually the power, but not genuine rights, liberties, ethics and morality on their side, not even rationality. – J.Z., 25.12.11.

LAW: Laws impose a more impersonal over-lordship but they can also be all too paternalistic and benevolent. – J.Z., 5.7.82. There are many more examples for this than I like. – You think of your own examples. – And then begin to think about the personal laws that you should be free to choose for yourself and for your kind of voluntary community. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - PATERNALISTIC, FEUDALISTIC, TRANSFER SOCIETY LAWS

LAW: Laws ought to be “designed to respect rather than deny the right of every man to his own life…” – Karl Hess, The Lawless State. - RIGHTS

LAW: Laws perpetuate the follies and ignorance of the masses of voters and legislators. They are mostly not based upon facts, sound principles, rights and liberties. And to the extent that they are not so based they do not deserve respect and obedience but only resistance and repeal. – J.Z., 7.6.91, 28.8.07. – Or individual and group secessionism! – J.Z., 27.1.09. - FOLLY, PREJUDICES, IGNORANCE VS. WISDOM, PRINCIPLES, RIGHTS, DUTIES & LIBERTIES, PANARCHISM

LAW: Laws should be fully subject to the economic law of supply and demand, as expressed by the free choice of individuals, by consumer- or customer sovereignty, by competitive supply of free enterprises, offering any kind of wanted public services – but only to their own voluntary customers, as well as any package deals for such services. Constitutions, laws and juridical systems should be model contracts and model institutions, to be individually chosen by volunteers for their own communities. – J.Z., 21.1.87, 29.8.07. - PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF CHOICE, CONTRACT & ACTION

LAW: Laws should be no more than voluntarily contracted rules. – J.Z., 1972. – CONTRACTED-FOR RULES, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS


LAW: Laws that outlaw “crimes” without victims are themselves criminal acts and those who passed and upheld them should be prosecuted as criminals - by really free societies. – But practicable in the near future seems to be only free competition with such States through free societies without such victimizing laws. – J.Z., 30.10.07, 26.5.12. - AGAINST CRIMES WITHOUT VICTIMS

LAW: Laws that uphold popular errors, prejudices and myths and do infringe basic and genuine rights and liberties are all too common numerous. They do constitute the rule rather than the exceptions. – J.Z., 1991, 28.8. 07. – All of them should be confined to those, who are so ignorant and prejudiced, as their personal laws. – J.Z., 19.12.10.

LAW: Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed, too severe, seldom executed.” – “Poor Richard”, 1756, published by Benjamin Franklin. – Alas, he, too, had only territorial laws in mind, not the personal laws of communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - GENTLE, SEVERE OR JUST LAWS?

LAW: Laws usually achieve the contrary of what they aim at – and this at a huge cost. – J.Z., 14.4.95. – A huge cost not only in money and labour but also in lost opportunities. Only personal laws would give everyone and every idea and opinion their chance to be tolerantly tested among volunteers. See Panarchism. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - SELF-DEFEATING & COSTLY

LAW: Laws were made so that the strong could not enforce their will in all matters.” – (Gesetze wurden gemacht, damit der Staerkere seinen Willen nicht in allen Dingen durchsetzt.) – Ovid. – That may have been the good intention. But in practice the strongest soon achieved laws that benefited them and not the poor and weak. That is mostly still the case even in democracies and welfare states. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – Under personal laws neither side could exploit the others against their will. – J.Z., 19.12.10. - LAWMAKING

LAW: Laws will not alter persuasions. Arbitrary punishments or rewards generate no maxims, nor do they improve morals. Fear and hope are no criterions of truth. Knowledge, reasoning, convictions, they alone bring forth principles which, through credit and example, may pass into manner.” – Moses Mendelsohn, 1729-1786. – I hold that this would apply mainly to territorial laws. Personal laws would be adopted and changed according to individual reasoning, convictions and experience. They alone make rightful and rapid progress possible in this sphere as well, for those well enough prepared for it. – J.Z., 28.8.07. - MORALS, PERSUASION, CONVICTION, PUNISHMENTS, REWARDS. FEAR & HOPE

LAW: Laws, and regulations cannot be made right and harmless or cured by new laws or regulations – but only by their repeal. – J.Z., 22.4.93. Alas, they are still not often enough and quite systematically repealed and we are still not free to opt out from under them and to adopt for ourselves personal laws in our own communities of volunteers, to the extent that we really do want them. – J.Z., 31.8.07. – REPEAL OR FREEDOM TO OPT OUT FROM UNDER THEM

LAW: Laws, by their very definition, don’t fit individuals. – J.Z., 19.7.73. – Laws are not fit for individuals. – J.Z., 31.7.78. – At least not in many to most cases of territorial laws. – J.Z., 28.8.07. - INDIVIDUALS, PERSONAL LAWS RATHER THAN TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAWS

LAW: Laws, Not Blood!” – M. J. De Chénier: Caius Gracchus, 1792. - But it is precisely the numerous wrongful laws that do cause much bloodshed. E.g. the anti-drug laws, the anti-immigration laws, the protectionist laws against free trade relationships, the laws of monetary despotism, with their disastrous economic crises consequences, the laws on conscription, the laws permitting nuclear “armament”. The laws on monogamous relationships. You add your own favourite examples. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – Indeed, laws tend to directly enslave and oppress rather than shed blood. But their indirect consequences can be very bloody indeed. The territorialist laws create Warfare States and all too frequently lead to wars, bloody revolutions and civil wars and prevent sound and lasting peace, based upon exterritorial autonomy under personal laws for all dissenters and as many rights and liberties as communities of volunteers want for themselves and among themselves, thus making them as content as possible by their own free actions and self-determined rules or laws and constitutions. – J.Z., 19.6.85 & 29.8.07. – DIS.

LAW: Laws, territorial ones, spread and perpetuate wrongs and mistakes country-wide and leave no escape clause as a rule, while they persist. Their victims ought to b e free to opt out from under their sometimes well intended measures but still resulting in man-made disasters. – J.Z., 13.9.91. - TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Leaving aside the question as to how posterity will be able to cope with hundreds of thousands of laws that increase at times, at the rate of a couple of thousand per legislature, the fact is that the inflation of law in itself discredits the law. Nor is it only the excessive quantity of laws that lessens the value of law, it is also their bad quality.” – Giovanny Satori, in Liberty and Law, quoted in: Robert Conquest, We & They, Civil & Despotic Cultures, Temple-Smith, London, 1980, p 240. – While it takes much effort to formulate and get another law passed, it would be easy to pass a law to repeal all previous laws! – Or to declare that from tomorrow on all laws older than 10 years are no longer valid! While an individual does not have the influence to change and improve or repeal one or many of the existing laws, he or she should be free to opt out from under all of them and their institutions. Or a general clause might be introduced into the constitution of a federation of all kinds of communities: Only those laws are rightfully applicable to an individual and his peaceful affairs that he has himself subscribed to, just like he has subscribed to a particular insurance service and to a particular protection service or arbitration system – or to any particular panarchy that offers him in an attractive package deal all the diverse services that he wants for an agreed-upon price: the panarchy of his choice. – J.Z., 10.10.08. – LEGISLATION VS. THE LAW

LAW: Legal coercion is still coercion and justified only against aggressors and other criminals with involuntary victims. – J.Z., 21.7.87, 29.8.07, 25.12.11. – The personal laws of communities of volunteers are, by their very nature, less coercive than territorial laws that are also imposed upon peaceful dissenters. – J.Z., 27.1.09. - LEGALIZING COERCION

LAW: Legal rules proliferate to support their loopholes.” – Lieberman’s Law: From: Jethro Lieberman: How the Government Breaks the Law. - If only all territorial laws would consist only out of loopholes – or allowed individuals to opt out from under them! Mostly, the best service that they could supply is to be applied as little as possible, if at all. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – When all remaining loopholes are blocked by territorial laws then we “live” in a legalized and nation-wide prison - also for innocents. – J.Z., 28.1.09. - LOOPHOLES

LAW: Legalities do not determine moralities. In reality, political rights and moral rights are as different as day and night. Our forefathers knew that – and so stated. Their sole purpose in risking “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to secure their political rights was to use them to insure (assure? J.Z.) that their natural rights would never be taken from them.” - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I/4. – As their “Bill of Rights” Amendments to the U.S.A. Constitution showed, even they were not fully aware as yet of all individual human rights and liberties. They continued slavery and monetary despotism as well as tax slavery and would not grant individuals and minorities the right to secede from them and establish their own and exterritorially autonomous communities. Thus our reverence for them should rather be limited to whatever good they have done or aimed at. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - MORALITY

LAW: Legislation is totally unnecessary. It is only necessary for governments.” – Sudha Shenoy, 24.7.04, ISIL conference in Rotarua. – Laws may be quite unjust, irrational and unnecessary, but why not let their voluntary victims have them, among themselves, at their own expense and risk only, while they are surrounded by people who happily and well live without these burdens? They may need much longer to learn from their own experience and that of others. Do give them that chance. – J.Z., 15.1.08. – I had forgotten how radical she was – judging by some of her utterances, like this one. – I looked her up with Google and got 70,300 results for her life and work, 1943-2008. J.Z., 26.5.12. - LEGISLATION, GOVERNMENTS, DIS.

LAW: Leoni raises this question when he points out that "Even those economists who have most brilliantly defended the free market against the interference of the authorities have usually neglected the parallel consideration that no free market is really compatible with a law-making process centralized by the authorities.” – Leoni’s book Freedom & the Law, reviewed in OPTION, 6/78. – I would rather speak of incompatibility with a territorial and thus coercive, monopolistic and centralized authoritarian system. Non-monopolistic and voluntary, even competitive centralization is possible, too. There could e.g. be several competing world federations, all different and all confined to their own voluntary members under personal laws and with each limited to exterritorial autonomy. None could rightfully lay claim to all of the world population and all of Earth. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - LAWMAKING, CENTRALIZATION & AUTHORITIES VS. THE FREE MARKET

LAW: Let all people have the laws they enjoy - for themselves. - J.Z., 10.3.99. - PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

LAW: Let all the laws be clear, uniform and precise: to interpret laws is almost always to corrupt them.” - Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary, 1764. – Personal laws, as opposed to territorial laws, could be as unclear, varied and imprecise as their followers are prepared to choose for themselves and put up with, at least for a while, until they have learnt their lesson. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - UNCLEAR, CONTRADICTORY, SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION, CORRUPTLY PRODUCED & LEADING TO CORRUPTION & COERCION, RATHER THAN PEACE, FREEDOM & JUSTICE, PERSONAL LAWS VS. TERRITORIAL ONES

LAW: Let every law be subjected to trial by free juries. - Suggestion by Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury. – Rather, to whatever juridical system the voluntary members of a community had agreed upon. Even free juries should not be granted a juridical territorial monopoly – except in communities of volunteers that think them to be the best form of jurisdiction. – J.Z., 19.12.10. JURIES, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Let the law never be contradictory to custom: for if the custom be good, the law is worthless.” - Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary, 1764. – Let people develop and demonstrate new customs, either with or without personal laws, among like-minded people, without disturbing the laws and customs of people in other communities of volunteers. One law or custom prescribed for all people in a territory or even for the whole world and all its very diverse peoples and ethnic, religions, ideological and other groups - amounts inevitably to oppression for many to most. Those imagining that they have really good laws or principles or customs to propose for all people, should include them in their private drafts for future ideal declarations of individual rights and liberties and should be prepared to discuss other such drafts by other people as well. - See my digitized anthology in PEACE PLANS 589 & 590 of so far over 130 such drafts. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – If the custom is bad then laws against it are also largely worthless. For instance “prohibition” laws against alcohol, anti-drug laws, laws against bullying, laws against prostitution, laws against corruption and even most laws against most crimes with victims. – No law has as yet prevented legislators from committing crimes with victims through the criminal laws that they pass, quite apart from the crimes with victims that they may privately commit. - J.Z., 25.1.69. – In this respect they are record breakers among all professionals, according to a statement by Pitirim Sorokin. – J.Z., 26.5.12. - CUSTOM, PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAW

LAW: let the laws be in their eyes only the guarantees of the common liberty.” – Rousseau, Discourse on Political Economy, 1755. – Underlining by me. - Alas, he seems to have had only territorial “ideal” laws for all inhabitants in mind. Can one blame him, when most libertarians and anarchists today are still territorialists and not consistent enough voluntaryists? – They still think and act in terms of a hypothesized uniform people instead of a very diverse population. The common liberty or restraints of the diverse panarchies or polyarchies in the same territory (or world-wide) could be very different from each other. – But this diversity and mutual tolerance, because each gets for himself thereby what he wants for himself, at his own risk and expense, is always to be preferred to a territorially imposed uniformity, which can never satisfy all the inhabitants sufficiently. - J.Z., 6.9.07, 28.1.09. – LIBERTY, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: Let’s repeal all uniform, imposed and territorial laws – except those, which happen to coincide completely with natural law – and even those would be better expressed in an improved bill of rights. – J.Z., 24.5.73. - REPEAL

LAW: Liberty is obedience to the law which one has laid down oneself.” – J. J. Rousseau, Social Contract. – R. did not clearly enough recognize that one cannot do so territorially but only as a sovereign individual and volunteer under exterritorial autonomy for all those peaceful and productive citizens, who seceded from a State and formed their own and varied communities of volunteers. Only years later, 1793 or 1794 did J. G. Fichte clearly advocate the right of individuals to secede and said that it and the establishment of alternative societies and communities was a characteristic of all revolutions. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - LIBERTY & OBEDIENCE

LAW: Life that is circumscribed by laws is life that has been taken away.” – Joan Marie Leonard, THE FREEMAN, 9/76. – Submission to self-chosen personal law systems is quite a different matter. – J.Z., 19.12.10. - LAWS HOBBLE LIFE & LIVING, PREVENT FREE, JUST, PEACEFUL FREE, PROSPEROUS, ENLIGHTENED & PROGRESSIVE LIVES

LAW: Little money, little law.” – Anon., The Parliament of Byrdes, ca. 1550. -– In the meaning that only well enough people can afford the “protection” of the law, i.e. by hiring a good lawyer. However, even the best lawyers are not a sufficient protection against an avalanche of wrongful and victimizing laws. Even the poorest person should be free to opt out from under an unjust law or constitutional, legal and juridical system, perhaps into one, which would require only little in property and income but offer an honest chance to acquire a large income and a large property. Personal law communities of volunteers would tend to have only a few and mostly only sensible laws or only those laws which their volunteers do believe in. – But volunteers for them should be able to have also as many laws as they are prepared to put up with. They would, so to speak, legally punish themselves for their faith in many laws. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - COSTS OF ITS PROTECTION, LAWYERS, JURISDICTION, COURT COSTS, PERSONAL LAWS AS ALTERNATIVE, ACCORDING TO EVERYONE’S PREFERENCE, MUCH MORE TOLERANT & SATISFYING TO DIVERSE GROUPS, CHOICE AMONG VARIOUS JURIDICAL SERVICES, SECESSIONISM

LAW: Make a law against having too many laws. – D.Z., 14.8.75. – (He was almost 12 then. – J.Z., 28.8.07.) Apart from criminals and aggressors with victims, all laws are to be applied only to volunteers. The mere ignoring or breaking of a law, when there is no victim, is not to be considered as and dealt with as a crime. – J.Z., 21.1.08. - MULTITUDE, TOO MANY LAWS

LAW: Make and obey your own laws, on your own affairs, rather than obey the laws that others try to impose upon your affairs. - J.Z., 20.8.02.

LAW: Man is greater than the law!". - J.Z. 11/73, after reading Dagobert D. Runes: "Peace is possible only when the law is greater than men." – Runes, Treasury of Thought, p.101. – To all people the law system which they have quite freely and individually chosen for their own affairs. Crimes against non-consenting victims do, obviously, go beyond the own affairs. – J.Z., 19.12.10. – Most laws are even worse than most men. – No wonder, they are written and past by the worst men, who got to the top under territorialism and its worst popular errors, myths and prejudices. - J.Z., 25.12.11. - PEACE

LAW: Many laws as certainly make bad men, as bad men make many laws.” - Walter Savage Landor, "Diogenes and Plato," Imaginary Conversations, (1824-1853.) – All laws that are territorially imposed are already thereby bad laws. – J.Z., 19.12.10. - MULTITUDE OF LAWS MAKES FOR BAD MEN

LAW: Men would be great criminals did they need as many laws as they make.” - Charles John Darling, Scintillae Juris, 1877. – At least for many of the actual law-makers this is probably true. – Their crimes consist mainly in making their kinds of territorialist laws for all their victims in the territories under their control. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - Well, after all, “they”, the greatest criminals in any territory, DO make them! Alas, they do not apply them only to themselves but, rather, to their, mostly, innocent subjects! – J.Z., 28.1.09, 19.12.10. - MULTITUDE OF LAWS, MEN & CRIMES

LAW: Moral laws defied at our own peril. Man-made statutory law largely obnoxious; should be obeyed, if not respected. Obedience strengthens the will to repeal bad laws; law-breaking removes this incentive. Governance is with us always; the question is: what kind? The need for statesmanship.” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, XI. Alas, although he got old and wise about freedom in many ways, and spread many freedom ideas through FEE, his mind remained stuck on the territorial limited government model and was not expanded to apply free choice, market relationships and free contracts to all the diverse “services” offered by various governments and societies. - Obedience only to personal laws! And this within exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, called e.g. panarchies or polyarchies. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - DEFIANCE OF LAW, LAW-BREAKING VS. OBEDIENCE TO LAW & LAW REPEAL OR RESISTANCE, DEFIANCE, IGNORING BAD LAWS COMBINED WITH INDIVIDUAL & GROUPS SECESSIONISM?

LAW: More and more of our laws are unenforceable. Practically everyone is a scofflaw. Laws people perceive as an enforced code of behavior are simply ignored.” (*) Richard Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.16. - - (*) Alas, this is not yet a constitutional, legal and juridical option or one of individual rights and liberties, as it should be, for individuals and minorities. The secessionists could then federate in their various preferred communities, all only under the few laws that all of their volunteers like for themselves and their own affairs. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - UNENFORCEABLE

LAW: Most laws amount to a perversion of rights and of justice. They are also counter-productive rather than productive. They are opposed to Natural Law and genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 25.12.11. –

LAW: Most laws are just part of a nation-wide conspiracy to trap individuals. – J.Z., 3.3.77. – Individual secessionism together with full exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities would spring that trap and allow everyone as much or as little in liberties and rights, among like-minded people, as they want for themselves. In other words, we have to get rid only of territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and other institutions and can leave the rest to volunteers and their schemes and ideas, tolerantly practised only among themselves. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

LAW: Most laws are so bad that they should not be passed for eternity or until parliament finally gets around to repeal them – many years after their harmfulness and wrongfulness has been widely recognized. An in-built time-limit of e.g. 30 years is much preferable and was suggested by the founders of modern democracy or republicanism: Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. – However, for panarchies as personal law communities for volunteers, such a clause would be much less necessary or useful, since its members would always be free to secede from them if they came to disagree, from their point of view, with too many of its personal laws or, perhaps, very strongly with only one of them. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - TIME LIMITS ON LAWS

LAW: Most laws, as man-made “positive” laws, offend, very severely, against “the” law, as a humane and just as well as freedom- and peace-promoting ideal. They are awful rather than lawful. As such all of them should be abolished, repealed, ignored or, if necessary, forcefully overthrown, in a rightful and as far as possible also bloodless revolution, for which an as complete code of individual rights and liberty as could and should be compiled and declared by now, would be a very good starting point and aim, suggesting also many rightful and good techniques for it. – At the very least, all dissenters should become free to opt out from under despotic and irrational legislation and to adopt personal laws for themselves, in their own communities of volunteers, which would not claim any territorial monopoly. - J.Z., 7.9.07, 25.12.11 26.5.12. – THE LAW

LAW: Neither a majority's nor a minority's idea should be made law! (*) Yet the public education system makes it unavoidable that majoritarianism be the guide to education. That is sad. It is also quite unjust. Instead, we should open up the sphere of education to all sorts of input from intellectual, religious, and related communities. We should have a free market in education, just as we have a free market in ideas and the press. (**) … If there are no legal barriers to this, soon a free market in education would develop. (***) - But here again (****) politicians are the main obstacle to progress. With the feeble excuse that a free market would mean that poor children would get no education – which in some cases would not be such a tragedy, judging by human history – they cling to the monopoly they have over the minds and hearts of our children. They won’t allow diversity. They want to be in power.” (*****) – Tibor Machan, Liberty & Culture, p.264. - - (*) For all the people in a territory. The majority should only legislate for itself and so should each minority. –  - (**) I wish we had it. Certainly not yet for ideas, based upon a world wide archive of ideas. Nor for talents, either. And not only broadcasting media are still all to restricted and partly monopolized and legislated upon. - - (***) Why only in education? Why not also regarding all kinds of social, economic and political systems? - - (****) territorial – - (*****) Personal law communities would give all kinds of politicians their chance to be almost permanently in power within their kinds of panarchies, together with like-minded volunteers, instead of having to forever struggle to get into power or to maintain themselves in power over many people who do largely disagree with them. Perhaps panarchism should be mainly sold to aspiring politicians who, today, have little chance to get the territorial majority on their side? – J.Z., 1.9.07, 26.5.12.  - TERRITORIAL LAW, WRONGFUL FOR MINORITIES OR EVEN THE MAJORITY, PERSONAL LAW OR MARKET ALTERNATIVES

LAW: Never give approval to a law that ‘helps’ anyone!” - Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 9/71. – As if we already had free individual choice in this sphere! – His ideal, a territorial but otherwise limited government, would precisely prevent that. - HELP OR PLAGUE? PANARCHIES EVEN VS. LIMITED GOVERNMENTS AS TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, DIS.

LAW: Never pass a law to help anyone at the expense of another.” - Leonard E. Read, Meditations on Freedom, p.28. - Insurance- and credit institutions provide help much better, cheaper and profitably to all involved with them. – However, personal law communities, which try to solve all of their own problems via charity, officially organized among themselves, i.e., voluntaristic Welfare States, which are only exterritorially autonomous and serve only their volunteers and this at the expense of these volunteers, should not be outlawed, either. They would also be very educational for their own voluntary members, so that, most likely, after some time they would dissolve themselves, after losing more and more members. - J.Z., 4.9.07, 19.12.10. - TAXATION, COMPULSORY “CHARITY” VIA COMPULSORY TAXES, WELFARE STATE, TRANSFER SOCIETY, JUSTICE

LAW: New lords, new laws.” – John Harrington: Nugae Antiquse, c. 1610. Quoted in John Ray, English Proverbs. – At least no territorial lords and laws! – J.Z., 1.9.07. – New territorial laws, more wrongful domination. Only new laws by and for volunteers can be right – for them. – Leaders only for volunteers! - J.Z., 28.1.09. LORDS, DOMINATION, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, LEADERSHIP

LAW: Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum; Nothing which is against reason is lawful, it is a sure maxim in law, for Reason is the life of Law. But if they transgress beyond the bounds of rationality, justice and equity, I shall to the utmost of my power make opposition and contestation to the last gasp of vital breath; and I will not beg their favor, nor lie at their feet for mercy; let me have justice, or let me perish.” – Overton, 9.9.1648. – But did he, to avoid much trouble for himself and others, demand that he as well as all others be allowed to select their own personal law and exterritorially autonomous communities for themselves, so that the struggle for the kind of society that individuals and minorities prefer for themselves would not be an almost permanent and all to hard one? Even laws and governments à la menu, belong only into our personal shopping list and “shopping carts”, i.e. they, too, should be acquired like tickets or subscriptions! – J.Z. 5.9.07, 15.1.08, 19.12.10, 26.5.12. - REASON & RESISTANCE, DIS.

LAW: No code is complete; no legislation should be beyond challenge.” – Morris West, quoted in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 23.11.74. – The greatest and permanent challenge would be the right of individuals to secede and to establish or join their own alternative and exterritorially autonomous communities under personal laws, together with like-minded volunteers. Too many libertarians aim only at some steps towards liberty and not at full tolerance for all tolerant actions. – Any degree of libertarianism for any kind of libertarians and also any degree of statism for any kind of statists. However, no territorial monopoly for either of them. - J.Z., 31.8.07, 19.12.10, 25.12.11. – TERRITORIALISM, IMPERFECTIONS INHERENT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS

LAW: No foreign will is law for us.” - (Kein fremder Wille ist Gesetz fuer uns.) – Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in „Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische Revolution“, 1793. In this book he clearly stood up for the right of individuals to secede from the State. Alas, he was not yet as clear there about the subsequent self-governing communities of volunteers, doing their own things to and for themselves, while ceasing to meddle with the affairs of other such communities. – J.Z., 29.8.07, 26.5.12. – If he had been, we might already enjoy panarchism today. Alas, in later writings he went astray, probably because of lack of economic knowledge and fell for the rising territorial nationalism and thus wrote an almost totalitarian utopia: “Der geschlossene Handelsstaat” (1800) (“intensely socialistic treatise, in favour of tariff protection”, according to Encyclopedia Britannica.) and “Reden and die deutsche Nation” (1807/9) IMPOSITION, TERRITORIAL, OF THE WILL OF OTHERS:

LAW: No law can make a wrong right. The attempt can only make the law wrong. – Only ignoring, resisting or repealing bad laws or seceding from them can help us against them. – J.Z., 11.3.88, 29.8.07, 26.1.09. - RIGHT & WRONG

LAW: No law except human individual freedom and rights statements - unless they are to be applied ONLY to volunteers. - J.Z., 16.1.02, 20.8.02, 24.1.09. – PANARCHY, PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: No law is or can be “fair”. (*) J.Z., 4.5.73. – Except self-given laws among communities of volunteers. – J.Z., n.d. - (*) Unless it is a personal law, that peaceful individuals freely subscribed to as applying to themselves and to aggressors against them. – J.Z., 28.8.07. - FAIRNESS, CAN IT BE FAIR?

LAW: No law is quite appropriate for all.” - Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, (c. 29 B.C.), 34-3. - Only personal laws can be appropriate for all their volunteers, but not any territorial law for all people living in a territory. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 19.12.10. – No territorial law is a suitable tool or method for any problem that it tries to tackle. – J.Z., 25.12.11. - INAPPROPRIATE TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAWS

LAW: No law perfectly suits the convenience of every member of the community; the only consideration is, whether upon the whole it be profitable to the greater part.” - Livy: History of Rome, xxxiv. – He, too, thought only of territorial communities. When dissenting or unwanted minorities are free to secede and organize under exterritorial autonomy, then each group can have the law or system or institutions that would suit it. The majority would no longer have “troublemakers” against it and minorities would not have to win over the majority to their cause. To each his own things! – For how long now have most people clung to the majority spleen or even been hanged or otherwise mistreated by it, all too patiently and enduring, rather than liberating themselves, while leaving the majorities to their self-imposed fates? – J.Z., 1.9.07, 19.12.10. - TERRITORIAL LAW CANNOT SUIT ALL. SATISFYING MERELY THE MAJORITY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH, MINORITY RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, DIS.

LAW: No law should become valid without sufficiently publishing a bibliography, abstracts and texts of all texts that are critical of its proposals and report all historical evidence with such laws and without the option for every citizen to vote against it - or to ignore it altogether, as long as he acts peacefully, i.e., does not meddle with the affairs of others. - J.Z., 29.4.02, 20.8.02, 27.5.12.

LAW: No less than Samuel Adams or any of the other fire-eaters of the revolution, Josiah Warren stood ready to break out of his shackles should government ever attempt to enslave him. Anarchism, as Josiah Warren defined the idea, aimed not so much at destroying the law as making every man ‘a law unto himself.’ Only thus, he maintained, might freedom be established on earth.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.136. – Defending one’s individual rights and liberties should not only be left to individuals but also to cooperatives or free enterprises, societies and communities of individuals. Competing protective associations and competing panarchies or polyarchies, all of volunteers only, between them, would probably provide a much better service than territorial ones now provided by States. – J.Z., 5.9.07, 19.12.10. - PERSONAL LAW, ANARCHISM, MAN, SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS, DIS.

LAW: No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree, The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. (*) When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.” – Source? - Bastiat, quoted in G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.128? There at least is a very similar passage. – J.Z. - (*) Or optional, as personal for the communities of volunteers. Then it is their law, however good or bad it may be, and will be respected by them as their own choice. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - SOCIETY & MORALITY

LAW: No uniform, monopolistic, territorial and imposed laws any longer! They have already caused enough disasters in our history. – J.Z., n.d. & 19.12.10. - TERRITORIAL, UNIFORM & MONOPOLISTICALLY IMPOSED LAWS & INSTITUTIONS: TERRITORIALISM. MAKE MINE THE OPPOSITE! PERSONAL LAWS!

LAW: No, there should not be a law. – Robert Heinlein, Glory Road, p.145. – No territorial law, anyhow, but only personal laws for their volunteers. – J.Z., 26.1.09. - OBLIGATORY, COMPULSORY OR SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL CHOICE? DIS.

LAW: Notoriously, both laws and institutions generally tend to develop a life or autonomy of their own which may be sharply divorced from the living, breathing human beings who are subject to them. Because an institution may have had a function at one stage of social evolution does not mean that it has one now; and if the original institution's goals were illegitimate — e.g., the Inquisition — its mere persistence did not give it a kind of justification.” - Milford Q. Sibley, The Obligation to Disobey, p.58. – This, again, will tend to apply mainly only to territorial laws and their institutions, not to those, from which dissenters can secede and select for themselves different laws and institutions. Some, now territorially perpetuated by force, would then soon lose all or most of their members and subjects. However, precisely because the remaining rumps of laws and institutions will remain supported by some volunteers, these will tend to last and be relatively stable, as long as they are supported by some volunteers. – On the other hand, being reduced in their power, they may be more often held responsible for the crimes they have committed than were and are territorial politicians and their henchmen. - J.Z., 5.9.07. - INSTITUTIONS, PERSONAL LAWS & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Of course I have a policy. And if it impresses you to have things set out point by point, I will tell you what my programme is. First it is to do away with man-made laws.” – Maurice Cranston, Political Dialogues, 124. M. C. puts such words into the mouth of Bakunin. He or Bakunin should have added: Except individually chosen personal laws, i.e., laws one contracts to accept and abide by - within a community of like-minded people, one that does not claim any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 5.9.07. This invented dialogue continues: “MARX: But you cannot do away with laws. The whole universe is governed by laws. - - BAKUNIN: Natural laws, assuredly – they cannot be done away with. Indeed I agree with you that men can enlarge their liberty by extending their understanding of the natural laws which rule the universe. Man cannot escape from nature, and it would be absurd to try …” - TERRITORIAL VS. PERSONAL LAWS, DIS.

LAW: Offer any kind of law to the ones who want it for themselves - and any kind of justice for all those more concerned with justice than with law and who want to realize what they consider to be the most just system among themselves. - J.Z., 18.1.86. - JUSTICE

LAW: Once more we find the law leaning on customs. Horace’s sentence: “Leges sine moribus vanae.” (“Laws without customs are vain.”) – J.O.Y. Gasset, in “Concord and Liberty”. – Laws imposed on involuntary customers, apart from criminals and aggressors, are passed by vain power addicts. Only laws passed by or adopted by voluntary customers of a personal law community – can be quite right – for them. – J.Z., 21.1.08. - CUSTOMS

LAW: Once the community has the right to decide everything and to regulate everything, the will of the individual is replaced by the will of the lawmaker and the social architect. The resultant system closely parallels the relationship between a flock of sheep and its shepherd.” – G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.229. – Why do so many people refuse to seriously consider the possibility of communities that have only voluntary members and apply only the kind of personal law for them, which these members want for themselves? It seems to be such a simple and obvious alternative to territorially imposed laws, which always lead to much dissatisfaction and unrest. – J.Z, 4.9.07. – “COMMUNITIES” OF INVOLUNTARY MEMBERS

LAW: One law for all people in a territory means legalized aggression by some people in that territory upon others living in the same territory. – This internal aggression often leads to further aggressions against the population of other territories, under the pretence that only their wrongful governments would be fought. - J.Z., n.d. & 24.6.01, 26.1.09, 27.5.12. - TERRITORIALISM & AGGRESSION, CIVIL WAR, DESPOTISM, TERRORISM, INTERNATIONAL WAR

LAW: One law for the rich, and another for the poor.” - 19th c. proverbial “wisdom”, in Hyman, Quotes, p. 269. – Why not, if the rich adopt one kind of law for themselves and among themselves, while the poor adopt another kind of law for themselves and among themselves? Objection should at most only arise when, in a single territorial State, as customary today, with many involuntary members and subjects, there are different laws prescribed for different classes, especially those distinguishing between people according to their capital or incomes. Under freedom the legally disadvantaged could freely opt out from such territorial States. – J.Z., 9.4.07. - RICH & POOR, PERSONAL RATHER THAN TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils of this world can be cured by legislation.” – Thomas B. Reed. – (S. T. B. Reed, 1839-1902, in A. Andrews, Quotations, p.331.) - So much is already old wisdom – and still largely ignored! – J.Z., 27.1.09. - Free enterprise and full exterritorial autonomy for all those volunteers - who try to cure them with their own ideas and means - among themselves! – J.Z., 1.9.07. – LEGISLATION, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: Only personal law, applied exclusively to volunteers, can bring sufficient improvements or at least experience on what not to do. However private and official criminals and aggressors, whether of the same or of other peoples or States, must be dealt with in a properly organized fashion, best also competitively. – J.Z., 30.8.07, 27.5.12. - PERSONAL LAW, CRIMES WITH VICTIMS

LAW: Only self-given or self-chosen laws – among all laws - have any obligation for moral and rational individuals. – J.Z., 14.3.99, 29.8.07, 28.1.09. - MORAL OBLIGATION, CONTRACTARIANISM

LAW: Our laws make law impossible …” - G. B. Shaw. - Ideal laws can only result in free competition between personal law systems and communities, all of them individually chosen by volunteers for themselves and then tried out as long as they can stand or prefer them. What works in art, literature, technology, sport, music, films, poetry, science, e.g. computer science, religion, private life styles, self-education efforts, tourist choices, free choice of jobs, free trade, freedom in private contracts, consumer sovereign choices, etc., daily, would work for free competition between political, economic and social systems, in their wide variety as well. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - LEGISLATION, UNJUST LAWS

LAW: Out of mutual distrust of their own humanity people are careful to interpose between each other for purposes of commerce and intercourse something deliberately inhuman: the law.” – J. O. Y Gasset, in “Concord & Liberty” – I hold that they do so only because they neither know the laws with all their wrongs and faults, nor many to most of their individual rights and liberties. In this ignorance they are foolish enough to grab for the all to plentiful existing and possible “positive” laws, and appoint territorial legislators, in which all too many people still believe. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – Let those opt out, who are without this ignorance and faith - in man-made laws, for whole and, usually, very diverse populations! – All laws only for their volunteers! - J.Z., 26.1.09, 27.5.12. - NATURAL LAW, & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PANARCHIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Paine developed again in splendid words his idea of the nature of government, and especially emphasized most incisively that the men of today have no right to prescribe the path for the men of tomorrow. Covenants that have passed into history can never impose on new generations the duty of accepting as legal and binding on themselves limitations set by their forebears.” - Rudolf Rocker, -Nationalism and Culture, p.146. – Laws cannot even be rightfully imposed territorially upon the present population, either, all the diverse population of a whole territory. Peaceful dissenters must become free to secede and do their own things for or to themselves. – J.Z., 25.1.09, 20.12.10. - GENERATION GAP, TIME LIMIT FOR LAWS, FREE CHOICE AMONG LAWS, SUNSET LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL SECESSIONISM & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Panarchism offers any kind of law to the ones who do want it for themselves – any kind of justice for all those more concerned with justice than with law and wanting to realize what they consider to be the most just system among themselves. – J.Z., 18.1.86. - JUSTICE & PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM

LAW: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.” – G. B. Shaw, Caesar & Cleopatra, Act II. - The laws of the barbarians, at least sometimes, came closer to the laws of nature or natural laws for human beings than the “positive” laws of the lawmakers. See e.g., Gibbon’s chapter 38 in his “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” The “Barbarians” had voluntary communities and could, individually, change from one to the other by a declaration before a judge. – The makers of “positive” LAW: have still not recognized the right of individuals and minorities to secede and to establish voluntary communities for themselves that are exterritorially fully autonomous. – These conventional territorial legislators are the really backward barbarians and primitives. - J.Z., 29.8.07. - LAWS OF NATURE, CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS, NATIVE LAW, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, BARBARIANS? PERSONAL LAWS, COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM

LAW: Parliament desperately needs a breathing space in the whole legislative process. It is too busy passing laws that few people call for and even fewer people understand.” - Mr. Killen, Liberal MHR, quoted in “PROGRESS”, Sept. 75. – The citizen-subjects need breathing space or escape from most laws even more so than “their” law-makers. Only the personal laws of their own voluntary communities could be sufficiently meaningful for them to respect and obey them willingly. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - PARLIAMENTS & CITIZENS

LAW: Pass a law …!”? – Don’t pass any more laws – and repeal all the old ones, at least as territorial laws for all people in a territory. They never worked as intended. Law that volunteers pass only as “games rules” for themselves, their own voluntary teams, are quite another matter. – J.Z., 1.8.88, 12.9.08. – DIS.

LAW: People crushed by law have no hope but from power. - If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous ..." - Edmund Burke, Letter to the Hon. C. J. Fox, October 8, 1777. – People crushed by territorial laws have no hopes. People of volunteer communities do. Their personal laws are self-chosen. They are exterritorial autonomous and practice experimental freedom. They do not require permission from anybody. - J.Z., 13.10.02, 29.1.09. - People crushed by territorialism have no hope but exterritorialism or panarchism - J.Z., 26.11.02. - The greatest hope lies in gaining the power to rule the own affairs, together with like-minded people, quite independently from the ideas and opinions of all other people living in the same territory. Power over self or self-management is needed, not power over others, with whom one disagrees, more or less extensively. Enough people should finally consider their individual secessionist, personal law and exterritorial autonomy options instead of continuing to subscribe uncritically to territorialist notions and institutions. –J.Z., 1.9.07. - Only those individuals and groups not free to secede can be crushed. – J.Z, 2.1.08. - POWER & PEOPLE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-CONTROL, SELF-MANAGEMENT, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUALIZED SECESSIONISM

LAW: People refuse to live under unjust laws’, I said. ‘That's what revolution's all about. Anyway, the British shouldn't have passed legislation they couldn't enforce’.” - Robin Cook, A State of Denmark, p.159. – Most people submit, all too often and extensively as well as for all too long, while they are not free to secede. – J.Z., 20.12.10. - UNJUST LAWS, REVOLUTIONS, STATISM, RESISTANCE, OPTING OUT, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: Personally, I think Ayn Rand was onto something when she had the good guys at the end of Atlas Shrugged admiring a new Constitutional Amendment: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade …” - - Better yet, Alice, how about: ”Congress shall make no law”? – Period.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.361. – Congress and governments only for their volunteers! An end to their territorial domination over peaceful dissenters! – J.Z., 20.12.10. – LEGISLATION, DIS.

LAW: Place yourself outside the law – without coercing anyone! Just act morally! – J.Z., 2.75. - To the extent that you are still or already allowed to do so. Fully and freely you could only do so if you were already free to secede and to join or establish a community of volunteers that corresponds to your own ideals and that is only exterritorially autonomous. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - MORALITY, CHOICE WITHOUT ANY TERRITORIAL COERCION, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHIES

LAW: Political freedom is the right not to recognize any law but those one has given oneself.” – J. G. Fichte, Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische Revolution. – Fallacies about representation and the benefits of territorial organization and about individual rights and liberties and genuine self-government, in the form of voluntaristic and tolerant panarchies, do still prevail more than 200 years later. They are, to my knowledge, not even explored and clarified as yet with digitized “argument mapping” as developed by Paul Monk et al. Nor are they to be found in a general encyclopaedia of the best refutations of prejudices, errors etc. that are obstacles to progress. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – Or in a libertarian encyclopaedia or libertarian ideas archive or libertarian abstracts and review compilation. – Some of the best libertarian books are still unknown to most libertarians – although by now all libertarian books could and should be offered on a single H.D.D. – J.Z., 26.1.09. - POLITICAL FREEDOM, SELF-GIVEN LAWS, PERSONAL VS. TERRITORIAL LAWS, INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN LAWS OR LAW SYSTEMS VS. LAWS IMPOSED BY MINORITIES OR MAJORITIES

LAW: Politics: The application of collective action to seize and or exercise the coercive power of the State.” – While this probably describes 99.9 % of political activity in the world today, it is not necessarily always true; for example, if I lobby for the repeal of an oppressive law, in what way am I attempting to seize or exercise coercive power?” – Dan Tobias, THE CONNECTION, 124, p.87. – It is also oppressive to deprive people of an oppressive law that they do want for themselves and that could and would be applied only by and to themselves. It should only be repealed or become invalid for their dissenters, who have opted out of such communities. – J.Z., 27.9.89, 29.8.07. - TERRITORIAL POLITICS VS. PANARCHISM

LAW: Progress, or the education of men by the wants of life, can have nothing to do with passing acts of Parliament; except so far as we pass them to break old fetters that still bind us. If civilization could be given by any government, as a royal present to a nation, the world had long since been civilized. … Civilization has never yet and never will be simply made by the fiat of those who have power. It must be slowly won …” - Auberon Herbert, in Mack, Auberon Herbert, p.180. – Preferably, most rightfully, tolerantly and effectively by volunteers doing their own things only for and to themselves. Freedom to experiment has been successful in all spheres where it was applied. It is now overdue in the spheres all too long monopolized by territorial governments, for their political, economic and social systems, from whose failures the power mongers have never learnt sufficiently. Under territorialism they can always make others pay for the wrongs and mistakes they imposed upon a whole country and all its inhabitants and, sometimes even upon other countries and their peoples. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - REPEAL OF LAWS & PROGRESS, CIVILIZATION

LAW: Pull the plug on most laws! – J.Z., 14.3.99. – Repeal all territorial laws. Permit only the personal laws which members of voluntary communities impose upon themselves. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – Repeal most of them or allow individuals to secede from under them and their institutions. – J.Z., 28.1.09.

LAW: Reason is for the wise man, the law for the unwise men.” – Chinese proverb. (“Die Vernunft ist fuer den Weisen, das Gesetz fuer den Unweisen.”) – Territorial laws are more often directed against the wise people rather than against the unwise followers of “great” leaders or misleaders. – J.Z., 21.7.86 & 30.8.07. - This Chinese proverb expresses a very optimistic and unrealistic point of view on territorial laws. - Only under the free competition between very different personal laws in panarchies or polyarchies or communities of volunteers, that are exterritorially autonomous, will reason and wisdom gradually - or even fast - tend to prevail, in most of them and effective rules, methods and institutions will then become devised to deal with the remaining intolerant, stupid, prejudiced criminals and aggressors against the rights and liberties of members of such communities. – J.Z., 30.7.07. - REASON & WISDOM

LAW: Refuse to live under unjust laws.” – Robin Cook, A State of Denmark, p.159. – Easier said than done, when not even the right to secede from the State has been realized so far. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - INJUSTICE, DISOBEDIENCE, RESISTANCE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM SHOULD BE THE PEACEFUL OPTION FOR ALL DISSENTERS

LAW: religion and morality are indispensable.” – This is a bitter pill for the materialistic social reformer who is honestly convinced that justice in general and social justice in particular is the creature of statutes and the end product of professional governmental administration. These materialists have, forgotten that in Americanism, justice is a moral concept and that, consequently, all injustice is sinful and evil. We cannot smother this evil with an avalanche of legislation any more than we can perpetuate virtue by embalming it in a well-worded statute. There is no such thing as the mass production of morals, and by the same token we can never produce any kind of justice on a legislative assembly line. To date, nobody has come forward with a working formula by which we can make a good society out of bad men. The recent tendency to rely upon such formulas only seems to make our society worse.” – Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.28. - - The very attempt to achieve various aims within a single territorial organization with compulsory membership and subordination leads to this and many other difficulties. [Its main principle seems to be, for each of its “leaders” or “mis-leaders”: Don’t mind you own business but mind the business of everybody else. Consequently, nobody’s business is properly attended to. – J.Z., 27.5.12.] The immediate and long-term solution lies in letting each group go its own preferred path undisturbed, at the own risk and expense, i.e., under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy for its volunteers. Numerous mistakes and internal wrongs will go on for a while but within such a system of tolerance for tolerant actions, i.e., actions which do not interfere with the lives and actions of members of other communities of volunteers, even the morality of the presently immoral people will tend to become improved, greatly, sooner or later. Under these conditions any kind of progressive step can be freely tried by those in favour and thus the over-all progress will be maximized. At the same time, any flaws and wrongs will then only have to be suffered by those who were, at the beginning, in their favour and have still to learn the defects of their ideas and notions, their effects upon themselves and upon no one else but like-minded people. That can be very educational and enlightening. – Panarchies and Polyarchies would tend to maximize self-responsibility, if not initially, by choice of their volunteers but in the long run, even among e.g. communists, other statists and charitable people. – This formula is already centuries old and has had a limited practice over many centuries and all over the non-recorded history. Largely by it did men advance, to the extent that it was upheld and used, in every sphere of living. – In general terms it amounts to freedom of contract, freedom of action and freedom to experiment, always at the own risk and expense. – Underlining by me. - J.Z., 5.9.07.  JUSTICE, MORALITY, RELIGION, GOVERNMENT & SOCIAL REFORMERS, SOCIAL ENGINEERING, AVALANCHES OF LEGISLATION & AMERICANISM

LAW: Remember how much kids get away with – regarding the rules laid down by their parents, pupils regarding the rules of their teachers and schools. How many marriage partners are unfaithful while pretending to be faithful? How many patients do strictly follow the rules laid down for them by their doctors? Outlawed drugs find their way even into prisons. – This happens while legalized drugs, like tobacco and alcohol, cause many more health problems and crimes than do the illegal narcotic drugs. Crime has not been stamped out by xyz crimes acts and police, court and prison reforms. So what hope is there for most imposed territorial laws? At the same time, even kids stick largely to the rules of their self-invented games. Self-chosen personal laws systems will find much more law abidance than do territorial laws and regulations. – J.Z., 26.1.09, 25.12.11.

LAW: Resourceful western legal scholars have now introduced the term 'legal realism'. By legal realism, they want to push aside any moral evaluation of affairs. They say, 'Recognize realities; if such and such laws have been established in such and such countries by violence, these laws still must be recognized and respected. ... but morality is always higher than law. This view must never be abandoned...'.” - Solzhenitsyn, Words of Warning to the World, p.26. - Panarchism provides free choice among legal systems and ethical systems and diverse societies, communities and governance systems, all in the same territory or even worldwide. Under it, I feel certain, most lawyers and lawmakers would either price and act themselves out of circulation or out of willing victims, unless they went way down with their "service" offers and "prices". Who needs lawyers if one does no longer live in an unknown jungle of legislation and jurisdiction? Those ethical and moral systems, which do satisfy volunteers, will gain more and more adherents, in spite of and because of their differences. Agreement has only to be achieved upon some basically rightful international relations between these volunteer groups. And for this purpose improved individual rights codes and international arbitration courts, and treaties, all supported by volunteer militias for the protection of claimed individual rights, will, probably, suffice. - J.Z. 15.1.93, 10.12.03, 27.5.12. - I do greatly doubt that the future free people in what was formerly the USA will still need one to two million lawyers. The laws of free societies of volunteers will tend to be fewer, more simple and more just. - J.Z., 16.9.04. - MORALITY, LEGAL REALISM & PERSONAL LAW, LAWYERS

LAW: Sacred laws are no more to be respected than sacred cows. (Except those chosen for themselves by volunteers in their own exterritorially autonomous communities. – J.Z., 31.8.07.) Nor is the power sacrosanct to legislate for others, without their individual consent. Only the power to legislate for oneself and for like-minded volunteers ought to be held sacred, as an essential individual human right and liberty. – J.Z., 15.4.93, 27.5.12. - SACRED LAWS? CONSTITUTIONALISM, GOVERNMENTAL BILLS OF RIGHTS, AS OPPOSED TO PRIVATE ONES OF GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES.

LAW: Since under the institution I have described, each individual “buys” his own law and gets the law he buys, law itself ceases to be a public good." - David Friedman, quoted in “reason”, 3/74, by Eric Mack. – To my knowledge and also via an all too short acquaintance, many years ago, D. F. has not declared himself for full monetary freedom for all kinds of monetary reformers or for fully free choice among competing governments or personal law systems and societies, all offering what they consider to be the “public good” quite competitively but only under exterritorial autonomy. But I would gladly receive evidence to the contrary from him or others of his admirers. He is a great thinker and writer but still under the spell, I believe, of the monetary despotism and territorialist notions of his father, Milton Friedman – and that of most other libertarians, who only envision one and supposedly ideal gold standard currency, a 100 % covered and redemptionist one, and a single territorial and limited government for all people in a territory. – Thus most freedom discussions are rather one-sided and do not include the freedom to be unfree, or alternatives to the supposedly best and ideal systems, according to one’s own individual choice, as advocated by de Puydt in his classical article on Panarchy. - J.Z., 4.9.07. – LAWS BOUGHT OR CHOSEN BY FREE INDIVIDUALS OR DISSENTING MINORITIES, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

LAW: Since when does Law need a legislator?” – SEK 3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.11. – No law should be territorial. It should only be an agreement among volunteers and be applied only among them and against aggressors against members of that community. Aggressors not according to the laws of that communities but only as defined by an ideal code of individual rights and liberties and an international law based upon such a code. – Otherwise, outside people, who give a member what is called “an evil eye”, make a joke about a member or its hero or prophet or set, what they consider to be a bad example, might be classed by them as “aggressors”. - J.Z., 24.1.09. – PERSONAL LAWS, AGGRESSION, INTERNATIONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PANARCHISM & PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE BETWEEN THEM, TOLERANCE, LEGISLATORS. Q.

LAW: So you want to abolish government?” someone asked him. “You want no constitution? Who will maintain order in society? What will you put in place of the state? In place of the police? In place of the great political powers?" - - "Nothing," he answered. "Society is eternal motion; it does not have to be wound up; and it is not necessary to beat time for it. It carries its own pendulum and its ever wound-up spring within it. An organized society needs laws as little as legislators. Laws are to society what cobwebs are to a beehive; they only serve to catch the bees." - Proudhon had recognized the evils of political centralism in all their detail and had proclaimed decentralization and the autonomy of the communes as the need of the hour. …” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p/231. – Alas, Proudhon had not recognized the possibilities of personal law communities that are only exterritorially autonomous. He might also have said that a dangerous fire does not have to be replaced - but to be put out and that a senseless war does not have to be replaced, either, but ended, a.s.a.p. As for governments, constitutions, laws and official judges and police forces, which are wanted by some volunteers, they should be able to get them, according to their standards and at their risk and expense among themselves. Alas, Proudhon did not make that concession to the statists and did not, as an argumentum ad hominem, claim only a “fool’s liberty” for himself and like-minded people. – J.Z., 31.8.07. - GOVERNMENT, ABOLITION, STATE, SOCIETY, ANARCHISM, DIS.

LAW: Socrates conflates rule of law and the institution of government. It is clear that rules delineating rights and obligations are necessary to societal life. But such rules may be accepted as a matter of custom, habit or rational insight. They do not have to be political in the narrow sense of being authorized and imposed by a government.” - William M. Evers, JLS, Sum. 75, p.185. – Laws can be self-chosen or imposed (mostly territorially). The self-chosen law will be better and more often obeyed. Only upon aggressors and criminals with victims will laws and rules have to be imposed and could be quite rightfully. But even they would have a choice – before they became aggressive. They are not forced to commit aggressive or criminal acts. – J.Z., 21.11.82, 5.9.07. - RULE OF LAW, GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL LAW, CUSTOMS, RULES, SOCIETIES, CRIMINALS, AGGRESSION

LAW: Spooner argued that all these (disputes) were the result of too much state legislation; throw out all the established laws, depend on simple natural law, and most litigation could be settled quickly and simply.” – Charles Chively, summing up Spooner’s view, Lysander Spooner’s. Works I/55. – Since there are still some adherents even for the most absurd and wrongful laws, the transition to right, liberty and reason would be much easier to achieve not by a total abolition of all the existing laws for all people, including all the numerous statists - imagine their outcries and protests! -  but by opening the opportunity for initially relatively few dissenting individuals and minorities to opt out of the present messes and run their own affairs independently, much better and cheaper if they can, or even worse, if they can’t, but without interfering with the remaining statist and legal activities of the others. This withdrawal could be a quite peaceful and certainly very tolerant action on the side of those who would opt out. The others cannot rightly declare that they have property rights in these dissenters. – J.Z., 1.9.07.

LAW: Submission to laws given by others should be an individual option not an obligation. Only respect for the genuine individual rights and liberties of others is obligatory. – J.Z., 14.3. 99. – Their tolerantly practised and non-territorial house-rules or community rules should also not be interfered with. However, refugees and secessionists from them should be granted asylum and protection. – J.Z., 27.5.12. - SUBMISSION, OBEDIENCE, OPTIONAL LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS, REFUGEES, ASYLUM, SECESSION

LAW: Such an inflation, too, is possible only when the laws, like paper money, are given legal tender power and when there exists a monopoly for their issue. In other words, then individuals in a territory are not free to refuse them or to discount them and not free to supply themselves with better laws, in their own communities of volunteers, just like they could, under full monetary freedom, supply themselves with better exchange media and stable value standards in their own private or cooperative payment communities. The inflation of laws has already gone so far that most of them are worth only the paper they are printed on. (Except for those , to whom they mean legalized privileges at the expense of other people.) Sooner or later we will recycle all that printed paper or use it only as wall paper or to wrap fried fish in. – J.Z., 21.1.08. - INFLATION OF LAWS

LAW: Such is the motivation underlying the "hygienic" function of the law: namely, to make the social environment as free as possible from victimizing behavior that would reduce the opportunities for productive and pleasurable activity. Men do have a need for predictable certainty that their relationships with other men will be free from acts of trespass, theft, assault, murder, and other forms of violence, and that they can go about their day-to-day functions free from such disorder. The maintenance of "orderly" social relationships is, then, an adjunct of man's basic metaphysical need for an environment providing a "consistent outcome" for his actions.” - BUTLER .D. Shaffer, Violence as a Product of Imposed Order. – Do even the best laws, judges and courts always provide “consistent outcomes?” – Juridical, police protection and defence systems should be a matter of individual choice, too, not only constitutional and legal systems. – J.Z., 6.9.07, 27.5.12. - HYGIENIC FUNCTION, SUPPOSED, WHILE LARGELY IGNORING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THEM; LAW & ORDER, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Such laws, coercively made for others, largely to mostly with quite different convictions, tend to be very different from personal laws that exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers would make for themselves. Even if one prefers a certain law for one’s own affairs that does not entitle anyone to impose it upon non-consenting others. – J.Z., 20.3.98, 29.8.07. The only exception to this rule are aggressors and criminals with victims. They ought, as a rule, to become subjected to the laws of their victims. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – Unless the penalty for some offences is considered to be excessive, by most of mankind. E.g., the boy, who steals some apples, does not deserve to be hanged, shot or decapitated. – J.Z., 27.5.12. - TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Taxation and social regulation provide almost limitless examples of opinion imposed upon men by force, Legislation will never be agreed to, because some will suffer under it. …” - Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.81. – True for territorial laws, untrue for personal laws chosen by volunteers of exterritorialy autonomous communities for themselves. – J.Z. - LeFevre once reprinted de Puydt’s article on panarchy in his RAMPART JOURNAL. But, to my knowledge, he never integrated its message in his political philosophy. – J.Z., 15.10.07. – But then there may exist still unpublished papers of his. – J.Z., 19.1.09. - TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: Tell God the truth, but give the judge money.” – Russian proverb. – Corruption is sometimes the only way for us to somewhat opt out from under unjust and irrational laws. Without territorialism much of the present corruption would be ended. – J.Z., 25.1.09. - JUDGES, JUSTICE & LAWS, CORRUPTION, THE TRUTH

LAW: Territorial governments are quite unsuitable to make and apply laws. Laws against territorial governments are required rather than laws by territorial governments. – J.Z., 13.8.75, 28.8.07.  TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Territorial law does not confront its own lawlessness. – J.Z., 7.12.93. – After hearing an advertisement for the “New Untouchables”: The law confronts the lawless. – Those full of knowledge of natural law, natural rights, individual rights and liberties should come to confront those who are lawless or despotic through all too many wrongful laws. – J.Z., 14.1.08. - LAWLESSNESS, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Territorial law is, largely, a criminal imposition upon all non-criminal (non-aggressive) dissenters. - J.Z., 5.1.97 & 26.6.01. - PERSONAL LAW, DESPOTISM, DISSENTERS, TERRITORIALISM & PANARCHISM, CRIMES WITHOUT VICTIMS

LAW: Territorial laws are a cancerous growths quite wrongfully inflicted upon free individuals and societies. Only personal laws can be quite rightful and just and correspond to individual liberties. – J.Z., 14.3.99, 29. 8. 07. - CANCEROUS GROWTHS, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, BUREAUCRACY

LAW: Territorial laws are a perversion of contracts. Only personal laws do fully correspond to freedom of contract for individuals, even in their societal relations. – J.Z., 4.3.99, 29.8.07. – CONTRACTS, FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, ASSOCIATIONISM

LAW: Territorial laws are something like country-wide and fine-meshed fishing nets, fishing out almost all individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 4.11.92, 27.5.12. - TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: Territorial Laws cannot be reformed. They will always be an evil, like cancer, war and tyranny. However, they can and should be replaced by individually and voluntarily chosen LAW: personal laws. – J.Z., 8.6.93, 12.10.07, 22.1.09, 27.5.12. - AN EVIL, & PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Territorial laws multiply problems rather than solutions. – J.Z., 14.3.99. - Territorial laws mostly create rather than solve problems. - J.Z., 1.1.01.- Only personal laws would systematically and competitively provide attempts to solve the remaining problems of real communities, those of volunteers. – J.Z., 29.8.07. - PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS

LAW: Territorial laws retard progress. Personal laws would stimulate and ensure it. – J.Z., 1.8.94, 29.8.07. - PROGRESS

LAW: Territorial laws try to enforce popular errors and prejudices upon the lives of all the people living in a territory. – J.Z., 14.3.99, 29.8.07. - TERRITORIALISM

LAW: Territorial laws, unfortunately, keep the creative and productive people more in check than the criminals with victims. – J.Z., 4.5.93, 31.8.07. - CRIME & THE CREATIVE & PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE

LAW: Territorially legalized privileges – or private personal laws for all communities of volunteers – all at their own expense? – J.Z., 1.4.73, 26.1.09. - PERSONAL LAW, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION, SECESSION, PRIVILEGES, PANARCHIES, Q.

LAW: That law may be set down as good which is certain in meaning, just in precept, convenient in execution, agreeable to the form of government, and productive of virtue in those that live under it.” - Francis Bacon: De augmentis scientiarum, VIII. 1623. – In short, there is no good law. - J.Z. 19.10.85. - At best such laws could only be passed by the members of voluntary communities for themselves. Laws territorially imposed on peaceful dissenters, i.e. compulsory subjects, can never have this quality. – J.Z., 3.9.07, 27.1.09. - GOOD LAWS?

LAW: The avalanches of territorial legislation tend to turn all of us at least somewhat into State slaves or feudal serfs of a totalitarian State and do not permit any of us to practise the right to opt out. – J.Z., 15.6.91, 28.8.07, 26.5.12. - AVALANCHES OF LEGISLATION, STATE SLAVERY, TOTALITARIANISM, SECESSIONISM

LAW: the basic … attitude towards their law, ‘respectful disrespect’.“ – Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment, Galaxy, May 77. – After all, it is their law and as such it should be tolerated and even respected – for them! – J.Z., 31.8.07. – RESPECT, PERSONAL LAW

LAW: The best government is that in which the law speaks instead of the lawyer.” – M. L. Byrn, The Repository of Wit and Humor, 1852. – What if 100 000 laws all speak at the same time and, moreover, all are largely ambiguous and doubtful? As many laws can also be variously interpreted and twisted by lawyers and other interested parties for their purposes. – J.Z., 16.10.86, 12.7.87, 31.8.07. To each only his own laws, and legal systems, carefully chosen and subscribed to by himself. Then we would soon see some improvements in all legal systems of the various competing communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 31.8.07. – Moreover, most of the legislators are lawyers! – J.Z., 7.9.07. - Free enterprise for competing governments or voluntary governments and for such societies & communities, all without a territorial monopoly! – J.Z., 25.1.09. – The quality of most territorial laws is, probably still below that of most lawyers. – J.Z., 25.12.11. – They are they “excreta” of lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats. – J.Z., 27.5.12. - GOVERNMENT & LAWYERS, PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, COMPETITION, DIS.

LAW: the best laws are those you make for yourself to follow – and a man should be strict with himself.” – Louis L’Amours, Down the Long Hills, quoted in THE CONNECTION 135, p.54. – Among the worst are probably those made by others for you – with their best intentions! – J.Z., 27.1.09. - BEST & WORST ONES

LAW: The best use of good laws is to teach men to trample bad laws under their feet.” - Wendell Phillips, Speech, April 12, 1852. George Seldes, The Great Quotations, p.163. – Good law systems will only come to prevail once individuals become free to secede from bad ones and to join or establish good ones. Otherwise, territorial power-games, corruption, favouritism and majority despotism will continue to territorially prevail. – Those, who are foolish enough to want bad laws for themselves, should be allowed to suffer under them until they become finally enlightened enough to secede from them, too. – The notion that we are already free to stamp on or out all bad laws is a quite false one. In that respect Wendell Phillips was merely an orator and politician, too. – I also doubt that many good laws were ever passed and upheld by territorial politicians. - J.Z., 21.12.10. I cannot think of many. Can your? – J.Z., 27.5.12. - GOOD ONES VS. BAD ONES

LAW: the brute force of law, should be simply retained to hold in check brute force, to protect the individual from the murderer, the thief, and the swindler, to protect him in person and property from injurious acts, done to him in disregard of his consent. Except for such universal and simple purposes of protection, we deny that the brute force of law can ever form a true or moral basis for social relations. We affirm that the brute force of law can never be used to set aside a man's consent as regards his own actions without condemning that man permanently to a lower existence.” – Mack, Auberon Herbert, 408. – But in how many cases does the law, with all its auxiliary institutions, effectively protect individual rights and liberties, out of a 100? I believe that the legally unrestricted practice of all individual rights and liberties and corresponding institutions and processes could provide a faster, more certain and cheaper service. But xyz laws are still in the way of such a development, e.g. those suppressing individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, and ideal militia organizations for the protection of individual liberties and, sometimes, even simpl, effective and armed self-defence - through gun laws that act as victim disarmament laws. – J.Z., 5.9.07, 27.5.12. - FORCE, COERCION, COMPULSION, LAW, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The choice should be between rights and liberties on the one side and imposed territorial laws and jurisdiction on the other. I know my preference and it includes only personal laws of communities of volunteers, going as far as they like to towards the realization of all individual rights and liberties among themselves, or as little. – J.Z., 14.3.99, 29.8.07. - RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

LAW: The common good of all is the supreme law.” – Richard Cumberland: De Legibus naturae, I, 1675? 1672? (cut off!) – There are all too many errors, fallacies and prejudices on what constitutes the “common good” or “the common weal” or “the public interest”. Those in territorial power usually pretend to know what it is and inflict their interpretations upon all, thereby causing much wrong and trouble. “Great” leaders like Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and Idi Amin, etc., also pretended to represent the common good. But they provided only much fertilizer in form of human blood, flesh and bones. - Let each individual and group of volunteers determine their own concept of their kind of “common good” and practise it among themselves, at their own expense and risk. Only then would the real “common good” of all human beings be promoted as fast and certainly, in the long run, as it is possible for human beings to do. – Objectively, most in the common interest would e.g. be an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties. But is there a common interest in developing it, by a sufficient and world-wide electronic collaboration on this job? I haven’t found it yet. Have you? - J.Z., 1.9.07. - SUPREME LAW, COMMON GOOD, THE LAW AS A SUPPOSED IDEAL, PUBLIC GOOD, COMMON INTEREST, COMMONWEALTH, DIS.

LAW: the common people, …when once they have become possessed with the temerity to despise and criticize the beliefs they once held in the utmost reverence, they will shake off, as a tyrannical yoke, the laws or the reverence of ancient usage; resolved henceforth to accept nothing to which they have not applied their judgment and given their special sanction." – Paul Eldridge: “Montaigne”, quoting Montaigne. – If only the people had done so in every revolution, with each group of volunteers of them choosing its own kind of personal law for itself. Instead, they have tried, again and again, to find and impose a uniform and territorial law upon all the people in a country, thus laying the ground-work for the next bloody revolution or for another despotic regime. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - PEOPLE, REVOLUTION, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The constitutional authority or, rather, natural right of opting out of laws and even out of constitutions, is the only way for individuals to get rid of their worst straightjackets. – J.Z., 1.6.73. - STRAIGHTJACKETS, THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO OPT OUT FROM UNDER THEM & FROM THEIR LEGISLATORS & THEIR INSTITUTIONS

LAW: The contemporary legal point of view means the increasing substitution of (territorial! – J.Z.) group decisions - majority rule - for individual choices." - John Chamberlain, THE FREEMAN, 7/72. – Only personal laws and voluntary communities can provide just, peaceful and progress, enlightenment and liberty promoting alternatives. – J.Z., 7.9.07. – He, too, did not distinguish between exterritorially autonomous groups of volunteers and territorial subjects. – J.Z., 20.12.10. - VESTED INTEREST GROUPS, LOBBIES, PRESSURE GROUPS & POLITICIANS, ALL TOO OFTEN PREJUDICED & CORRUPT, AS LEGISLATORS OF “POSITIVE” LAWS

LAW: The conventions of an older generation.” – Hippias – Rightful for them, as long as they are willing to put up with them or even love them. – Wrong if territorially imposed upon others. – J.Z., 29.1.09. - THE CONVENTIONS OF THE OLDER GENERATION & THE PRETENCE OF THE NEWER ONE, DIS.

LAW: the country suffered from its laws, as it had hitherto suffered from its vices. This suggests to me a fuller discussion of the origin of law and of the methods by which we have arrived at the present endless multiplicity and variety of our statutes.” - Tacitus, Complete Works, edited by Moses Hadas, p.115/116. – How many laws would volunteers impose upon themselves? – J.Z., 20.12.10.

LAW: The country would be better served by legislative sessions dedicated to the repeal of superfluous (*) laws, rather than the relentless creation of new ones. Perry E. Gresham, THE FREEMAN, 6/73. - The main wrong and flaw of territorial laws is that they are passed for a whole country or State and all its population instead of only for those volunteers and their communities who do want them for themselves. – (*) and wrong or irrational … – J.Z., 30.8.07, 20.12.10. - REPEAL, REPEALING OLD LAWS RATHER THAN PASSING NEW ONES

LAW: The court trying the Baptist M. I. Brodovsky (at Nikolayev, October 6, 1966) was not too squeamish to use crudely faked documents; when the defendant protested: "This is dishonest of you!” - they barked back at him: "The law will crush you, smash you, destroy you!" - Solzhenitsyn, Gulag 3, 517. – Are the territorial laws and courts of democratic States really the absolute opposites of those of totalitarian States? – J.Z. 5.9.07, 20.12.10. – Q., COURTS OF THE STATE, JUDGES, AT LEAST THOSE OF TOTALITARIAN REGIMES, COURTS OF JUSTICE OR OF INJUSTICE?

LAW: The deepest concern then, as it should be now, was not the sort of law to impose upon citizens, not the sort of order to impose upon citizens, not the sort of privileges and prerogatives to bestow upon government, not the tasks to assign it or the titles to enhance it. The concern was to impose law upon government.” – Karl Hess, The Lawless State, p.7. The only rightful “law” to be imposed upon all territorial governments, which would destroy them as territorial governments and leave only various communities of volunteers, under their particular personal laws or rules, are: natural law, natural rights, genuine individual rights and liberties, which do also include the various rights and liberties on how to do this. – J.Z., 3.9.07. - The other main and opposite approach consists in seceding from it and selecting or establishing for oneself and like-minded people, a personal law community, one that is tolerant towards all other exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers as well as to the remaining statists of a former territorial State, now reduced to lording it over its own volunteers only. – J.Z., 15.1.08. - LAWLESSNESS, GOVERNMENT & STATE, IMPOSED ON GOVERNMENT? THAT HAS OFTEN BEEN TRIED. UNDER TERRITORIALISM IT MUST FAIL, BECAUSE OF ITS POWER & TEMPTATIONS. PERSONAL LAW FOR VOLUNTEERS INSTEAD, UNDER NATURAL RIGHTS & LAW CHOICES, PANARCHISM

LAW: The desire to make men perfect by law and force is strong in mankind, and it is heedless of the lessons of history or even the dictates of common sense and experience. (*) The human raw material of zealotry is always there, waiting to be conjured out of the mass by some religious or political charismatic.” – John Freeman, The Tyranny of Politics, “QUADRANT”, 1/78.? & 6/78. - (*) Thus we should confine it to personal laws applied only in communities of volunteers. The more such different experiments exist, the more educational they will be for their members and observing non-members. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - Now and then a genuine pro-freedom article could and can be found in QUADRANT but mostly only the usual mixed, limited and flawed notions. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - REFORMISM, DIRIGISM, CENTRALIZATION, PERFECTING MAN?

LAW: The end of the law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists. (*) (For who could be free when every other man's humour (**) might domineer over him?) But a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those law as under which he is, and therein not to be the subject of the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.” …” - John Locke, (1632-1704), English Political Philosopher, Second Treatise on Government. – That is mostly only its pretence. Its practice consists, largely, in attacking and diminishing freedom and rights. - At best this is the original good intention. The practice is usually quite otherwise. - J.Z, 24. 11. 06.J.Z., 24. 11. 06. - What percentage of the multitude of laws passed since his times did correspond to this definition of his? – Since we got an abundance of laws we should have by now an abundance of freedom. However, the more laws, the less genuine law we have and the more lawless and disorderly a territorial State becomes. – J.Z., 3.1.07. J.Z., 3.1.08. - The law has not done this. A growing realization of human rights has assured some but not yet recognition and respect for all genuine individual rights and liberties. Where there is law there is no freedom is a much more true statement. – J.Z., 30.1.76, 1.9.07 – The democratic and the republican utopia also led to numerous and severe disappointments. Most legislators were not much wiser than were most kings, emperors and czars. Possibly, even less so. Elected by popular vote, they represent largely only the errors, myths, prejudices and ignorance of the majority. – If they were to rule only over volunteers, that would not be so bad. The more enlightened people – as well as they less enlightened people, could then do their own things for or to themselves. - Wrongful laws are passed in an endless stream. – J.Z., 18.1.09. - The armies of lawyers and legislators and other territorialists have not yet been able to provide an ideal and complete declaration of all individual rights and liberties. But then, the anarchists and libertarians haven’t either. Which seems to indicate that neither of them do take all individual rights and liberties serious enough. Let us end all territorial laws and institutions, by opting out from under them. Let them be continued only among volunteers and at their expense and risk. That will teach them, if they are able at all to learn from their own experience. – How can they hope to protect what they do not even know and haven’t thoroughly explored and then clearly declared? - (*) likes? - (**) He probably meant something like “whim” or “arbitrariness”. J.Z., 26.12.07, 25.1.09. – FREEDOM THROUGH SECESSIONISM & VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS WITHOUT A TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY: PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, HUMAN RIGHTS, DIS., RESTRAINTS & FREEDOM Q.

LAW: The few just laws are almost lost in the jungle or avalanche of unjust ones. We need consumer sovereignty against them, so that we can pick and choose only those that we do really want for ourselves, in our competing and diverse communities of volunteers, just like we pick and choose the contents of our shopping carts for our family and household requirements. Consider the number of goods and services that we do reject for ourselves in each of our shopping trips. Also the number of books and magazines that we do reject when we seek reading matter for ourselves. To each his own choices only, no more, no less. - J.Z., 19.9.07. - JUSTICE

LAW: The flood of laws must be stopped and reversed – before we drown in it. – J.Z., 22. 1. 87. – Through individual secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities or panarchies, we could, so to speak, levitate above it, into our own kinds of secular “heavens” or paradises, however subjective that evaluation of their volunteers might be. – J.Z., 29.1.09. – PANARCHISM VS. THE FLOOD OF LAWS

LAW: The flood of legislation will become selective, optional and optimized only when all laws become applicable only to volunteers and their communities and would thus serve as either attractive or deterrent examples to their practitioners and their outside observers. – J.Z., 19.10.07. (Die Gesetzgebungsflut wird nur dann optimal werden wenn alle Gesetze nur auf Freiwillige und ihre Gemeinschaften angewendet werden und dadurch voll entweder als lehrende oder abschreckende Beispiele dienen koennen.) – J.Z., 16.6.05, - FLOOD OF LAWS TO BE TURNED INTO PERSONAL LAWS FOR VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM

LAW: The function of the Law is not to force morality - a contradiction - but to protect people's rights.” - M. L. Zupan, THE FREEMAN, 8/74. (*) For centuries, it was widely believed that Kings, or the aristocracy would and would do so. Have our democrats and republicans really a very much better record to show? They all operated or still operate on the very wrongful principle of territorial monopolies and coerced “equality” before or, rather, under their laws and haven’t brought freedom, justice and peace to a sufficient degree. On the contrary. Thus all their legitimacy and their actions, systems and institutions should, from now on, be confined to their own kind of volunteers. – Thus we would only get consenting victims, who could only blame themselves if something goes wrong. And then they would still be free to secede. - J.Z., 4.9.07, 27.5.12. – (*) That may have been the intention but is it the practice? How can it be, seeing e.g. that all individual rights and liberties have not yet been sufficiently explored and declared? – J.Z., 25.1.09. – How many of all laws do exactly that and no more, i.e., nothing wrong? – J.Z., 25.12.11. - FUNCTION, GOVERNMENTS, PEOPLE, MORALITY & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, Q.

LAW: The general will was not a dynamis, but the infallible instinct that permits us to evaluate the laws, and to accept as Law only the Just, the True Law. (*) Rousseau's aim was to free man from his bonds by inventing a system that would obstruct and curb legislation. And this was because he felt that the solution of the problem of securing freedom lay exclusively in the supremacy of law, and, furthermore, in a supremacy of law concerned with avoiding the legislative outcome of the Athenian democracy, that is, the primacy of popular sovereignty.” – G. Sartori, Liberty and Law, p.24. - - Only individuals and their voluntary associations can lay claim to sovereignty and that only in the form to exterritorial autonomy regarding their own affairs. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - - (*) I wish all of us had this instinct to a sufficient degree. – But, e.g., in reviewing these quotes and notes I had collected, I found that my first choice was sometimes wrong or all too flawed and had to be rejected or corrected. - J.Z. 5.9.07. - ROUSSEAU’S GENERAL WILL, JUSTICE, DEMOCRACY

LAW: The great jurist and defender of Magna Charta, Sir Edward Coke, is still celebrated somewhat incongruously as a libertarian. Spooner dismissed him “as a judge and as a tyrant”, arguing that Coke was interested in liberty not for the people but for Parliament alone. “As he denied all power to juries to decide upon the obligation of laws, and as he held that the legislative power was ‘so transcendent and absolute as (that) it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds,' " Spooner argued that Coke may have been honest in wanting to keep such "terrific power" out of the King's hands. But his error was in allowing any part of government such power. Governments should be denied "any power at all to pass laws that should be binding upon a jury." (p. 200) (*) That power of sovereignty for which King and Parliament contended was in reality usurpation intended to enslave the people.” - Charles Shively, introduction to Lysander Spooner, “Trial by Jury”, II/6. - - (*) Did he, anywhere, go, quite clearly, as far as to demand, that no territorial governments should be empowered to rule over any community of volunteers that had seceded from that government? Autonomous juries are better than state selected and judge-controlled controlled juries with all too limited powers, but, are even the most free and autonomous juries good enough to keep territorial governments sufficiently in check? I believe many more and still better checks are needed and justified. Individual secessionism and exterritorial group autonomy for volunteer communities, and ideal militia forces for the protection of individual rights and liberties, as well as quite as an ideal declaration of human rights and liberties and quite rightful war and peace aims are among them, many competing justice systems, freely selected by their customers, together with the abolition of the decision-making power of territorial governments on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties and complete abolition of their despotic monetary and currency powers and institutions, also of their compulsory taxes or tributes and conscription laws. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - POWERS, KINGS, PARLIAMENTS, LEGISLATORS & FREE JURIES

LAW: The history of law is the history of civilization …” - John Marschall Gest, The Law and Lawyers of Honoré Balzac. - - Territorial law is, rather, the continuance of barbarism and despotism by other means. Only personal law gives a civilized choice. - J.Z., 12.5.01. - An individualist, anarchist or libertarian choice, as well as any governmentalist choice to the more ignorant and prejudiced. To each his own! – J.Z., 14.1.08, 21.12.10. - CIVILIZATION, HISTORY, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS, STATES, CHOICE, PERSONAL LAW, BARBARISM, DIS., CIVILIZATION

LAW: The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” – John Jay, Joint-author of the Federalist Papers and first U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. - Individuals should be free to ignore laws not only as free jury men but also as individual or group secessionists, who prefer their own personal law system and full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 2.1.08. - LEGALITY & FREE JURIES, IGNORING LAWS, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: the kingdom shall be governed by no other laws than those which the folk and people have made and chosen." – quoted by J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization, London, 1851, reproduced by my in PEACE PLANS 22 on microfiche. All his books are very rare and should be put online. Smith quoted here: Sir Roger Twysden, Certaine Considerations upon the Government of England, p. 83/84. – If only, as early on, the concepts of “folk”, “people” and of “kingdoms” or governance systems had been properly confined as communities of volunteers! – J.Z., 31.8.07, 27.5.12. - SELF-CHOSEN ONES ONLY & THAT SHOULD NOT MEAN BY A TERRITORIAL COLLECTIVE BUT BY VOLUNTEERS & THEIR COMMUNITIES, PERSONAL LAWS RATHER THAN GEOGRAPHICAL ONES, PANARCHISM

LAW: The law does not perfectly comprehend what is noblest and most just for all and therefore cannot enforce what is best. The differences of men and actions, and the endless irregular movements of human things, do not admit of any universal and simple rules. And no art whatsoever can lay down a rule which will last for all time. - - ...The law is always striving to make one — like an obstinate and ignorant tyrant, who will not allow anything to be done contrary to his appointment, or any questions to be asked — not even in sudden changes of circumstances, when something happens to be better than what he commanded for someone ... - - A perfectly simple principle can never be applied to a state of things which is the reverse of simple.” – Plato, Jowett translation, 294 ab, quoted in Milford Q. Sibley, The Obligation to Disobey. – Self-chosen laws and institutions would greatly simplify the job, increase natural harmony within and between communities of volunteers and reduce frictions and clashes between them. We have recognized that in thousands of voluntary associations and activities but not yet in the spheres territorially monopolized and mismanaged by territorial governments and their institutions and laws. – J.Z., 5.9.07. – Will we need another 2500 years to do so? – J.Z., 21.12.10. - TERRITORIAL LAW VS. PERSONAL LAW, Q.

LAW: The law exists to protect man from the folly of his fellow man, not from his own folly.” – Joseph Fulda, Declarative Law, THE FREEMAN, Nov. 85, p. 685. In which country and in which period did this actually ever happen? – J.Z., 4.9.07. – In reality, in most cases, it can do and has done neither to a sufficient extent. – J.Z., 31.7.92, 27.5.12. - But, in spite of its numerous and endless failures, territorial laws and systems persist, because they are upheld by force and financed by tributes levied by such systems, thus creating numerous vested interests, excuses and pretences in their favour. – J.Z., 4.9.07. – This above kind of desirable protection can really be achieved only under the personal laws of panarchies or polyarchies or exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 7.9.07. – Only personal laws would offer protection from the follies of others. – J.Z., 26.1.09. - PROTECTION FROM THE FOLLIES OF OTHERS? Q.

LAW: The law has neither eyes nor hands. The law is nothing, nothing but a piece of paper, until public opinion gives a breath of life to its dead letters.” – Macaulay, retranslated from the following German version: (“Das Gesetz hat keine Augen; das Gesetz hat keine Haende; das Gesetz ist nichts, nichts als ein Stueck Papier, bis die oeffentliche Meinung dem toten Buchstaben den Lebensatem einhaucht.”) – Alas, all too often they are upheld by the ignorance and prejudices embodied in public opinion. The dissenters should become free to opt out from under them, i.e. in peaceful, because personal law revolutions, just doing their own things among themselves, trying to provide better and attractive examples, as they have done in the sphere of religions already for centuries. – This individual secessionism and voluntary associationism has long been taken for granted in many other spheres as well, e.g. in the arts, in natural sciences and technology and has proven itself to be enormously creative and productive if not suppressed by the remaining territorial powers. - J.Z., 21.12.10, 17.5.12. - THEIR IMPOTENCE, PUBLIC OPINION, DEAD LETTERS, JUST A PIECE OF PAPER

LAW: The law has too much to say.” – N. J. Berrill, The Person in the World, p.159. – And too little that is rightful and sensible. – Let each suffer only under the self-given or self-chosen laws! - J.Z., 26.1.09. – Shut up or burn all the others, all the territorial laws. – J.Z., 27.5.12. - MULTITUDE, LENGTH & POWER OF TERRITORIAL LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

LAW: The law in our hands would be much better than the law in the hands of law-makers, policemen, lawyers and judges. – J.Z., 28.5.92. – Especially, once each of us would be free to choose the kind of legal system that he wants for himself, in his kind of voluntary and exterritorially autonomous community. – J.Z., n.d. - LAW, IN OUR INDIVIDUAL HANDS, AS THE PERSONAL LAW OF PANARCHIES OR POLYARCHIES, CHOSEN FOR THEMSELVES BY INDIVIDUALS, OR EVEN ESTABLISHED BY THEM FOR OTHER VOLUNTEERS AS WELL

LAW: The law is a book of prison rules within which the common people live.” – Dagobert D. Runes, Treasury of Thought, p.81. – Territorial nation States are, largely, with regard to all their peaceful dissenters, merely another kind of prisons – covering a whole territory. – J.Z., 26.1.09. PRISON RULES

LAW: The law is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and would be followed even if no law existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority but harmful to the masses of men, and can be enforced on them only by terror.” - P. A. Kropotkin. Paroles d’un révolté, 1884 – Only under individual secessionism and personal law options can individuals freely sort out their kinds of pearls from this kind of mud. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - MESSY MIXTURE OF RIGHT & WRONG

LAW: The law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” – Timothy I, 8, c. 60. – The law does not matter if a man can safely ignore it, whenever it is wrong, which happens all too often. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – How can one rightly use millions of territorial laws that restrict the basic rights and liberties of others? – J.Z., 25.1.09. - GOOD LAWS, GOOD INTENTIONS, RIGHTFULLY PRACTISED? DIS.

LAW: The law is not concerned with trifles.” – (De minimis non curat lex.) - Anonymous Latin Legal Maxim. – “The law is not concerned with trifles.” – Henry Boettinger, Moving Mountains, p.263. - A very long time has passed since that was at least partly true. Now the reverse does rather apply, in most cases. Most of the modern laws deal with trifles, which would be better self-regulated by free individuals. – J.Z., 29.1.79. - The other laws do all too often quite wrongfully interfere with and restrict fundamental rights and liberties out of ignorance, stupidity or in application of popular errors, myths and prejudices. – Whether trivial or quite wrong or wise laws, they should only be applied to volunteers, in their own exterritorially autonomous communities. - J.Z., 28.8.07. - By now most laws and most of their paragraphs are: The product of the "science" of law! - J.Z., 12.10.02. - And in the few cases where they do tackle major problems, then their assumptions, approach, method and their solution are usually wrong. - J.Z., 25.11.02, 26.1.09. – I know of not even a single governmental constitution or bill of rights that recognizes all genuine individual rights and liberties. Do you? – J.Z., 21.12.10. - LEGISLATION, TRIFLES

LAW: The law is not the same at morning and at night.” – George Herbert: Jacula Prudentum, 1651 – - The territorial laws are ill conceived and provoke much opposition. Thus they are often changed. The self-chosen laws of personal law communities of volunteers would tend to last much longer and would only gradually be changed and improved, based upon the own experiences and the experiences observed in other exterritorially autonomous protective communities. – J.Z., .1.9.07. - Different changes (law reforms) go on in all territories at the same time and to different degrees and going into different directions. While that would also be characteristic for panarchies, in panarchies all their changes would be confined to volunteers. Territorial laws and their changes are not only imposed upon minorities or majorities but upon whole populations, containing many and diverse dissenting groups, which, under panarchism, would be free to do their own things for or to themselves. – J.Z., 27.1.09. - EVER CHANGING & MOSTLY WRONG, ALSO LARGELY UNKNOWN, TERRITORIALISM, UNCERTAINTY, ALL TOO OFTEN UNJUST & IRRATIONAL

LAW: The law is the crime it purports to prevent.” – Dagobert D. Runes, A Book of Contemplation, p.78., A Dictionary of Thought, p.124. – Also in his: Treasury of Thought, p.77, and in his: On the Nature of Man, p.58. – Often but not always. Not, e.g., in laws directed against obvious murder cases. – J.Z., 27.1.09. - My version: The law is sometimes to often the crime it purports to prevent. Instances: Drug laws, wage and price controls, the laws of monetary despotism, all tax laws, all emigration and immigration laws. – J.Z., n.d. & 30.8.07. – Yesterday I read in an older Australian newspaper that, once again, we are going to be “protected” from cheaper overseas toilet paper! Our official “protectors” “don’t give a shit” about our individual rights as consumers. – Only the vested interest groups, that pay them bribes, are of interest to them. – We cannot win by trying to successfully resist any of their thousands of legalized interventions with our lives - but only by individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy from them, that is, by confining them to their remaining voluntary customers or victims. - J.Z., 25.1.09. – Just for a laugh, I remember the receipt from a local supermarket, which stated one item as “recycled toilet paper”. Sometimes the legislators are as careless in their wordings. - J.Z., 27.5.12. - CRIMES, PROTECTION, PROTECTIONISM, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM DIS.

LAW: The law is the thoroughly realistic formulation of certain conditions necessary to preserve a community.” – (Das Gesetz, die gruendlich realistische Formulierung gewisser Erhaltungsbedingungen einer Gemeinde.) – Friedrich Nietzsche. - I would rather say that the opposite is true in 90 to 99 % of all laws. – J.Z., 5.7.92. - They produce poor and unfree communities and all too often destroy them. Just think of the tax laws and the laws that make inflations, deflations and mass unemployment possible – and thus open the paths for totalitarian movements. – J.Z., 29.8.07. Genuine communities, those of volunteers only, are not established or preserved but rather prevented by territorial laws, which suppress personal law associations that are only exterritorially autonomous. – J.Z., 26.1.09, 21.12.10. - PRESERVING COMMUNITIES, LIBERTIES & RIGHTS? OR DESTROYING OR SUPPRESSING OR PREVENTING THEM? DIS., PANARCHISM

LAW: The law isn't "the law" (except by territorial coercion), for all members of dissenting minorities, whatever their skin colour, customs, nationality, religion or ideology may be. - J.Z., 22.5.00. – Peaceful individuals should become free to secede from all territorial laws and thus to “vote” against them, as far as their own affairs are concerned. – That kind of individualized “referendum” option should be open to sovereign individuals every day! It could free them as far as they want to be freed. - J.Z., 21.12.10. - TERRITORIALISM VS. PERSONAL LAW AND EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM

LAW: The law itself is on trial in every case as well as the cause before it.” - Justice Harlan F. Stone – This should be the case and would be the case under a free jury system or if there were an institution to veto each law on the grounds of basic individual rights and liberties of if individual dissenters and groups of them were free to secede from them. However, as it is, the formal laws are territorially imposed rather than justice, in most cases. – J.Z., 31.8.07, 21.12.10. - JURY TRIALS & HUMAN RIGHTS

LAW: The law of justice is the one (*) only law that does not violate ‘our liberty’? And that is not a law that was made by the lawmakers. It existed before they were born, and will exist after they are dead. It derives not one particle of its authority from any commands of theirs. It is, therefore, in no sense one of their laws. Only laws of their invention are their laws. And as it is naturally impossible that they can invent any law of their own, that shall not conflict with the law of justice, it is naturally impossible that they can make a law – that is, a law of their own invention – that shall not violate ‘our liberty’.”. - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.26, in Works I. - Not only on e.g. the death penalty and on abortion are there opposite views on justice. All of them, that can be practised only at the expense and risk of their supporters are just at least for all those, who have chosen them for themselves. – (*) and? - J.Z., 15.1.08. – The aborted embryos or their genuine guardians cannot be supporters of pro-abortion laws. However, shall we establish justice in this sphere at the price of a civil war? Thus, until sufficient enlightenment on this question is achieved, let the pro-abortionists as well as the anti-abortionists have their own panarchies! – The day will come when abortions will be generally viewed as we view now child murders and child sacrifices. – J.Z., 25.1.09. - LAWMAKERS & JUSTICE, ABORTIONS, PANARCHISM

LAW: The law of nature is the only law of laws truly and properly to all mankind fundamental; the beginning and the end of all government. - John Milton: The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth, 1660. – With the full realization of natural law and individual rights and liberties, territorial governments would, indeed, be ended. Only societies of volunteers would remain. These would not be obliged but merely advised to respect natural law and individual rights and liberties, at least in the members of all other communities, to the extent that there they are claimed and practised by them. – J.Z., 31.8.07. When will we finally bother to fully and clearly state and publicly declare all the natural laws for human beings who are rational and moral enough to deserve this term? – J.Z., 21.12.10.- NATURAL LAW, NATURAL RIGHTS

LAW: The law should abandon its efforts to restructure the economic and social order and modify behavior of individuals.” – Judge Forer, quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE FREEMAN, June 76, p.354. – Rightfully such efforts could only be undertaken within the personal laws of communities of volunteers, undertaking their kinds of political, economic and social experiments among themselves, at their own risk and expense, i.e. with possible wrongs and damages limited to themselves. – J.Z., 7.9.07, 21.12.10. – The territorial lawmakers were and are certainly not ideal individual human beings, prophets and lawmakers and thus, with their ideas and opinions, “principles”, prejudices and beliefs, could or should not serve as models or directors or dictators for all their territorial subjects! – J.Z., 24.1.09, 21.12.10, 27.5.12. - COERCION, COMPULSION, SOCIAL ENGINEERING, DIS., TERRITORIALISM

LAW: the law should be essentially a free market institution. It may be that with a basis provided by common law and our current understanding of the workings of a free market, we have the means to a better legal/social system than can be provided by a state. Can a free market even exist and last within a legal system centered on legislation?” – Mike McMaster, OPTION, 6/78. – He still seems to have only one legal system and one juridical system in mind, instead of as many as enterprising men or groups are prepared to competitively offer to voluntary and sovereign customers, perhaps in the form of whole package deals, embracing constitutions, laws, juridical, police, penal and all kinds of insurance, credit and welfare services, all corresponding to the ideals of voluntary members. – J.Z., 2.9.07. - FREE MARKET INSTITUTION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, DIS.

LAW: The law should not be something one needs to submit to or to fight but, rather, something one is free to ignore or opt out from - to do or contract one's own things, regarding one's own affairs. - J.Z. 19.1.88. What would then remain would be merely natural law relationships between these secessionists and exterritorially autonomous associationists. - J.Z., 3.4.89. - PERSONAL VS. TERRITORIAL LAW, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM,  SECESSION, INDIVIDUAL, OPTIONAL, FREELY CHOSEN, RATHER THAN TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED

LAW: The law was and is just a chain to imprison the masses.” – Dagobert D. Runes, On the Nature of Man, p.56. – While this is largely true for territorial laws, on personal laws and their communities of volunteers one could say that they unchain and liberate individuals, minorities and even majorities, to the extent that they want to be free or still remain unfree, in accordance with their own personal choices, as “sovereign consumers” of community services. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - CHAINS TO IMPRISON THE MASSES, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS.

LAW: the law-book is not a menu card, from which one picks and chooses whatever one likes best." - Hans Habe, Leben fuer den Journalismus, Bd. 4, S.52. - Indeed, territorial law is not, but why could law and legislation not be thus limited and why should it not be reduced to a mere offer and acceptance or rejection option? Personal law instead of imperialist law, of whatever scale, and be it only that of a local government. Why should peaceful, productive, rational and adult people be forced to abide by the rules of others, even if these are the majority of neighbours? (*) We already pick our own rules and services and contracts and relationships in all other spheres of life. Why not in this one? By what right is anyone else's preferred law imposed upon us, when we have not given our consent to it? Why are we prevented from seceding from it? This remains one of the largely unexamined or insufficiently discussed questions of politics. - J.Z. 6.1.93, 25.1.09, 27.5.12. - - (*) There may be a quite rightful role for neighbours and interested other people to help determine, in an open cooperative way, that fraction of the world's surface which one may rightfully claim as one's exclusive property for living and working. In this way land monopoly claims could be rightfully and peacefully limited. P. Buchez, Theodor Hertzka and Ulrich von Beckerath have developed this concept of "open cooperatives", applicable to other natural resources as well and assuring to each the returns from his own labour and own capital invested in land. - J.Z., 9.12.03. - PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP IN COMMUNITIES, OPEN COOPS, DIS., Q

LAW: The law, as a supposed ideal, differs very much from; “the law” as it is now and mostly territorially practised. Under free choice of governments, societies, legal and juridical systems, all only for voluntary members of diverse communities, would, as such, not do anyone any injustice and would also rapidly promote political, economic and social enlightenment. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - IDEAL LAW REMAINS LARGELY A DREAM, THE REALITY IS MOSTLY TERRITORIALLY DESPOTIC, MONOPOLISTIC & PREJUDICED, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

LAW: The Law, in every case, shall always be declared and administered by the group affected, or of which the individual affected is a member.” - J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization, London, 1851, p.20. – Alas, J. T. Smith came out mostly only in favour of local self-government and free juries and not of voluntary communities under personal laws and exterritorially autonomous. – J.Z., 31.8.07, 21.12.10. - GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, THAT MEANS EXTERRITORIAL & PERSONAL LAW ONES RATHER THAN TERRITORIAL ONES. PANARCHISM

LAW: The lawless science of our law, That codeless myriad of precedent, That wilderness of single instances.” - Alfred Tennyson: Aylmer’s Field, 1864 – Is it truly a science when these scientists seriously and in most instances consider only territorial laws and ignore the personal law options, liberties, rights and choices that should be involved, and which they do mostly legally suppress or remain unaware of? – J.Z., 7.9.07. - SCIENCE OF LAW?

LAW: The laws had force and vigor only when they were not only enacted, but confirmed by the approval of the community.” - Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, II, headed: Weakness of the Royal Authority. – Apparently, here he had only territorial communities in mind. The approval or disapproval of genuine communities, not the accidental ones constituted by local residence, but of volunteers only, would assure much better the approval of these communities, simply by their voluntary membership. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – Territorial laws do not protect genuine communities of volunteers but States with compulsory members or subjects, in which the rulers have usually interests and powers very different from those, whom they rule. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY? HAD TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHIES, DIS.

LAW: The laws of God, the laws of man, // He may keep that will and can; // Not I: let God and man decree // Laws for themselves and not for me; // And if my ways are not as theirs // Let them mind their own affairs. // Their deeds I judge and much condemn, // Yet when did I make laws for them? // Please yourselves, say I, and they // Need only look the other way.” - (A. E. Housman, Last Poems, XII) – GOD, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, MINDING THE OWN BUSINESS.

LAW: The laws of the people are never anything but the mass and the result of the interests of the legislators.” – Marquis de Sade, in Geoffrey Gorer, The Life and Ideas of the Marquis de Sade, p. 109. – From Juliette, IV, p.238. – The territorial lawmakers are, essentially, sadists. Their obedient subjects are, essentially, masochists. – J.Z., 21.12.10. – STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The legal corpus, like university catalogues, needs a thorough wringing out.” – Perry E. Gresham, THE FREEMAN, 6/73. – As soon as individuals can freely opt out from under them this won’t be necessary. Those volunteers, who would remain, loving their whole body of laws, would thereby punish themselves, rather extremely. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - MULTITUDE

LAW: The legalization of privileges and monopolies does not make them right or beneficial for all who are territorially subjected to them. – Let innocent and peaceful people opt out from under them. - J.Z., 5.9.88, 28.1.09. - MONOPOLIES& PRIVILEGES, SECESSIONISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The man for whom the law exists – the man of forms, the conservative – is a tame man.” – Thoreau, Journal, March 20, 1851. – For him, at his stage of development, they are right. But they should not be territorially imposed upon all others. Let people sort themselves out, individually and in like-minded groups, in their own exterritorially autonomous communities, just like they chose their meal from a restaurants menu – and satisfactions will become maximized and arguments minimized. – J.Z., 1.9.07. - MAN, TAME MEN VS. SELF-THINKERS, REFORMERS & REVOLUTIONARIES

LAW: The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws.” - Tacitus, (A.D. 55?-130?) Annals. History, III, c. 100. (*) - Other versions: LAW: The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - OR [I've seen it both ways; - MAC] "[The] more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws." - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D. – There are narrow limits to the corruption that personal laws could cause among their communities of volunteers. Most criticism of laws applies only to territorially imposed laws rather than personally chosen law systems of volunteers.– “The Law”, as a general ideal, was rarely ever and only incompletely realized anywhere, if at all, as far as I know. – I would like to be informed about such rare examples. - J.Z., 5.1.07. – (*) The reverse is also true: The more numerous the laws the more corrupt the State. – J.Z., 7.8.08. - The more laws the more corrupt the State. – J.Z., 27.1.09. - MULTITUDE OF LAWS, STATE & CORRUPTION

LAW: The more you legislate territorially, for whole populations, the more you suppress liberty, rights, justice, security, wealth, progress and natural living, as well as all the conditions required for a just peace through sufficient freedom and competition in all spheres. J.Z., n.d. - LEGISLATION VS. RIGHTS, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, WEALTH, PROGRESS & NATURAL LIVING, MONOPOLISM, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The most dangerous class in any society are those who make and execute the laws.” – Charles O’Connor. – This “law” does only apply to territorial laws and their lawmakers. Personal laws and their makers, in communities of volunteers, are tolerant experimenters and good teachers for themselves and for their fellow members. They will tend to learn fast from their failures and can realize correct reforms successfully, very fast and easily. – J.Z., 30.8.07, 27.1.09. – LAWMAKERS, DIS., TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, capable not only of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting 100 impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.” – Adam Smith, quoted in THE FREEMAN, 3/75.. – Smuggling is still not a good enough substitute for fully Free Trade just like tax evasion is still not a good enough substitute for voluntary taxation or voluntary contributions to freely chosen and competing communities. – Living underground is still no substitute for living quite freely and undisturbed under personal laws. If territorial laws were altogether useless, for the legislators, then they would no longer be passed and, instead, generally repealed. - J.Z., 2.1.08, 21.12.10. - THEIR FOLLY & OBSTRUCTIONS VS. HUMAN SELFISHNESS, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, DIS.

LAW: The natural liberty of men is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” – Locke, On Civil Government, Ch. IV, On Slavery. point 22. - - Alas, In the very next sentence he restricts that liberty to: “The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what the legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it.” – In other words, territorial and legislated feudalism remains, in which he, as its serf, has only one vote among all too many others. – J.Z., 13.9.07. - THE NATURAL LIBERTY OF MAN, LAW OF NATURE, VOTING IN A “COMMONWEALTH”, GIVING NO REAL FREEDOM & INFLUENCE AT ALL.

LAW: The Omnipotent State. Government, gone wild in growth and its powers has gone also above and beyond the law.” – Karl Hess, The Lawless State, p.9. – As if the laws themselves, like e.g., anti-drug laws, anti-gun-laws, conscription laws and tax laws had not already been wrongful and harmful enough. – J.Z., 3.9.07. – The idea of “the law” can be very idealistic but its territorial application is usually wrong and idiotic. “Laws” can also be idealistic but in practice, as territorial laws, the vast majority are quite wrong when applied to peaceful dissenters. – J.Z., 15.1.08. – OMNIPOTENT LAWS, OMNIPOTENT STATE? DIS.

LAW: The only laws that need to be passed are those that protect individual rights against predators (criminals) and enforcement of the Bill of Rights which tells the government what it MAY NOT do.” - Dagny. – As yet there is not a single governmental Bill of Rights in existence that contains all genuine individual rights and liberties. So where is the evidence that territorial governments uphold individual rights, when they have not even bothered to declare all of them? – Even the advocates of supposedly limited but still territorial governments have not yet bothered to provide such a comprehensive and correct declaration! – Can anyone name even a single politician or bureaucrat who knows and recognizes all these rights and liberties? – Did any territorial government ever uphold all these rights or does this still remain only wishful and misinformed “thinking”? Did all of the Founding Fathers of the USA republic recognize e.g. the rights of slaves and of Red Indians? - J.Z., 21.12.10. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, DIS.

LAW: the only objective basis for law, government, etc., is the individual, not the will of the majority, the State, the nation, etc.” - Arthur Ketchen, chairman of the New Hampshire LP, in Loomis, Mildred, ed.: Moving into the Frontlines of Social Change, p.70. - INDIVIDUALISM & CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, MAJORITARIANISM, DEMOCRACY

LAW: the only way to get respect for the law is to wipe out most laws.” - Jethro Lieberman, in: How the Government Breaks the Law. – Only the territorial laws should be wiped out. Personal laws should be left to their voluntary practitioners, applying them to themselves only, however wrongful or senseless they might appear to be - to outsiders. – J.Z., 4.9.07, 29.1.09. - RESPECT FOR THE LAW, DIS.

LAW: The orderly realization of legal provisions can crush as well as protect. Often it would be expression of a higher culture to ignore the law and to break it rather than to obey it.” – Leopold Kohr, Weniger Staat, S.95. – What would happen if all conscription-, tax- legal tender- and monetary monopoly laws of territorial States were habitually ignored and if those ignoring these laws would take all rightful and rational measures to uphold their right to do so? – J.Z., 30.8.07. - CRUSHING LAWS, Q.

LAW: The ordinary self-governing (*) citizen takes no interest in his laws until a policeman or a solicitor informs him that he shall not do something he badly wants to do, and then he writes to the newspapers to suggest further laws which, when enacted, generally make his position still more impossible.” - Sir Ernest Benn, Account Rendered, 113. - (*) What a misleading term this is! – Especially for people not free to secede and organize their own communities of volunteers under personal law. New territorial laws are certainly no cure for the evils of the older territorial laws. – To have only one vote among millions is a farce of “self-government”, usually leading to majority despotism and rule by those, who subscribe to popular errors, myths and prejudices. - J.Z., 30.8.07, 21.12.10. - STATISM, NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, INTERVENTIONISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, VOTING, DEMOCRACY

LAW: The original sin of the world is not contempt for arbitrary laws, but respect for them ...” - Rev. Charles Ferguson quoted in Sprading, Liberty & the Great Libertarians, p.40. – Territorial laws, passed by the majority, against the will of peaceful dissenters, are inherently arbitrary and despotic towards these dissenters. – J.Z., 21.12.10. - ARBITRARY LAWS, THEIR “SIN”, CONTEMPT RATHER THAN RESPECT FOR THEM IS REQUIRED

LAW: The other is expressed in the famous lectures of Austin on Jurisprudence and gives the definition of law as a command set by a person or persons politically sovereign to a person or persons politically subject.” – David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, 1975, page 52. – This definition of the law of territorial States and their “law and order” systems does almost asks for individual secessionism. – My underlining! - J.Z., 8.8.86, 27.1.09. – “The” territorial free vote, one among millions, gives only the illusion of self-government, and a wrongful power, however little, and indirectly and delayed, over the affairs of others, living in the same territory. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - COMMANDS BY THE REAL SOVEREIGNS TO THE SUPPOSEDLY SOVEREIGN TERRITORIAL PEOPLE, THEIR SUBJECTS, VOTING, GENERAL FRANCHISE, DEMOCRACY

LAW: The Price of Liberty. This price which we must pay is the abolition of all special laws for all special groups and interests. (*) Subsidies to businessmen as well as to farmers must stop. Special privileges and preferences for able-bodied veterans must be ended. There must be an end to special laws which exempt labor groups from the consequences of their actions. The special tax privileges for producers and consumer cooperatives must be repealed, or extended to all corporate business. The law which gives tenants special treatment at the expense of home owners must be abolished. - - Whatever the sacrifice, … Then each person will be free to do as he pleases so long as he does not interfere with the right of any other person to do as he pleases. …” - Admiral Ben Moreell, Survival Of The Species, in THE FREEMAN, July 1978, p.419 - - (*) However, among communities of volunteers and only at their own expense and risk, even such freedom restrictions could be continued by the believers in them, until they, too, have finally learnt their lessons and opt out of such communities, individually or in droves. – Moreel had, obviously, only the territorial model in mind for all the people in a country, with all their various views, schemes and aspirations and still strove for what he thought to be and what objectively would be a better solution for all. But it would be more practicable, educational and just let people act out their errors, prejudices and flawed ideas among themselves, among like-minded people and only at their expense. Then most of them would, probably, finally come to adopt views close to those of the Admiral. – But as a former commander he still tended to lay down the law for all, even though it would be a libertarian law. – Actually, only some would have to pay this “price” or to make this “sacrifice”. The rest would benefit by simply copying the successful methods and institutions. - J.Z., 1.9.07, 27.5.12. - SUBSIDIES, PRIVILEGES, MONOPOLIES TO BE ABOLISHED AS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY

LAW: The role of government is to provide a stable environment where man can go about the pursuit of happiness, each in his own way, secure in the knowledge that his government will protect him from fraud, criminals and coercion. Government must provide rules or laws so clear that laymen can interpret them If they are not clear enough send them back to the lawmakers until they are.” - Martin Gant, Queensland, in THE EXPRESS, no date. – Has any territorial government ever fully realized that kind of ideal or dream as yet? - Alas, only free competition among different kinds of governments and societies, all within one, many or all territories – and all without a territorial monopoly and all with voluntary members only - can achieve that ideal – as well as those of other volunteers. Most people have not realized that as yet and have only the territorial model in mind, which rarely, if ever, provided a model State or government. – J.Z., 5.9.07, 24.9.09, 27.5.12. –  GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, Q.

LAW: The rule of law does not guarantee freedom, since general laws as well as personal edicts can be tyrannical. But increasing reliance on the rule of law clearly played a major role in transforming Western society from a world in which the ordinary citizen was literally subject to the arbitrary will of his master to a world in which the ordinary citizen could regard himself as his own master.” – Milton Friedman, An Economist Protests, p.31. Also in NEW YORK TIMES, 1971. Date? – I would deny that it was the rule of law that brought about this change. Government courts and judges rarely fully know and respect natural law and individual rights and liberties. Instead, they do uphold numerous laws against them. Indeed, there are exceptions. But not enough. – Legal training is also run by the State, with results to be expected - J.Z., 1.9.07. – Are we already sovereign individuals and fully masters of our own fate? How could M. F. have remained so wrong and unaware on this? – J.Z., 21.12.10. - RULE OF LAW, FREEDOM VS. TYRANNY, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

LAW: The rule of law was regarded as a safeguard, of individual freedom, because it meant that coercion was permissible only to enforce obedience to general rules of individual conduct equally applicable to all in an unknown number of future instances. Arbitrary oppression — that is coercion without rule by the representatives of the majority — is no better than arbitrary action of any other body.” - Hayek, Whither Democracy, QUADRANT, 11/76. – And rule by the representatives of the majority over others, except aggressors and criminals with victims, is just like any other arbitrary or regulated absolute rule over others. At most it satisfies the opinions or prejudices of the majority, if it does achieve that. – J.Z., 5.9.07. – Under territorial representative democracy the minorities can only protest and become outvoted. They are not free to act and experiment at their own risk and expense. – When and where as “the rule of law” ever protected all genuine individual rights and liberties? - J.Z., 21.12.10. - RULE OF LAW, DIS., MAJORITY DESPOTISM, Q.

LAW: The safest way to make laws respected is to make then respectable." - Bastiat, The Law, 1850. – “The best way to increase respect for the law is to make laws respectable.” - Source? Territorial laws should not become respected but rather despised. Only personal laws deserve respect and will get sufficient respect by their kinds of volunteers in their exterritorially autonomous communities. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - Respect For The Law? To achieve that – first make the law respectable. – J.Z., 16.11.94. – I would have respect for the law if it upheld individual rights but can find no reason to respect it if it restricts or suppresses any individual rights. – J.Z., 16.11.95. – And it does so, all too often, out of ignorance, prejudices or to support vested interests. – J.Z., 30.8.07. – Instance: Tariffs, all other taxes, monetary despotism and immigration restrictions. – J.Z.,29.5.12. - RESPECT FOR THE LAW, DIS.

LAW: The safety of the people is the highest law.” The Twelve Tables, XII, 450 B.C. – How often and how extensively has the safety of the people be endangered or abolished under that slogan, interpreted by the leaders to please themselves? – J.Z., 1.9.07. For instance, protectionist laws, monetary despotism and territorial laws and institutions have led to many wars, revolutions, civil wars and terrorism – and they still do. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE, SECURITY, WELFARE? PUBLIC INTEREST, COMMON INTEREST, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

LAW: The same holds true of abundance. We observe that, when a 'product is plentiful, it sells at a low price; thus, the producer earns less. If all the producers are in this plight, they are all poverty-stricken; hence, it is abundance that ruins society. And, as every person holding a theory seeks to put it into practice, one sees in many countries, the laws of man warring against the abundance of things.” - Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, 165. (Underlining by me. - J.Z.) To my great disappointment, when I read a long history of the Hansa, I found out that this association of merchant towns, mightier than some kings, did not stand up for free competition but tried to monopolize as much as it could. – The unions and associations of professionals and manufacturers of today are not different in this. Immigration restrictions try to monopolize whole countries for their present inhabitants. – As if all of us could really get richer by robbing or depriving each other, rather than by reliance of free production and exchange. – If you want to clearly see the advantage of the freedom path, see the examples of the fall of prices in digital watches, fountain pens, PCs and CDs, scanners and printers, etc. Would we all be better off if they were all still very expensive items? – Even those of the present government services that are still wanted by some, could be offered much better and more cheaply through free competition by volunteers for volunteers. – But this competition is still the most suppressed on of all, so your direct and indirect taxes remain high and all other wanted services still have to foot that high bill as well. – Free trade, free enterprise, free contracts, free markets, laissez faire, laissez passer (Let people produce and exchange freely in every sphere.) and voluntarism in everything. Naturally, the consent of aggressors and criminal with victims is not required. - J.Z., 3.9.07, 29.5.12. - ABUNDANCE & SCARCITY

LAW: The same incompetent people create a multitude of new laws that are created to correct the mistakes of the previous law, that was created to correct the mistakes of the previous law, that was created to correct the mistakes of the previous law, that was ... ad nauseam.” (*) - Jack Anderson & Perry Miles, A Constitution for a Moral Government, 1971, indexed, 192 pages, page 38. – [Just now I got 10,300 Google results in my search for this title. – In the few pages I perused, I did not see a digitized edition indicated. -  J.Z., 29.5.12.] An objectivist project, already forgotten or unknown to most, thus re-issued by me in PEACE PLANS Nr. 1250. – I had tried, in vain, to contact the authors. – J.Z., 29.8.07. – Constitutionalists do not take themselves serious enough when they do not keep in print [on microfilm, on disc or online – J.Z., 27.5.12] and continue to discuss such alternative drafts. I for one favour all of them – but all for their own volunteers only. – J.Z., 15.1.08. - (*) Ad nauseatum? - My bits of Latin leave very much to be desired. - J.Z. ) - LAWMAKERS & THEIR FLAWS, INCOMPETENCE EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE THE BEST INTENTIONS, PANARCHISM, CONSTITUTIONS, LEGISLATION, POLITICAL MEASURES & REFORMS, GOVERNMENT ACTIONS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: The same people that make all too many laws do break some laws every day and be it only out of ignorance of the unknowable mass of them. Adhere to and follow only your own and self-chosen laws, personal laws only, the laws in your exterritorially quite autonomous community of volunteers. – J.Z., 20.4.98, 21.11.07. - LAWMAKERS VS. PERSONAL LAWS, LAW ABIDANCE

LAW: The sheer impertinence of any human beings or group of human beings to try to lay down the law for all others living in a territory. – J.Z., 13.7.82, 30.8.07. – It is quite another matter to attempt to draft the few and much better laws which a community of like-minded volunteers would want for itself, and which would still have to get, ultimately, the consent of every one of the voluntary members. The dissenters , unable to persuade the others, fast enough, would then simply tend to secede from such a community. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - IMPERTINENCE, HAUGHTINESS, UNWARRANTED PRIDE, OVERBEARING POWER & AUTHORITY

LAW: The sober second thought of the people shall be law.” – Fisher Ames, Speech in Congress, 1788. – Even the best laws should not be territorially imposed upon all inhabitants of a country – criminals and aggressors excepted. Let fools suffer under their own mistakes and wise men almost immediately benefit from their wisdom, by adopting personal laws. – “The people” should only be self-selected and like-minded volunteers. Their laws should only be personal laws, not territorial ones. If that is the case, then every foolishness that comes into their minds could be practised among them and would wrong and harm only these experimenters or utopians or idealists. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – “The people” is an abstract notion, not a living entity of specific characteristic. As such it does not exist and certainly cannot think. Closest to the reality of “a people” can only come communities and societies of volunteers. And these should be, largely, independent from their geographical location, just as the customers of various producers and suppliers are, the members of churches and sports clubs and the members of hundreds of international organizations. – They are held together, by individual choices and decisions, through common ideas, opinions, creeds, hobbies, commitments etc. and thus can come as close to an “entity” as diverse human beings can come and as they do come and organize themselves in various enterprises, businesses, factories. – Voluntary entry and exit keeps them as “pure” und unified as is possible for human beings. - J.Z., 27.1.09. DIRECT DEMOCRACY, REFERENDUM, THE PEOPLE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNITIES, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The State calls its own violence, law; but that of the individual, crime.” - Max Stirner, "The Ego and His Own" (1845). – Quoted in George Seldes, The Great Quotations. – How do all the crimes committed by territorial governments and their official gangsters compare with all the crimes undertaken by private criminals and their crime syndicates? Have such figures been sufficiently assembled and published, for each year for the past few hundred years, for as long as we have crime and war statistics? – J.Z., 4.1.08. - STATES, GOVERNMENTS, WARS, STATISM, LEGALIZED CRIMES, STATE, DICTATORSHIPS & VIOLENCE, Q., COERCION, COMPULSION ALSO TOWARDS INNOCENTS, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The statute book is a book of laws by which one class of people can safely trespass upon the rights of another" – Albert Parsons, quoted in Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, 231. (Reichert continued to sum up Parson’s anti-capitalist mentality, prejudices and misjudgements, which Reichert may have, partly shared and which are still the sentiments of most European anarchists and libertarians. – J.Z., 6.9.07. – However, if laws are passed and realized tolerantly, i.e. only among their volunteers, their practice would be right for them. – J.Z., 29.1.09, 21.12.10. - TRESPASSING UPON GENUINE RIGHTS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, ANARCHISM, PERSONAL

LAW: The territorial law no longer respects, nor reflects the will of the people. – J.Z., 10/07. – “The people” is an unjustified and unrealistic generalization. Territorial laws never did nor ever could reflect the will of all the diverse and peaceful people living in a territory. – J.Z., 24.1.09. – TERRITORIALISM, LAWS VS. PEOPLE. ONLY PERSONAL LAWS WOULD RESPECT THEIR KINDS OF PEOPLE

LAW: The United States is a nation of laws, badly written and randomly enforced.” – Frank Zappa, quoted in: Claire Wolfe, Don’t Shoot the Bastards (YET), II, p.194 – Bad laws should not be passed at all but if they are, then they should not be enforced at all and rather repealed, ignored or broken or seceded from- J.Z., 19.1.09. - I deny that the USA or any other territorial State constitutes a nation or its population a single “people”. – But based upon such vast misconceptions it is easy to arrive at bills for the whole “nation” or “people”. - J.Z., 26.1.09. – LEGISLATION, PEOPLES, NATIONS, BILLS, TERRITORIALISM

LAW: The universal law of supply and demand is superior to any law which can be enacted by Congress or any other power on earth.” – The president of the New England Granite Works, in 1880, quoted in SATURDAY REVIEW, 10.7.76. – The law of supply and demand should also be applied to all kinds of laws, jurisdictions and governmental or other societal services. – Territorialism is not a good enough substitute for this. – J.Z., 21.12.10. - LAW OF SUPPLY & DEMAND

LAW: The wise knows that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting.” – Emerson, quoted in Sprading, p.143. – If only that were quite true, e.g. for all protectionist laws, for all the laws of monetary despotism, for all legal immigration restrictions, for laws establishing and protectionism and, generally, for all the laws of territorialism. Without the territorialist monopoly of States, they would all be as insignificant or trivial as chains made of wet sand and thus could be shaken off very easily, rapidly and safely. Proverbial wisdom is not always informed and wise enough. It should be continuously corrected whenever some of its flaws are seen. – J.Z., 31.8.07, 16.1.08. - FOOLISH LEGISLATION, DIS.

LAW: The words law and lawful have often served to destroy the substance or rightful practice of liberties and rights. Lawmakers imagine that they are above them. They ought to become completely subjected to them, at least partly while the territorial States are continued. – Completely this could be done only once all territorial States are abolished. In the meantime, every citizen should have an effective veto rights against laws infringing basic rights and liberties – as long as he is a compulsory member in a territorial State. As soon as he gets his right realized - to secede from a State and to establish or join an exterritorially autonomous community of volunteers, - he could and would take his veto, his vote, his rights and liberties, his body, life and fate, business, property and personal preferences into a community of like-minded volunteers doing its own things among its members under personal law. When many other dissenters would do likewise, merely just another community of volunteers would be left of the former territorial State. – The law-makers of such panarchies or competing societies, polyarchies, multi-archies or personal law communities would become quite dependent upon their sovereign customers and members. - J.Z., 15.11.85, 29.8.07, 27.5.12. – LIBERTY, VETO RIGHT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: The world is shocked, or amused, by the sight of saintly old people hindering in the name of morality the removal of obvious brutalities from a legal system.” – Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures in Ideas (1933), p.20. – Saintly? He was not adventurous enough in his ideas to consider the possibility of letting such old or other people, who are in favour of the existing laws, retain them for themselves, while allowing all other people to adopt, for themselves only the personal laws that they would prefer. Most other reformers are likewise tradition-bound in their thinking, also unaware of the best traditions and so adopt or continue with too many of the popular errors, myths and prejudices. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 21.12.10. - RULES OF OLD MEN IN POWER, PRACTISING THEIR PREJUDICES OR VESTED INTEREST, IN ALL TOO MANY CASES, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE

LAW: There exists a vast literature on morality or ethics. But it seems those writings, which make the distinction between territorial laws and personal law are still all too rare. - Please point out to me any such titles that are not yet listed here. - J.Z., 1.9.04. 16.9.04, 26.1.09. - TERRITORIAL VS. PERSONAL LAW OR SELF-CHOSEN LAWS VS. TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAWS

LAW: There have been no two occurrences, which were precisely alike during all the cycling periods of time. No action, transaction, or set of circumstances whatsoever corresponded precisely to any other action, transaction, or set of circumstances. Had I a precise knowledge of all the occurrences which have ever taken place up to this hour, it would not suffice to enable me to make a law which would be applicable in all respects to the very next occurrence which shall take place, nor to any one of the infinite millions of events which shall hereafter occur,. This diversity reigns throughout every kingdom of nature, and mocks at all human attempts to make laws, or constitutions, or regulations, or governmental institutions of any sort, which shall work justly and harmoniously amidst the unforeseen contingencies of the future.” - S. P. Andrews, The Science of Society, p.9. – Only personal law systems, individually chosen by volunteers for themselves, can come somewhat close to realizing their common ideals among themselves. – J.Z., 21.12.10. - DIVERSITY VS. LAWMAKING, TERRITORIAL, FOR ALL INHABITANTS, TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: There is a place for a party that says: no law is the best law.” – Carol Polsgrove, in the Jan. 78 PROGRESSIVE, quoted in LIBERTARIAN REVIEW, 3/79. - I for one would prefer a party that would aim at allowing all parties full exterritorial autonomy for all their members and followers under their own personal laws. What more could they rightly ask for? The right to rule all the members and followers of all the other parties as well? On what rightful basis? – J.Z., 5.9.07, 25.1.09. - PARTIES, ANARCHY, PANARCHY, POLYARCHY, Q.

LAW: There is no moral obligation for any of us to obey immoral or unconstitutional laws. But if you’re caught, be prepared to pay the price.” - Walter E. Williams, Do the Right Thing, Hoover Institution Press, 1995, p.79. – Is it a price, a free market price, established by free competition? – Or a further tyrannical act? – J.Z., 5.10.07. – Whenever any territorial laws are foreign or alien to us, we should be able to claim diplomatic immunity towards them, as far as our own affairs are concerned. – J.Z., 21.12.10. – DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY, MORALITY, DISOBEDIENCE

LAW: There ought to be no laws except those which free people, acting individually, have given themselves or individually consented to, in their own protective communities of volunteers, all of them exterritorially quite autonomous. – J.Z., 14.3.99, 29.8.07. - PERSONAL VS. TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: These rules must thus apply in circumstances which nobody can foresee and must therefore be designed to cover a maximum number of future instances. This determines what is commonly but not very helpfully described as their 'abstract' character, by which is meant that they are intended to apply in the same manner to all situations in which certain generic factors are present end not only to particular designated persons, groups, places, times, etc. They do not prescribe to the individuals specific tasks or ends of their actions, but aim at making it possible for them so mutually to adjust their plans that each will have a good chance of achieving his aims. The delimitation of the personal domains which achieve this purpose is of course determined chiefly by the law of property, contract, and torts, and the penal law, which protect 'life, liberty and property’.” – F. A. Hayek, Economic Freedom and Representative Government, p.16. – Obviously, he had only the exclusive and territorially imposed laws of limited governments in mind, not the various other choices that communities of volunteers would make for themselves under full exterritorial autonomy. We should, individually and in groups, opt out or withdraw from such definitions, and their practice, even though they are much better than the usual territorial and statist ones. Instead, we should build up, first only in our minds, alternative free and unfree societies, all chosen by volunteers for themselves, and the kind of peaceful, rightful and liberty-promoting conditions and principles or international laws that should come to exist between them, mainly based on individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they are claimed for themselves by the various groups of believers or more or less enlightened people. – J.Z., 3.9.07. - IDEAL LAWS FOR ALL, AT ALL TIMES & UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, & FOR WHOLE TERRITORIES, ARE SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE

LAW: They attempt the impossible, practise the unjust and promote war, violent revolutions, civil wars and terrorism, while outlawing the just, peaceful and liberating options for individuals, minorities and the majority. - J.Z., 2.10.01, 31.1.02. - -& GOVERNMENTS UNDER TERRITORIALISM

LAW: They begin, by showing contempt for the law. Then they pass to contempt for the magistrate. They end by proving their contempt for the King himself.” – Harold J. Laski, quoting a Venetian ambassador. – - I like only the parts that I underlined. – Begin by showing contempt for their laws, their bureaucrats, politicians and ministers. - J.Z., 30.10.93. – When that contempt is wide-spread enough then individual and group secessions from them will be seen as obvious rights and liberties. – J.Z., 1.12.07. - CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW

LAW: They should not be imposed upon any peaceful individual who would rather opt out than obey them and, if free to do so, would. J.Z., 6.9.89 & 29.8.07, 21.12.10. All laws and regulations only for their own volunteers – and as long as they want to put up with them! – J.Z., 29.8.07. - REGULATIONS BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE

LAW: This law consists essentially of what used to be known as “lawyer's law” - which is and can be applied by courts of justice and to which the agencies of government are as much subject as are private persons. Since this judge-made law arises out of the settlement of disputes, it relates solely to the relations of acting persons towards one another and does not control an individual's actions which do not affect others. It defines the protected domains of each person with which others are prohibited from interfering. The aim is to prevent conflicts between people who do not act under central direction but on their own initiative, pursuing their own ends on the basis of their own knowledge. - - These rules must thus apply in circumstances which nobody can foresee and must therefore be designed to cover a maximum number of future instances. This determines what is commonly but not very helpfully described as their ‘abstract’ character, by which is meant that they are intended to apply in the same manner to all situations in which certain generic factors are present and not only to particular designated persons, groups, places, times etc. They do not prescribe to the individuals specific tasks or ends of their actions, but aim at making it possible for them so mutually adjust their plans that each will have a good chance of achieving his aims.” – F. A. Hayek, Economic Freedom & Representative Government, p.16. – If Hayek were right on this, then judges and lawyers should, by now, have developed between them an ideal declaration of the principles of individual rights and liberties. Alas, they have not and have often shown quite insufficient knowledge and respect for these rights and liberties, and rather adhered to the “positive” laws of the State, which they were trained by the State to value and apply. – And what happens, when the legislators, lawyers, courts and judges possess a territorial monopoly? All too often injustice rather than justice. – Thus also free choice of juridical systems for all but aggressors and criminals with victims. - J.Z., 2.9.07, 21.12.10. - LAWYER’S LAW, JUDGE-MADE LAW, COMMON LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, NATURAL RIGHTS

LAW: This science of justice, or natural law, is the only science that tells us what are, and what are not, each man's natural, inherent, inalienable, individual rights, as against any and all other men. And to say that any, or all, other men may rightfully compel him to obey any or all such other laws as they may see fit to make, is to say that he has no rights of his own, but is their subject, their property, and their slave.” – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.4. - NATURAL LAW, JUSTICE & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

LAW: Though the pacifist will protest mightily, I submit that under certain conditions there is no alternative but to break laws and be aggressive in the defence of better social ways against worse ones. I propose the legitimacy of illegality only in extreme cases, however, and only as a last resort against regression into increasing authoritarianism.” – Silvert, Man’s Power, p.93. - Alas, the possibility of different personal laws and institutions, for different groups of volunteers, is not taken into consideration here, either. The need for territorial uniformity is wrong assumed. – J.Z., 31.8.07. – People would have less motives or excuses for breaking laws that they have chosen for themselves, as members of a particular personal law community. – J.Z., 15.1.08. - LAW-BREAKING, THE LEGITIMACY OF ILLEGALITY IN EXTREME CASES, AS LAST RESORT AGAINST AUTHORITARIANISM, PACIFISM, AGGRESSION & DEFENCE, DIS.

LAW: to a way of looking at society, which makes the replacement of law by liberty a condition of reaching the higher stages of social development." - John Morley, On Compromise, p.250. - Replace uniform and territorial law, imposed also upon dissenters, by personal and individually chosen laws, via individual secessionism and associationism on the basis of exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 6.1.93, 27.5.12. – LIBERTY, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM

LAW: To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.” - Elizabeth Cady Stanton. - If only that were true already, for most people. Most laws are certainly contemptible and to respect them rather than ignore or abolish them, is contemptible as well. - Consider also how long it took to abolish or at least rouse considerable resistance against legalized slavery and serfdom, legalized prohibition and anti-drug wars, protectionism, the Welfare State, territorialism, monetary despotism etc., etc. - J.Z., 11.2.02. - There is no shortage of outrageous laws and, nevertheless, they have not yet brought all laws into contempt. The freedom to opt out from under bad laws and their institutions and legislators must be added. That requires exterritorial autonomy or full experimental freedom for communities and societies or competing governments of volunteers. Territorialist constitutions and bills of rights of governments have so far excluded these rightful freedom opportunities. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – LEGISLATION, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM,

LAW: To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damage the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.” – Author? Virtue in Breaking the Law, page 305. - One should at least distinguish between compulsory segregation and voluntary segregation, compulsory integration and country integration. The volunteers of exterritorially autonomous communities would make their own and different choices. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - MORAL LAW, UNJUST LAW, HUMAN LAW, NATURAL LAW

LAW: To take the law into one's own hands, a term first used in the 17th century, according to Hyman, Quotations, p.279. - Still mainly used in a derogatory sense, rather than as an appreciation of Personal Laws and of the right to resist any suppression of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - TAKING IT INTO ONES OWN HANDS, OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE TERRITORIAL LAWMAKERS!

LAW: To the end of his brilliant career as a trial lawyer, Darrow continued to maintain that law is actually a hindrance in the path of justice rather than the means to attain it, and that the true order that society might effect in the absence of a rigid, unyielding legal system must wait until people learn to live without law and constituted government.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.356. - - They have only to learn to live as volunteers under their own personal laws, freely chosen by themselves in exterritorially autonomous communities and without the uniform and imposed territorial laws of territorial governments. That should not be too difficult, since they can thus rapidly escape the burdens of statute laws and taxes of territorial governments, to the extent that they do not like them for themselves. – Potentially an enormous incentive! - However, they do have some relearning ahead of them and must give up some of their beloved prejudices. Some find that very hard to do, others would find it enlightening and liberating. - J.Z., 6.9.07, 25.1.09. - HINDRANCE TO JUSTICE, PERSONAL LAWS & PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: To the extent that crimes are real crimes, with victims, I am in favour of their outlawry and punishment, and penalties for them, also for imposing rehabilitation and punishment costs upon the convicted offenders. To the extent that “crimes” are merely “crimes” against wrongful laws, I am in favour of ignoring or breaking such “positive” laws. – J.Z., 17.5.05. – When the laws themselves constitute crimes against individual rights and liberties, then it is not only no moral crime to ignore or break them but, rather, a moral duty. – I know, the legislators should not have passed such laws in the first place and courts should not recognize them as valid laws, but then they do pass them and do recognize the passed laws, almost habitually. – They try to regulate the economy without economic knowledge and of natural human behaviour, without ethics, morality or appreciation of individual rights and liberties! Do not forgive them such offences! - J.Z., 19.1.09. - LEGAL PROHIBITIONS, OUTLAWRY, CRIMES, PARLIAMENTS, COURTS, REGULATIONS, INTERVENTIONISM

LAW: To the extent that law is territorially imposed rather than personally chosen for oneself, it amounts to a dictatorial edict contrary to many natural rights and liberties and genuine individual human rights. – J.Z., 6.10.99, 29.8.07. – TERRITORIALISM, COERCIVELY IMPOSED & MAINTAINED

LAW: To the extent that most of the current crop of laws can be safely ignored - individuals and the public benefit. – J.Z., 5.8.91. - IGNORING THEM & PUBLIC WELFARE

LAW: To the shame of mankind (*), it is well known that the laws which govern our games are the only ones which are completely just, clear, inviolable and enforced.” – Voltaire – (*) Why should that be considered shameful rather than quite natural. When people play their own games, voluntarily chosen, they do naturally pay more attention to their own and self-given or self-adopted rules than when they are forced to play the expensive and bloody as well as repressive and usually not enjoyable political power game of others, much against their own will and interests. Why should they uphold such rules and laws? (*) – They would uphold the personal laws of their self-chosen panarchies or polyarchies but why the laws and games of the empires of territorial politicians and bureaucrats, played are the risk and expense of the subjects of these power addicts? – J.Z., 31.8.07. - - (*) It is shameful for them only when do uphold and obey territorial laws that are imposed upon them without their individual consent to them. – At present neither mankind nor whole populations are involved in making and repealing most territorial laws. No more so is it they who invent or make rules for all kinds of games voluntarily engaged in by some. Only territorialism would allow them to do that – and it remains largely unquestioned. - J.Z., 16.1.08, 27.1.09, 21.12.10. - GAMES RULES COMPARED TO TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: Too many matters have been regulated by laws, which nature, long custom and general consent ought only to have governed.” - William Petty - Political Arithmetic, preface, ca. 1677 – Which only nature …? General consent is a fiction that will, perhaps or most likely, be never realized on anything, least of all territorially. We might come closest with an almost ideal but never quite complete declaration of individual rights and liberties, precisely because it would offer so much scope for diversity, to the extent that it can be tolerantly practised. But groups of volunteers can, at least temporarily agree on something, as is demonstrated every hour in most human activities. Let voluntary communities under their own personal laws do their own things. Each group, society and community minding its own business only, instead of meddling with the affairs of others, as is the practice of territorial politics. Let dissenters opt out of all territorial States, thereby turning these territorial monsters, likewise, into mere exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. That would be in accordance with natural law, really shared and believed-in customs and truly express consent, but as varied a consent as e.g. sportsmen, readers, publishers, music lovers, tourists, sovereign consumers daily express in their diverse choices for themselves and sellers in their diverse sales. A free market for all kinds of legal or customary systems and institutions and contracted-for constitutions and juridical and other services! Either all service institutions split up, like the various enterprises in free markets, or combine somewhat to offer various package deals, like some corporations and insurance companies already do. Without any enforced compliance (except towards aggressors and criminals) variety would become the spice of life - in public life as well. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 21.12.10, 27.5.12. - OVERREGULATION CONTRARY TO NATURAL LAWS, NATURAL RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

LAW: TURN IT FROM COMMANDS INTO CONTRACTS OR FREELY & INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN LAWS OR LEGAL SYSTEMS: "Law as a command set by a person or persons politically sovereign to a person or persons politically subject." - Austin's famous lectures on Jurisprudence, according to David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, page 52. - This applies only to territorial law, not to exterritorial or personal law. - J.Z. 29.2.88. - The latter becomes, in practice, an individually chosen law, when practised within volunteer communities. Within such communities formally compulsory membership fees or taxes do also, through the voluntary membership, become voluntary taxation. - J.Z. 2.4.89. - CONTRACTARIANISM

LAW: Tyranny begins and ends with laws. – J.Z., 3.7.82. – After reading: “Where law ends, tyranny begins.” – William Pitt, speech, 9.1.1770. - The heavy burden of its own laws does, finally, however belatedly, lead to the collapse of the seemingly strongest tyrannies or dictatorships. – E.g., the Soviet Union, with its all too hampered economy, could no longer afford its huge military armament expenses. - J.Z., 30.8.07. – Only territorially imposed laws must be ended. Laws for volunteers or personal laws must become permitted. – J.Z., 29.1.09. – FROM TYRANNY TO PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

LAW: Under territorial laws there will, inevitably, be numerous disagreements on property rights and obligations. Under personal laws all the different views on the subject can be practised among their volunteers, thus greatly reducing dissent, strife, legalized robberies and violence. There will only be voluntary victims of foolish or prejudiced laws on any subject and the wise or enlightened could then benefit, undisturbed, from their property rights, beginning with self-ownership and the right to the full product, market-evaluated, of the value of their own labour or service output. – To each ideologue his kind of law, ideological government or society or utopia, as long as he can stand it! - J.Z., 5.9.07, 21.12.10. - PERSONAL VS. TERRITORIAL LAWS

LAW: Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom.” - Ayn Rand. - The ignoring of laws, the individual and group secessions from them and any territorial government amount to an ideology which she had either ignored or tried to put down, e.g. when she attacked what she perceived as an absurdity: "competing governments". (In her book “The Virtue of selfishness”.) She could grasp only the reality of territorial governments and fully free competition between them is impossible, because they are not genuine entities. Each, coercively, embraces many dissenters. - J.Z., 22.8.02. - Since most laws are already and quite inevitably ignored, due to their sheer multitude, with no one knowing all the territorial laws, why not formally recognize the right of individuals and of minorities to ignore them or even to opt out from territorial subject-citizenship, voting, representation, law-making and governing institutions and to establish genuine self-governments for themselves – but without any territorial monopoly and only for their own volunteers? – Who would then opt for a competing government or free society with hundred-thousands of laws and regulations? – J.Z., 26.12.07, 27.5.12. – RESISTANCE, LIBERATION, IDEOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM ENLIGHTENMENT, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO SECEDE, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES AT THE OWN RISK & EXPENSE

LAW: Unlike Rousseau, however, Proudhon rejects the definition of freedom as the capacity to obey self-imposed laws. If there must be legislation, Proudhon argues cogently, I should be my own legislator; and if I am, there is not need to make laws for myself.” - Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.247. – I can bind myself, by contract, for mutual benefit, with other but like-minded volunteers. – That is then my law. – J.Z., n.d. - There is no contradiction if one takes “personal laws” into consideration, of exterritorially autonomous communities, freely chosen by individuals for themselves. – J.Z., 1.12.07.

LAW: Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money.” - Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, II, 1651. – The subjective value theory should be applied, by free individuals, on what laws and legal institutions are good ones for them, while still respecting the different preferences of others. – Only territorial laws are quite unnecessary and wrongful. Only personal laws can be necessary for at least some and quite rightful. - J.Z., 1.9.07, 27.5.12. - UNNECESSARY ONES

LAW: Uphold the moral laws (individual rights and liberties and natural law) and ignore the man-made laws, to the extent that they are in conflict with these natural laws. Do so as far as you can and as often as you can. – J.Z., 14.4.95, 15.1.08. - MORAL LAW & NATURAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

LAW: Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” – Montesquieu. - Why assume that any laws are really necessary? - Which ones are? – J.Z., 5.1.08. – Which laws are really rightful, useful or necessary? – J.Z., 16.1.08. Under that assumption avalanches of laws will be produced, restricting our basic rights and liberties. Only these rights and liberties are necessary and they are not created or supported by most laws and exist quite independently of all legislation, by their very nature and the very nature of man. Laws restrict rights and liberties and to that extent they are quite wrong and should become repealed or ignored or one should become free to secede from them. - Let only the volunteers of self-chosen personal law communities suffer under them. They deserve this treatment by themselves, until they or learn their lessons, by their own practical experience. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06, 27.5.12. – Under panarchism, indeed, a multitude of different laws might be passed, at least initially. But all the different sets of laws of different panarchies would be only the personal laws for each panarchy and invalid for all others, except for the one point, that these legal preferences of volunteers should not be interfered with, among themselves, by outsiders. In the long run, competition between them and internal dissatisfaction with self-chosen personal laws, would decrease their multitude and leave only the better and still wanted ones. – J.Z., 19.1.09. - VS. RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PANARCHISM – Q.

LAW: Volenti non fit injuria, is a maxim of the law. (*) To the willing no injury is done. That is, no legal wrong. And every person who is sane, compos mentis, capable of exercising reasonable discretion in judging of the truth or falsehood of the representations or persuasions to which he yields his assent, is " willing," in the view of the law; and takes upon himself the entire responsibility for his acts, when no intentional fraud has been practiced upon him.” – Lysander Spooner, Vices Are No Crimes, 131. - - (*) Alas, at least here he does not indicate that this would also apply to communities of volunteers, who had opted out of territorial laws in order to do their own things to or for themselves, at their own risk and expense. Territorialists still suppress that freedom and allow people only to do some harm to themselves of gain some profits or earnings in in private contract relationships, usually still heavily taxed and regulated, 27.5.12. – J.Z., 5.9.07. – PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE FOR TOLERANT ACTIONS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHY, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: Voltaire, for instance, expressed the whole spirit of the French Enlightenment when in the article on 'Law' in the great Encyclopedia he wrote: 'if you want good laws, burn those you have and make yourselves new ones.’ “ - Anthony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, p.176. – Laws good in your own eyes and applying only to yourself and like-minded people. But Voltaire had, probably, still only territorial laws in mind and not personal laws. This exterritorialist alternative lies factually, philosophically and even historically so close and yet is still so far from the minds of most people. – Underlining by me. - J.Z., 1.9.07. - GOOD ONES, BY YOUR STANDARD, MAKE THEM YOURSELF OR CHOOSE THEM FOR YOURSELF & LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE

LAW: We are always saying: “Let the law take its course”, but what we mean is: “Let the law take our course.” – Will Rogers, Autobiography, p.369. – Rather: Let us course in our direction towards our aims and purposes, with our means and energy, with our own personal laws and exterritorially autonomous institutions. – J.Z., 13.8.91, 29.7.92, 27.5.12. - TERRITORIALISM VS. PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: We are drowning in laws.” – Alexander Moszkowski, Die Inseln der Weisheit, p. 249. – Let’s rather drown the laws – and throw the law-makers in after them, if they should persist! Better still, let us opt out from under them! To become ignored would be the best penalty for them. – J.Z., 28.1.09. - MULTITUDE

LAW: We are self-governing in daily life and we use justice to regulate our private intercourse. But it is no longer operative in law.” - Wolf De Voon, De Facto Anarchy. - True for territorial laws. - J.Z., 16.9.04. - SELF-GOVERNMENT, JUSTICE

LAW: We assent to laws whose texts we never read and groan under the inequities they generate.” – Morris West, quoted in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 23.11.74. – We certainly do not assent to them individually or as voluntary members of personal law communities. – J.Z., 21.1.08. - IGNORANCE, SUBORDINATION, CONSENT, SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LAW: We called this chapter ‘The Law Today.’ It should rightly be called: ‘There Is No Law’.” – Solzhenitsyn, Gulag 3, p.525. – An approximation of ideal rules for particular groups of volunteers can only be achieved if they are free to choose personal laws for themselves, practised under exterritorial autonomy and tolerance for personal laws of others, The international law between such panarchies or polyarchies should, largely, be based upon an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties, still to be developed from a multitude of proposals, and these rights should only be upheld in communities of volunteers with their consent and not against their will. For whatever victims they would still have, could secede from them. Outsider would only be entitled to help and protect them, if such victims tried to secede and are coercively prevented from doing so. – Consenting victims should not be protected and helped against their will. That was already an insight of the ancient Roman law. - J.Z., 7.9.07. – LAWS VS. LAW, IDEAL & TERRITORIAL LAW IS, MOSTLY, SIMPLY ABSENT & THIS ALWAYS WAS SO & WILL BE SO. IDEALS CAN ONLY BE APPROACHED BUT NOT FULLY OR ABSOLUTELY REALIZED AMONG AS IMPERFECT BEINGS AS HUMAN BEINGS ARE

LAW: We cannot all agree and think alike and be perfect, and therefore laws are necessary, or we shall have chaos.” - - It is because we cannot all agree that Anarchism becomes necessary. If we all thought alike it would not matter in the least if we had one common law to which we must all submit. But as many of us think differently, it becomes absurd to try to force us to act the same by means of the government which we are silly enough to call representative.” – George Barrett in THE MATCH, July/August 1975. – Laws as well as contracts only by choice, for anarchists, libertarians and for statists alike, would lastingly settle many clashes between them. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - DISAGREEMENTS, HARMONY, DISORDER, CHAOS, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM, DIS.

LAW: we must get busy and clean-up the laws, sue in court the Government official for use of a law that violates the U.S. Constitution. Use 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 1985 and 1986, as applicable, the corruption is total, and the citizen must fight back. Help us to clean up America, by using the U.S. Constitution.” – Walter M. Froembgen, THE JUSTICE TIMES, 10/78. – That amounts to taking up a battle when all the large battalions and weapons are ready on the other side. At best one can win such a struggle only at huge costs in time and money after years to decades. The other approach consists in winning the right to opt out, withdraw or secede, combined with the freedom to associate under exterritorial autonomy with like-minded volunteers. In this way one does not confront the statists head-on but only denies their territorial authority and does not threaten to destroy the laws and institutions of the territorialists, which they pretend to love, but would merely leave them alone. However, territorialism is upheld by the remaining faith of the territorial statists (who do not know of anything better) and that kind of faith ought to be shaken or abolished in every way possible but, at the same time, leaving them a way out, or a way to continue their current practices among themselves, in the form of any kind of statism for any kind of statists – which means panarchism or polyarchism, with different panarchies or polyarchies for all the different kinds of true believers: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice. Who is really convinced that this would be quite wrong or impractical? In daily lives we practise different individual choices almost all the time without causing chaos but, rather, thereby we do maximize individual satisfactions. – J.Z., 5.9.07. – CONSTITUTIONALISM, CHALLENGES IN GOVERNMENT COURTS, DIS., PANARCHISM, MUTUAL TOLERANCE OF FREE EXPERIMENTATION AMONG VOLUNTEERS.

LAW: We need to become emancipated (liberated) from the laws imposed upon us by our supposed representatives. – J.Z., 14.3.99. – But each should enjoy the freedom to become emancipated only as far as he wants to be! Personal laws! Voluntarism! Voluntary membership in societies, communities and competing governmental systems. – J.Z., 27.1.09. - PANARCHISM, EMANCIPATION

LAW: We resort to law because we accept that in most contexts nobody is a proper judge of his own case.” - Alex Comfort, Authority & Delinquency, p.86. – In personal law communities they would not be, either, but the laws would be of a kind that they had been free to choose for themselves, by choosing a particular personal law community for themselves. That would make a great difference. People who had themselves chosen a particular arbitration court or system are also more likely to uncomplainingly accept its decisions. – J.Z., 4.9.07. - JUDGING THE OWN AFFAIRS, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

LAW: We should not have uniformity in the law or equality before the law for all the people in a territory but only uniformity within communities of volunteers. All their members should have individually chosen for themselves the personal laws of those communities that they would prefer for themselves, regardless how different the legal systems of different communities may be. Otherwise laws are never truly based and cannot be based upon consent. – J.Z., 28.9.93. – And that consent must be maintained by free individual secessionism. – J.Z., 1.12.07. - UNIFORMITY & CONSENT

LAW: What are the supposed benefits of territorial legislation against its wrongs, costs and the damages it causes? I've never seen a proper accounting of it. - J.Z., 30.4.02, 21.12.10. - Promises, hopes, predictions and expectations are not good enough substitutes for rightful results and a balance of profits rather than losses. - We live under regimes that are all too full of mass-produced coercive laws, which supply all too little justice, liberty, peace and harmony and multilateral satisfaction. - More laws just lead to more unjust court cases and convictions, like e.g. the drug laws do. The law of diminishing returns for mass-produced legislation has been in operation for a long time. Each additional law is of less positive value and more likely to add wrongs and harm. Imagine the waste of our time and energy if we were forced merely to read all of them. Production and exchange would come to a stop, for a long time. Let peaceful individuals and volunteer groups opt out from under them and their institutions. - J.Z., 31.10.02. - LEGISLATION

LAW: What but superstition could set people forming laws on a Lowest Common Denominator basis, and forcing brilliant intellects to abide by them.” – John Wyndham, The Secret People, p.117. – The spleen of the supposed rightfulness, uniformity and strength of territorialism did. It ignores the exterritorial autonomy options and the genuine rights not only of majorities but also of most minorities, including individual secessionism, and exterritorially autonomous associationism. – J.Z., 29.8.07. - MAJORITY, VOTING, UNIFORMITY, LEGISLATION, DEMOCRACY

LAW: When I am talking about government, I’m not talking about law and order. I think we need law and order. I think we get law and order out of our voluntary organizations.” – Robert LeFevre, Good Government, p.13/14. - ORDER & GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: When I face the thief or the bandit, I prefer to have a weapon in my hand. A book of strange laws can be worse than any bandit born.” - Everett B. Cole, The Players, ASTOUNDING SF, British Ed., Sep. 1955, p.96. - What effective weapons for our self-defence against wrongful or unwanted laws do we have? One vote or other voice among millions! It’s almost useless. Emigration? And leave everything behind we have built up here, friends, most of our family, house and land? And will we get permission to immigrate into another country? Will that country's territorial government intervene much less or even more so? While individual and group secessionism, as well as exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities are outlawed, we haven’t got enough choice left to escape "the law" and do our own things for ourselves or to ourselves. - J.Z., 11.2.02. - WEAPONS, SELF-DEFENCE, CRIME

LAW: When laws are necessary for men, men are no longer fit for freedom.” – Pythagoras, ca. 570-500 BC, Magna Graecia. - Since territorial statism is now the rule rather than the exception, Pythagoras is right, at least for the majority of people of our times. However, the rest, the small and somewhat enlightened minorities and individuals, the “salt of the Earth”, should be given their chance to practise whatever they already know about rights and liberties and to extend and apply their knowledge and experience among themselves, thereby setting many successful examples for others to follow - as soon as they are ready. That is one of the great benefits of panarchism or polyarchism or full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, once they seceded from territorial States. However, so far not enough individuals have demanded or worked for gaining recognition for the right of individual and group secessionism. – J.Z., 30.8.07, 21.12.10, 27.5.12. - NECESSARY FOR FREE MEN OR ONLY FOR SERFS & SUBJECTS? MEN & FITNESS FOR FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, FULL EXTERRITORIAL MINORITY AUTONOMY

LAW: When there is no victim then there is no genuine crime, even when the territorial legislation says that there is one. However, panarchies should be free to pass even laws for such “crimes” among themselves, for their voluntary members. One territorial law for all amounts, all too often, to oppression. – J.Z., 30.8.07. - CRIMES WITHOUT VICTIMS

LAW: Whenever you hear anyone bawling for more respect for the laws, whether it be a Coolidge on his imperial throne or an humble county judge in his hedge court, you have before you one who is trying to use them to his private advantage; whenever you hear of new legislation for putting down dissent and rebellion you may be sure that it is promoted by scoundrels. The extortions and oppressions of government will go on so long as such bare fraudulence deceives and disarms the victims - so long as they are ready to swallow the immemorial official theory …” - H. L. Mencken, PREJUDICES: FOURTH SERIES, p.236 – The main official theory that they have swallowed is that territorial laws and institutions are and can be just. After all the bad experiences they had with them, it is still very surprising, that the vast majority of people still swallow and uphold this lie. – But this is understandable insofar as almost all the exterritorialist and voluntaristic alternatives are outlawed, as far as whole political, economic and social alternatives are concerned. Most people do not dare to apply their daily experience with various autonomous actions, alone and in association with others, in the public spheres, now coercively monopolized by territorial governments. They do not even think about this rightful and rational alternative. How can one effectively and non-violently steer their noses and minds towards it? – J.Z., 1.9.07. - RESPECT FOR THE LAW?

LAW: Where law ends, tyranny begins.” – William Pitt ( EARL OF CHATHAM ), Speech in the House of Lords, in defense of John Wilkes, Jan. 9, 1779. – Where law begins, tyranny continues in another form. – J.Z., 19.10.85. Paraphrasing Clausewitz. - Where natural law ends tyranny begins. Where positive law begins, legalized tyranny begins. - J.Z., 12.11.02. – Compare: “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” – John Locke. – Wherever territorial law is continued or begins, tyranny continues or begins. – J.Z., 1.1.95, 30.8.07. Territorial law is the continuance of war in another form. – J.Z., 1.9.07. – TYRANNY, LAWS, NATURAL LAW, DIS., TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

LAW: Where there is no common power there is no law.” - Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, I, 1651. – He might as well have asserted: Where there is no common religion there is no religion. Or: Where there are multiple parties, there are no political parties. Or: Only a single-party State is lawful! – How many wrongful and dogmatic statements still spook in most people’s minds? – J.Z., 26.1.09. - Law should not be based upon territorial power but upon justice and natural law or individual rights and liberties. - Rather, where there is a common but imposed territorial power there is too much territorial law. [And too many of these numerous laws are wrong or irrational or anti-economic. – J.Z., 27.5.12.] The common power of voluntary communities under personal laws should be distinguished from the centrally imposed power of territorial States. Exterritorially fully autonomous communities of volunteers could become, in their defence and liberation efforts, very powerful, even towards large territorial and totalitarian regimes, but not in the sense of the “power” of atrocious mass murder devices or regimes. Just like an ideal militia force, however small at first, for the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties, could rapidly become very powerful towards all the military forces of all territorial states, largely by dissolving or transforming them into other such militias. - A first small panarchy or polyarchy could come to set such a successful and attractive example, that it would come to dissolve even the largest territorial regimes, and this quite fast, into numerous panarchies or polyarchies of volunteers, all doing their own things only for and to themselves and thereby rapidly enlightening themselves and others, as fast and far as human beings can be or want to be enlightened. Their successes would be greater, faster and more lasting than those of e.g. Athens and Rome or the example which the English Constitution, the original American colonies, the USA or the Swiss republics, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Asian “tiger countries” set. The Internet could spread their attractive news within hours or days. All the wrongful internal barriers and external frontiers could come to break down as suddenly and unexpectedly as the Berlin Wall did, as a barrier. Hopefully, this will still happen in my life time, if I do my bit and you do yours. – J.Z., 1.9.07, 27.5.12. – The trouble with all territorial laws is that they have too much power for their enforcement and embody all too often all too much injustice as well. – J.Z., 7.9.07. – POWER, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, MILITIA, DEFENCE, DIS.

LAW: While there still is doubt, while opposite convictions still keep a battlefront against each other, the time for law has not come.” – O. W. Holmes II, Speech in New York, Feb.15, 1913. – So how did we arrive at these avalanches of “law”, in spite of the numerous remaining controversies? The legislators simply ignore them and follow their own prejudices and false conclusions. – J.Z., 29.8.07. - To each his own law for his own affairs. That is the only rightful, sensible and just compromise and radical solution. It does not repress the liberties of anyone. And it achieves a multitude of experiments in the political, economic and social spheres, which, sooner or later will clarify the remaining controversies. – Those remaining in love with wrongful and stupid laws, always only at their own risk and expense, should remain welcome to them. - J.Z., 10.7.86, 29.07. - PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM & CONTROVERSIES, VOLUNTARISM

LAW: While you can legally outlaw voluntarism and economics in transactions or cease legal interventionism and despotism, you can never legally introduce economics and voluntarism into transactions. – J.Z., 8.5.93. - The law has nothing to offer to economics. Its legislation, juridical and policing services are all monopolistic and coercive rather than voluntary and competitive and thus, correspondingly, inefficient, costly and uneconomic. Only the voluntary communities, called e.g. panarchies or polyarchies, which are exterritorially quite autonomous, can come close to offer ideal free market economic package deal or at least great and attractive improvements over the current statist messes - to sovereign consumers or customers, in all the public service spheres. Some call them comprehensive insurance contracts and insurance service institutions. Others would call them protective companies or associations. A better deal for everyone, according to his individual preferences. There is nothing a territorial State has to offer that cannot be much better and cheaper produced by volunteers and free contracts and free and competitive communities under personal laws. - Admittedly, this point of view is still hardly known and accepted only by a few and numerous popular errors and prejudices exist against it. – But it has certainly not been disproved. On the contrary. – J.Z., 30.8.07, 27.5.12. - ECONOMICS

LAW: Who cares about the law? It’s a free country.” – From film: Mrs. Parkinson. – If only it were. – But “folk-crimes” without victims are quite common. There are also so many laws that most of them remain unknown and ignored – quite inevitably. But this ignoring them should become a right – for individual secessionists and voluntary members of personal law communities, under full exterritorial autonomy. Only the law-lovers should have to suffer under all of them. – J.Z. 1.12.07. – If there were no laws at all that are misnamed “positive legislation”, then this would be true to a large extent. – J.Z., 25.12.11. – But it is the law, in form of all too much “positive legislation” which makes us unfree, directly or indirectly. – J.Z., 27.5.12. FREE COUNTRIES, DIS.

LAW: Who imposes now this State Contract, the law, upon me? He answers: “Obviously, I myself”. As an explanation he added: “No man can be bound otherwise than through himself. To no man can a law be given but by himself. If he lets the will of another impose a law upon him, then he renounces his humanity and lowers himself to the rank of an animal and that he may not do. (Page 79) - - Fichte does not want to impose upon his individual the least restriction. He states: “It is an inalienable right of man to dissolve each of his contracts, even one-sidedly, as soon as he wants to. (*) - - Unchangeability and eternal validity of any contract is the severest offence against the Right of humanity itself. (Page 150) The relationships between individuals and between individuals and all other individuals, which constitute the State’s league, is solely regulated by the moral law, which demands in this respect: “Do not restrict anyone’s liberty insofar as his liberty does not restrict your liberty.”(p 124) – From one of several early reviews, of Johann Gottlieb Fichte: Beitrag zur Beurteilung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische Revolution, 1793/94, which I reproduced somewhere in my PEACE PLANS series, probably in the sub-series “On Panarchy”. - J.Z., 6.9.07. GERMAN TEXT: „Wer legt mir nun in diesem Vertrag (dem Staatsvertrag) das Gesetz auf?" und antwortet: „Offenbar ich selbst." Als Erläuterung und zur Bekräftigung fügt er dann hinzu:„Kein Mensch kann verbunden werden, ohne durch sich selbst: keinem Menschen kann ein Gesetz gegeben werden, ohne von ihm selbst. Läßt er durch einen fremden Willen sich ein Gesetz auflegen, so tut er auf seine Menschheit Verzicht und macht sich zum Tiere; und das darf er nicht." (S. 79) - Fichte will seinem Individuum keine, auch nicht, die geringste Beschränkung auferlegen. “Es ist ein unveräußerliches Recht des Menschen", stellt er fest, „auch einseitig, sobald er will, jeden seiner Verträge aufzuheben; Unabänderlichkeit, und ewige Gültigkeit irgendeines Vertrages ist der härteste Verstoß gegen das Recht der Menschheit an sich." (S. 150) Die Beziehungen zwischen Individuum und Individuum, zwischen Individuum und der Gesamtheit aller Individuen, die den Staatsverband ausmachen, reguliert allein das Sittengesetz, das in dieser Beziehung fordert: „Hemme niemandes Freiheit, insofern sie die deinige nicht hemmt." (S.124) - (*) Apparently, he ignored the conventional withdrawal periods agreed upon. They can be rightfully ignored only in cases of severe breaches by the other side. – J.Z., 6.9.07. - IMPOSITION, COMPULSORY, COERCIVE, TERRITORIAL LAW, NOT CHOSEN BY INDIVIDUALS AS PERSONAL LAWS FOR THEMSELVES, PANARCHISM

LAW: Whoever prescribes a rule of action for another to obey is a tyrant, usurper and enemy of liberty. This is precisely what every statute does (*)… In other words, a statute is the science of rascality, or the law of usurpation.” – Albert Parsons, on being sentenced to hang, 1886. – At least the first part is reproduced in A. R. Parsons, “Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, as defined by some of its Apostles”, 1987, 194 p., which I reproduced in PEACE PLANS 622. – (*) But not the personal laws of voluntary communities, passed by people whom these voluntary members believe do really represent the views of the members. – J.Z., 4.9.07. – Ideally and optimally, perfect freedom slogans should be “thrown” as “bombs” among the people, even among policemen. They would not kill anybody but would help to enlighten many. – J.Z., 29.1.09. - TYRANNY, USURPATION, IMPOSING LAWS UPON PEACEFUL DISSENTERS, FREEDOM OF ACTION, LIBERTY, STATUTE LAWS, POLITICAL LAWS, RASCALITY, POLITICS AS USUAL, ENEMIES OF LIBERTY, BOMB-THROWING?

LAW: Whose laws?” – Dangerous Buttons, No. 179. – And against whom? Innocent people, peaceful people, productive people, people without victims! – J.Z., 7.9.07. - LEGISLATORS

LAW: Why can’t they ever realize they can’t beat the law?” – Louis L’Amour, Bowdrie’s Law, p.44. – The aim for libertarians should not so much be to beat the law but either to opt out from under it or to change it into a just law, when this is possible and to repeal the rest. – J.Z., 16.5.86. - Many criminals regularly and for a long time do beat the law. They are rarely caught and convicted. – Government laws, policemen, law courts and judges are just as inefficient in this sphere as are the officials and the official rules in other spheres. - J.Z., 30.8.07. – CRIMINALS, DIS., STATISM

LAW: Why laws? The laws don’t have to make sense. The law is force. – J.Z., 30.8.75. – If they satisfy the power-mongers and power addicts, then that is sufficient motivation for them, among these people. The victims of laws get no say in the matter, except one vote among millions of others, most of them also suffering under the delusions, myths and prejudices of territorial statism. – J.Z., 31.8.07. Under personal laws people would suffer only under those laws they have chosen for themselves and are still prepared to put up with. – J.Z., 7.9.07. - WHY, WHAT FOR? FOR WHOM? FOR WHOSE BENEFIT? Q.

LAW: With territorial laws the ignorance, greed and prejudices of some are imposed upon all others. – J.Z., 20.4.93, 31.8.07. - TERRITORIAL VS. PERSONAL ONES

LAW: Within this utilitarian perspective, law is viewed largely as an instrument to attain certain economic objectives, regardless of whether or not individual rights are violated. - - On the other hand, natural rights libertarians would evaluate a legal system in terms of its success in enforcing the rights of the individuals.” – John Hagel III, The Manipulation of American Law, Libertarian Review, 11/77, reviewing: Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860, Harvard University Press, 1977, 356p. – Are these libertarians sure that the law has ever sufficiently protected all individual rights and liberties? The governmental bills of rights were and are still very incomplete and on many of their points still very flawed. By law every point of the bill of rights amendments to the USA constitution, for instance, has been infringed, rather than consistently upheld. Was it any better in any other country at any time? A close look at more consistent and complete human rights declarations, especially private ones, reveals, that such declarations could very well become self-realizing and self-maintaining or self-protecting, without any help from territorial laws but only from voluntary institutions, formed in accordance with these rights and liberties, all without a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - UTILITARIANISM

LAW: Yet there is another and quite different attitude to the law which is as significant as the first position. It maintains that although the law must necessarily fall far short of righteousness, it can at least rise above sheer tyranny. While it may admittedly enshrine many injustices, it tends to prevent the most egregious injustice of all: arbitrarily exercised power, whether of public rulers or of private persons. If it were within the domain of the possible for righteousness to be administered in each unique situation by men who were perfectly wise and not subject to gusts of passion and self-interest, argues Plato, then the very existence of law would seem to be the outrage it has appeared to be. But the fact is that no such men can be found; and in their absence, law must be regarded as a second-best instrument for governance.” – Milford Q. Sibley, The Obligation to Disobey, p.29/30 – He overlooked that even fools and the prejudiced do have the right to live themselves under the laws of their own individual free choice, in corresponding communities of volunteers, all only exterritorially autonomous. Impossibly difficult jobs and inevitably imposed injustices arise only under territorial governments and their uniform territorial laws and monopolistic institutions. Self-government and self-management are not only for wise men. Fools and the ignorant and prejudiced should also have their liberty – but only at the own expense and among themselves. – As it is, the relatively few wise, enlightened and just people are usually under the rule of the fools, ignorant and unjust people, whether these are territorial rulers or bureaucrats or their supporting masses of voters. – J.Z., 5.9.07. - TYRANNY, PERSONAL LAWS & PANARCHIES & POLYARCHIES AS AN ALTERNATIVE

LAW: You can’t take the law into your own hands!” – When the law is in your own hands then it is in the only place where it can be safe in. – J.Z., 4.1.97. However, this applies only to personal laws, not to territorial ones. No one, not even formal legislators for a territory, do have the right to lay down the law for all others. Only in communities of volunteers, under personal laws and, consequently, voluntary taxation, may they be permitted to pass personal laws for the other and like-minded volunteers. – J.Z., 29.8.07. - TAKING IT INTO ONE’S OWN HANDS, DIS.

LAWRENCE, W. B.: Commentaire sur les Elements du Droit International et sur l'Histoire des Progres du Droit des Gens de Henry Wheaton, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1868 - 80.

LAWS & DESIRES: If men recognize no law superior to their desires, then they must fight when their desires collide." - R. H. Tawney. - Why, when they could still practise their desires among consenting adults and under personal law systems, which they have voluntarily chosen for themselves? Only uniform territorial laws for all cannot satisfy all aspirations. - J.Z., 12.7.92, 7.1.93.

LAWS & JUSTICE, LAWLESSNESS & VIOLENCE, JURISPRUDENCE & AGREEMENTS, COMMANDS & CHOICES: The assertion that all laws enacted by formal legislative bodies are illegitimate, as Proudhon and other anarchists would have it, not only sounds harsh to the ear of the average person but appears to be irresponsible as well, so habituated are people to looking toward the state for the outline of justice. But as contemporary world events again and again have demonstrated in recent years, the ersatz systems of justice maintained by modern states are rapidly falling apart and lawlessness and violence are becoming widespread as a consequence. If anarchists are correct in their assessment of the situation, there is no remedy for this short of a total revision of our attitude towards jurisprudence. So long as we follow the Hobbesian dictum that law primarily originates with the commands of sovereign states, this lawlessness must persist. When enough people finally recognize that the only proper basis of law is the free agreements arrived at by social groups acting in the spirit of voluntarism, federalism, and reciprocity, the foundations will have been laid for a genuine social order in which justice will be possible. If Proudhon's writings suddenly have become convincing to more and more people, it is because his philosophy of law offers a meaningful solution to the social problem we face with the breakdown of law and order. - W. O. Reichert, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 148. - The batch of rightful ideas on the subject, as well as that of the wrongful ones, contain both so many and varied ones, all related, if not identical, that they become hard to comprehend as a whole. Thus the consistency of the rightful but still unpopular ideas is not clearly seen, while the massive batch of the wrongful but also mutually supportative and popular ideas remains hard to refute. If might help if we could sufficiently sort them out, alphabetically, and with sufficient cross-references. But here and no I can offer no more than some somewhat sorted and headed references. - J.Z., 15.1.93.

LAWS & PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW: Let all people have the laws they enjoy - for themselves. - J.Z., 10.3.99.

LAWS & REPUBLICANISM: Thus in Holland, Switzerland, and Genoa, new laws are not frequently enacted, but the old ones are observed with unremitting severity. In such republics therefore the people are slaves to laws of their own making, little less than in unmixed monarchies where they are slaves to the will of one subject to frailties like themselves." - Oliver Goldsmith: The Citizen of the World, 139. - Ancient laws are not laws one has enacted oneself. And even when laws were recently enacted, supposedly by one's "representatives", in reality only a few made them, supposedly "for" all others but in reality for the convenience of the few. And laws can enslave not only when they are few and ancient and largely unchangeable but also when they are abundant, constitute an avalanche, and are ever changing, largely unknown and unenforced and sometimes even out of print. From the host of existing and nominally still valid legislation, the rulers can then choose, at any time, some old or custom-made ones against those whom they want to prosecute. No one can be sure to what legalized injustice one will be subjected to in a day or in a month. And these laws, too, are obviously not of one's own making. Even if one could get hold of all of them and had a library large enough to hold all of them, one would not even have time to read all of them, not even once. These messes can no longer be reformed. Individual must become free to opt out from under them. - J.Z., 12.1.93. - Laws of individual choice or making are not like laws of centralistic and collective "choice" or making and imposition. - J.Z. 7.4.91, 6.9.04.

LAWS & VOLUNTARISM: The Law, in every case, shall always be declared and administered by the group affected, or of which the individual affected is a member." - J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization, 20. – So far only powerful vested interests or lobby groups got this realized for their advantage and at the expense of their involuntary victiims. – J.Z. 27.5.12.

LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS, TERRITORIAL LAWS & PANARCHISM: Laws are to become a matter or individual and exterritorially free choice rather than one of territorially uniform compulsion upon all living in a territory. The personal laws of panarchies can be adapted to the idiosyncrasies of their voluntary members, their spleens, faiths and convictions, reduced to a minimum or even abolished among those with sufficient self-control. – J.Z., 8.6.97, 10.1.99.

LAWS, SHEER BULK: 38, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. - Laws have become so numerous that no one has the time even to read all of them, far less to study them enough to be able to avoid, with the best of will, offending against them. And these texts are not cheap, either. Few could afford a comprehensive law library, unless it is offered, very cheaply, e.g. on CD-ROMs. - Even bureaucrats, politicians and judges act often in ignorance of the existing laws. - Nor do they take even constitutional guarantees very serious. - J.Z., 1.9.04.

LAWS: As long as laws perpetuate and allow errors and prejudices and permit insufficient arguments and ideas to prevail, reasonable and factual ideas and arguments have little chance against them. Progress does need not only freedom of expression and information but also exemptions, by individual choice, from presently territorially enforced laws for all, especially for dissenters who are prepared to experiment with alternatives at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 2.10.88. - If governments ever came to realize the importance of experimentation, then they might attempt, in their usual ignorant and clumsy fashion, to subsidize and regulate experiments - thereby destroying most of their creative and progressive potential and their self-education potential. The experimenters must fully feel the consequences of their own mistakes - and must be free to fully benefit from their correct actions. - J.Z., 3.4.89.

LAWS: for the maxim there is, - 'what pleases the prince has the force of law;' whereas this is, - that the kingdom shall be governed by no other laws than 'those which the folk and people have made and chosen.'"  - Sir Roger Twysden, Certaine Considerations upon the Government of England, pp. 83/4, quoted in J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-government, 15. - I would add: And the folk and the people shall consist only of volunteers. - J.Z., 30.6.92.

LAWYERS: Does America really need 70 per cent of the world’s lawyers? … Is it healthy for our economy to have 18 million lawsuits coursing through our system annually?” – Dan Quayle August 13, 1991. - Full competition in the justice sphere requires much more than freedom for lawyers to advertise and free speech for them, in and out of parliament and courts. But how many of the ca. 2 million lawyers in the US do freely and fully discuss personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy for all voluntary communities? Are they afraid that this competition would finally achieve that we would need many less lawyers, although, initially, perhaps, more of them? Or are they afraid of having to study different legal systems? - How much money does the average lawyer make out of the present and legalized territorial injustice system? - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. - LAW SUITS, COURT SYSTEM, JUSTICE SYSTEM, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, Q.

LAWYERS: If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them.” – Unknown –– One could, likewise say: If we it were not for other territorial warfare States, we would not need them. What is needed, is a libertarian defence, revolution, military insurrection and liberation program, whereby non-statists and anti-statists, in a panarchistic federation, could easily defend themselves against or overthrow any aggressive, despotic, authoritarian, tyrannical or even totalitarian regime. But so far only very few have shown the least interest in such a blueprint. – I tried to offer such a program in my two peace books, largely based on the lifelong researches of Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969. They are online at & - But response to both books has been very poor so far. My books are far from offering a perfect program – but they do offer some good starting points. It seems that the creative energies among anarchists and libertarians and private or organized peace lovers have not yet been sufficiently appealed to released and combined in this sphere. – Most people simply put such topics into their “too hard” basket. - J.Z., 30.1.09. - JOKES

LAWYERS: Lawyers acquire political clout and multiply and complicate laws and court cases for their own benefit. Sovereign consumers for legal systems and justice systems should be free to pick and choose laws and court systems as well as competitively trained and priced lawyering services. – J.Z., 4.4.97, 11.11.97.

LAWYERS: Lawyers and their laws, as legislators and as legal aids to the victims of laws, seem to be always better at continuing and multiplying problems, while profiting from them, than at eliminating them. – J.Z., 21.9.97. They are “guides” through a labyrinthic thicket that they and their predecessors have created, in their own interests. – Individual secessionism and personal laws for communities of volunteers are the kinds of swords suitable to split the chains, ropes and Gordic Knots they have entangled us in. - J.Z., 1.12.07, 22.12.10.

LAWYERS: Lawyers dislike the notion of secession - because it is also directed against their rule and their extortions. – J.Z., 22.4.83.

LAWYERS: The more panarchies exist, the less lawyers will be needed. Only one kind of lawyers will be needed more than before: Those familiar with international laws that are based upon individual rights and liberties, for the remaining and relatively few conflicts between members of different panarchies. - J.Z., 16.9.04. – PANARCHISM

LAWYERS: Upholding all criminal laws is in itself criminal. – Those, who pass them, and those who judge by them, may even be worse than ordinary criminals and do much more wrong and harm. – J.Z., 22.11.99, 25.12.11. – Just think of how many lives are ruined and impoverished by the laws that make inflation and unemployment possible – and then think of the political and military consequences of both of these abuses. – Not to speak of the laws that make territorial warfare States possible. - J.Z., 30.1.09. - LEGISLATORS & JUDGES, PROHIBITION & WAR AGAINST DRUGS, MONETARY DESPOTISM

LAZARUS, J.: Die Haeupter der Vertriebenen, JAHRBUCH FUER GESCHICHTE UND LITERATUR, 10, 1890, 1-170.

LAZERSON, M. M.: The Jewish Minorities in the Baltic Countries, JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES, 3, 1941, 273-84.


LE GRAND E. DAY: A New Dimension of Freedom", a "Multigovernment" book, 1977, 49 pages, in ON PANARCHY No. 12, in PEACE PLANS 833. A 1page contribution from Aug/Oct. 1989 "ANARCHY" is in PP 1051. Notes on panarchism, from TC 123-155, with comments by J.Z., are in ON PANARCHY No. 16, in PP 901. For a short while he also put out a newsletter: "PANARCHY DIALECTICS" which is not in my possession. I would like to obtain the full set. - He was still alive in 1990. Is he still? - J.Z., 1.9.04. - See under DAY for most of his writings.

LEADERSHIP & PANARCHISM: Great men & Great women leaders – but only for those, who believe that they are! – J.Z., n.d.

LEADERSHIP & PANARCHISM: Popular leaders are still, largely, mis-leaders. Pick your own – if you must have one – but let him become a leader only over your own life. Otherwise, pick yourself as the best possible leader for your own life.  Phase out popular power over your own life. – J.Z., 29.12.04.

LEADERSHIP UNDER PANARCHISM VS. LEADERSHIP UNDER TERRITORIALISM: The best would tend to get to the top while now the worst tend to get to the top and stay there for all too long. Under panarchism all forms of leadership would be self-inflicted for the subjects and individuals and minorities could get rid of it, for their own affairs, very fast, simply by opting out. Leadership struggles over compulsory members and compulsorily extracted revenues would rapidly end. Instead there would only be leadership struggles to make the own offers more attractive than those of others - for voluntary members. - J.Z., n.d. - Future leaders would have to compete, rightfully, non-violently and efficiently like good and free businessmen, to stay in business, retaining employees and customers. - J.Z., 16.9.04.

LEADERSHIP: A leader is a dealer in hope.” - Napoleon I. Maxims, 1804-1815. I would add: And, finally, in disappointments. – J.Z., 19.7.82. – At present they play with the hope of the ignorant that a further inflation will cure our economic problems! – They know nothing better. Neither do most of their victims. And those, who do know, are not free to opt out. - J.Z., 31.1.09. – TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

LEADERSHIP: A real leader leads by the consent of those following. A sudden lack of consent and the true leader simply finds himself out in the cold.” - Earl Foley, LIBERTY, Summer 1974.

LEADERSHIP: Alas, our leaders are still the nation’s “most wanted” men and empowered to “rape” all those, who do not want them. – J.Z., 24.10.93. -POLITICIANS, REPRESENTATIVES, TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: An anarchist leader is a contradiction in terms.” - Karl Hess, PLAYBOY interview, 7/76. – One should distinguish between a leader who leads with territorial power and a leader who leads with better ideas and has only voluntary followers and supporters, employees, partners and investors for his “free enterprise”, cooperative or partnership. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – ASSOCIATIONISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

LEADERSHIP: An excess of international leadership usually results in bullets and breadlines.” - P. J. O’Rourke, The CEO of the Sofa, Atlantic Monthly Press, 841 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10003, 2001, p.7. – Rather, an excess of territorial authoritarianism or even despotism or tyranny. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – WARFARE STATE

LEADERSHIP: And who does more for a people, the one who coddles them or the one who forgets all about them and simply draws them after him into universality and deathlessness by the sheer beauty of his actions?” - Boris Pasternak, Dr. Shivago, Fontana pocketbook, p.125. – Is there already full freedom for all rightful and beautiful actions? I am particularly thinking of full experimental freedom in the political, social and economic sphere among volunteers: panarchism. – J.Z., 1.11.08.

LEADERSHIP: As I stand aloof and look there is to me something profoundly affecting in large masses of men following the lead of those who do not believe in men.” - Walt Whitman – Under exterritorialism these would constitute merely large experiments of volunteers, which would have to put up with the competition from many small experimental communities and the large ones, in the short to long run, would be come greatly reduced by the few of the very successful ones among these competitors, who would attract more and more members, customers and investors. – Then the large ones could not rely on territorial copyrights or patents, either. - J.Z., 22.12.10. – Monopolies could then be applied only among their voluntary victims. – J.Z., 28.5.12.

LEADERSHIP: Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?” - Robert Heinlein, in Time Enough for War. (*) – Wisdom comes only from genuine self-government, which means sovereign individuals and their societal choices: Communities of volunteers and free contracts with all kinds of service associations! – J.Z., 8.9.07. – (*) “Time Enough For Love?” – J.Z. ) - WISDOM, AUTHORITY, AUTOCRACY, DICTATORSHIP, TYRANNY, DESPOTISM, DECISION ON WAR & PEACE, PEOPLE, GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM, Q.

LEADERSHIP: Do not take “the men upstairs” seriously.” - Dr. Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Prescription, p.61. – Not too serious. – J.Z., 11.9.070. – But do confine them to their remaining volunteers, by secessions and free experiments among the various groups of dissenters. – J.Z., 22.12.10, 22.12.10. – As territorialists they constitute a serious danger for all of us. – J.Z., 28.5.12. - HIERARCHIES

LEADERSHIP: Each to follow his own favourite leader - until he discovers self-leadership. - J.Z., 13.9.91.

LEADERSHIP: Fancy a few men sitting down in a room ... and deciding whether there's going to be another war or not." - Lawrence Meynel. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, MASS MURDER DEVICES

LEADERSHIP: Great men and great women leaders – but only for those, who believe that they are and who wish to be led - or misled - by them. - J.Z., 04-11. - PANARCHISM

LEADERSHIP: Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.” - Lord Acton (John E. E. Dalberg), Letter to Mandell (later, Bishop), Creighton, April 5, 1887. - Historical Essays and Studies, 1907. - Who thinks that politicians are or can be great when their very attempts to gain and retain power reveals them as crooks, madmen or even psychopaths? Most of them are not even good family-men - but they do pretend that they could run the lives of millions of people better than these people could run their own lives - and too many of their misled fools believe them, in spite of all the experiences will all the politicians over the last 6,000 years. - Let at least all the dissenters opt out. Then the somewhat enlightened ones among them will be able to demonstrate better alternatives. - J.Z., 13.10.02. - GREAT MEN, POWER, POLITICIANS, AUTHORITY, CORRUPTION, CRIME

LEADERSHIP: He is, above all, concerned with making his inner values and personal powers effective in such a way as to permit him to use his own judgment in all affairs and to be independent in action. (*) Constant tutelage of our acting and thinking has made us weak and irresponsible; hence, the continued cry for the strong man who is to put an end to our distress. This call for a dictator is not a sign of strength, but a proof of inner lack of assurance and of weakness, even though those, who utter it, earnestly try to give themselves the appearance of resolution. What man most lacks he most desires. When one feels himself weak, he seeks salvation from another's strength; when one is cowardly or too timid to move one's own hands for the forging of one's fate, one entrusts it to another. How right was Seume when he said: ‘The nation which can only be saved by one man and wants to be saved that way deserves a whipping!’" (**) - Rudolf Rocker, NATIONALISM AND CULTURE, p.255. – (*) That would not be so bad if he did it only exterritorially and only among volunteers, who have faith in him, however unfounded that faith may be. - (**) True only for its volunteers rather than the population of whole territories. - Collective responsibility of territorial subjects for the crimes of their rulers has led to many mass murders. – J.Z., 28.11.07, 28.5.12. - NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: I have found some of the best reasons I ever had for remaining at the bottom simply by looking at the men at the top.” - F. Colby, 1865-1925. – Full experimental freedom, on a personal law or exterritorial autonomy basis, for all communities of volunteers, who are now condemned to territorial obedience and mere pawns and sacrifices in the hands of the territorial mis-leaders. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – DIS., INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

LEADERSHIP: I take it that the noble and the worthy don't exactly inspire you to any great feelings of awe and reverence. - Ah, and who else would they be but those who make it their affair to mind the rest of the world's business when the rest of the world is quite able to look after itself? It's people whose own business isn't worth minding who mind other people's business, ... A man has work enough in one lifetime trying to improve himself without thinking that he's fit to be out improving the world." - James P. Hogan, "Code of the Life Maker", p.103. - Let the charlatans be in charge of the charlatans. To each his own, in all self-concerned actions. - J.Z., 13.1.93. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY.

LEADERSHIP: I would not offer him or wish for him a State funeral but I would be willing to pay his departure tax – as long as I had more than his mere promise that he would not come back. – J.Z., 23.8.95, 22.12.10. - On one of our former prime ministers but equally applicable to all of them. – However, if anyone of them had allowed me and other dissenters to secede from their territorial “paradise”, I would have been among the first to praise him. – J.Z., 10.11.07. – POLITICIANS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, RULERS

LEADERSHIP: If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” - The Bible (Matthew 15:14 or 15, X?) - How come that wisdom of mankind on this subject is as ancient - and still ignored? - J.Z., 20.10.82. - And if they follow most of the supposedly great “visionaries” or gurus then they still fall in the ditch. But let them, all of them. That costs less in property and lives than imposing a single great King, Emperor, President or Prime Minister, Prophet or Guru, his system or party or ideology and "reforms", territorially, upon a whole country and all its inhabitants. Experimental freedom for all to maximize enlightenment and progress. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 22.12.10. – Let the best system win – through its volunteers! – J.Z., 22.12.10. - VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, ITS MONOPOLY & COERCION

LEADERSHIP: Individual freedom without the consent of our territorial “mis-leaders” – via individual secessionism and exterritorial and autonomous associationism. – J.Z., 25.9.93. - PANARCHISM, & INDIVIDUAL CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: Is it leadership or “leader’s ship” or leader's shit? - J.Z., 8.6.82, 22.12.10. – Under freedom of the seas the captain of a ship can only mislead his own crew and passengers, all volunteers, and not all other ships on the oceans. On land we should have the same freedom to do our own things, at our own expense and risk, under self-chosen captains, regardless of what others are doing for or to themselves. Free enterprise, freedom to experiment, freedom of contract, association and disassociation, for all kinds of systems and volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – FREEDOM OF THE SEAS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: It is characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top.” – Robert Lindner, Political Creed and Character, Must You Conform? 1956. – Thus remove the tops and all the ladders to territorial powers over others. - J.Z., 22.8.02. - RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, CRIME, PROTECTION RACKETS, SCUM, THE WORST, PSYCHOPATHS, MOVEMENTS, CRUSADES, IDEOLOGIES, LEADERSHIP BY PSYCHOPATHS, TERRITORIALISM, POWER

LEADERSHIP: It is the leader who must think for all; it is the leader who is charged with the duty of watching for the well-being and liberty of the mass in general and the individual in particular; the result being that there are millions of brains among the mass that never think. ... The masses remain  passive ... There should be no mass; there should be a league of thinking individualities, united among themselves for the attainment of certain ends.” - Ricardo Flores Magon, Anarchist Revolutionary Almanac, 1914. – This is one of the most wrong, harmful and disabling utopias. Where are its successes? But the belief in it and thus its territorial practice is continuing. – J.Z., 1.11.08. – That is exactly the position the Soviet, Fascist and Nazi totalitarians took. All reforms and revolutions should become exterritorially confined to their volunteers. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – Individuals are lucky if they are often enough successful in thinking about and managing their own affairs. They are already much less successful in trying to direct, manage or improve the minds and affairs of their children and, more so, their grandchildren. To believe that one could manage the affairs of millions better than they could, indicates a mental defect. At most they can recommend certain ideas and paths to those willing to take them. – J.Z., 28.5.12.

LEADERSHIP: Leaders Who Lead Nowhere.” – Heading of a segment in Frank Chodorov: One Is A Crowd, p. 92. – Don’t they all? All the territorial leaders, I mean. The others mislead at most only their voluntary followers. – J.Z., 31.1.09. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL FREE CHOICE IN EVERYTHING, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, ERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: Leadership amounts mostly to certified and officially authorized ignorance, prejudices and incompetence being put in charge of all too many involuntary victims and this on all too many and very important matters. Nevertheless, the term has still all too many positive connotations, especially among statists. – J.Z., 18.2.03, 21.10.07. - AUTHORITARIANISM TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: Leadership by mismanagement.” - ALP slogan against Liberal Party, November 1972, seems to me apply to all territorial political leadership. - J.Z., n.d. & 1.11.08. – All parties should only rule their voluntary members and tax payers. Then only could genuine leadership rather than mis-leadership emerge. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY RULE, TERRITORIALISM OR EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY?

LEADERSHIP: Men, women, of every nation, every race and condition: how much longer are you going to let yourself be used? When are you going to tell your leaders, "Enough!" and claim the right to live your own lives?” - Poul Anderson, Orion Shall Rise, p.465. - SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, DISOBEDIENCE, SELF-CONTROL, SUBORDINATION, PANARCHISM, LIVING THE OWN LIFE

LEADERSHIP: No government has ever been, or ever can be, wherein time-servers and blockheads will not be uppermost.” – Dryden, Examen Poeticum: Dedication – Panarchism would reduce that threat to bearable proportions. The sufferers will all be volunteers and thus deserve what they will get. – J.Z., 31.10.08.

LEADERSHIP: No man is so wise that he can bear to own a world.” - Walter Brooks – Or to own or command the diverse population of a whole country. – J.Z., 1.11.08, 22.12.10. - WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, POWER, TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: No man should be the master of another for any period.” - Karl Hess, PLAYBOY interview, 7/76. – Unless that period and the degree of mastership and subordination is determined by the individual and voluntary victim. – Like with children, it takes time for many adults to grow into self-responsibility. - J.Z., 22.12.10. – VOLUNTARY OBEDIENCE AND VICTIMHOOD OR FOLLOWERSHIP.

LEADERSHIP: Nobody should have the right to get between you and the leader of your choice. - J.Z., 14.10.77. - VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: Not individual integrity in political leaders is required but, instead, individual integrity demands individual sovereignty, not political leaders lording it over powerless masses of men, women and children. - J.Z., 21.10.82. – They want to be respected and obeyed even when they built up stockpiles of mass extermination devices or anti-people “weapons”. – J.Z., 1.11.08. - NWT

LEADERSHIP: Not which particular party fool is the current top leader and what party he belongs to is decisive but, rather, what kinds of territorially imposed wrongs he commits and mistakes he makes and what kind of freedom, justice and peace alternative he prevents for dissenters, by not permitting them to secede and do their own things under their own and individually chosen personal law, in their own society or community of volunteers, all of them without a territorial monopoly. – That would put a needle into his territorial power balloon. - J.Z., 18.3.94, 22.12.10. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY.

LEADERSHIP: Now the skilful governors of the world simply caused the people to fulfil the conditions of their regular nature. It was their gifts which they possessed in common, and their Heaven-inspired instincts, which constituted the (Early) age of Perfect Virtue.” - The Texts of Taoism, II, p.284. - In short: Don't rule! - J.Z. – Has perfect virtue ever really existed among territorial rulers and their subjects? – J.Z., 22.12.10. - SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, FREEDOM OF ACTION & EXPERIMENTATION, DOING THE OWN THING, DIS.

LEADERSHIP: Nowadays we are beginning to believe that we should be better off if some of our leaders had devoted less energy to action and more to thought." - Beverly Smith: Justice Holmes in "This is America" by Max J. Herzberg. – Thoughtful inaction if often better than thoughtless action, especially when the latter is imposed upon dissenters, from slaves over serfs to merely territorially voting and obeying subjects. – J.Z., 22.12.10.

LEADERSHIP: Once you lost your sense of direction you need a leader.” - Moshe Kroy, 30.8.77. – Is it impossible to develop one’s sense of direction again? – How much direction can one leader supply to millions of aimless people? Should he even try? - J.Z., 1.11.08. – Let all volunteers do their own things among themselves, always only at the own expense and risk. The positive results of full experimental freedom will show the way. – J.Z., 22.12.10. - VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: One can become a leader only if one is supported by an ideology which makes other people tractable and accommodating.” - Ludwig von Mises - Mises, too, overlooked the fact that the feature, which almost all ideologies have in common is their territorialism. Their territorialism makes it even difficult for anarchists and libertarians to reach their ideals for themselves. Panarchism offers opportunities for many more "leaders" and "misleaders", for false and truthful prophets and visionaries. Thus the potential leaders should be among the foremost advocates of panarchism. It would make their lives relatively easy and safe among their faithful. But they would have to be able to gain a minimum number of faithful followers and to some extent they would have to be able to put up or shut up. Those who cannot even supply lasting delusions of successes, would have to drop out of the game. - J.Z., 22.8.02, 22.12.10. - IDEOLOGIES, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: Our leaders' task is to grapple with the morality of international actions and not merely to play a mechanical game of chess." - Alastair Davidson. „Realpolitik“ or territorial politics is quite immoral politics – which we can afford no longer in era of mass extermination devices. – J.Z., 11.1.05.

LEADERSHIP: Our selection of political leaders is incredible archaic and inefficient. We select football quarterbacks with more care and intelligence than we do mayors, governors and presidents.” – Frank Goble, Beyond Failure, 96. – The selection of territorial political leaders, by whatever method, is in itself an incredible archaic, inefficient and wrongful process, within inevitably more or less disastrous results. – J.Z., 27.3.94. – It is foolish to presume that such offices are rightful and useful. – J.Z., 31.1.09. – VOTING, TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: People want peace so much that governments had better get out of their way and let them have it." - Dwight D. Eisenhower – Individuals and minorities have to become free to find their won way towards peace, justice, freedom, enlightenment and prosperity. For all these and other rightful objectives territorial governments have grossly failed for all too long. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PEOPLE, PEACE, GOVERNMENTS, PEOPLE, WAR & PEACE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: Playboy: Then how does one rate the Presidents? - Hess: By trivializing them. Remember the good things. Eisenhower played golf. Kennedy was a snappy dresser. Truman used salty language. Things like that...” - Karl Hess, PLAYBOY interview, 7/76. – Why bother to rate them at all, instead of working for freedom to secede from them, together with like-minded volunteers, to escape their disaster-producing territorial monopolism? – J.Z., 22.12.10.

LEADERSHIP: Politics is the diversion of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become important in the eyes of more trivial men.” – George Jean Nathan, news summaries, July 9, 1954. - The politics of volunteers under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws is quite another matter. In it free men can try to realize all their ideals - quite undisturbed by the constitutions, laws, jurisdictions, parties and majority votes of non-members, quite free to learn from their own experience and to apply it, thus likely to make fast progress in whatever sphere they are interested in. Their leaders are also of another brand than the usual territorialist liars and demagogues. But even if they are false prophets, they would set deterrent examples for all to learn from, and that not in some foreign country but, possibly, right next door. – J.Z., 29.11.07, 22.12.10. - POLITICIANS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PREMIERS, RULERS CHANCELLORS, GOVERNORS, REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS & POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: Popular leaders are still, largely, mis-leaders. Pick your own – if you must have one – but let him become a leader only over your own life. Otherwise, pick yourself as the best possible leader for your own life. Phase out popular power over your own life. – J.Z., 29.12.04. Phase out? Secede from it, a.s.a.p.! – J.Z., 20.1.08. – PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM VS. TERRITORIAL POWER, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM OF ACTION & EXPERIMENTATION FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS.

LEADERSHIP: So long as men worship the Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly arise and make them miserable.” – Aldous Huxley, 1894-1963, Ends and Means, 1937. - In politics, like in religion, those not worshipping them should become free to opt out from under them and to adopt other systems, guides, leaders, gurus, prophets, reformers or revolutionaries for themselves. – J.Z., 10.9.07. - HERO-CULT, PERSONALITY CULT, VOTERS, STATISM, PANARCHISM

LEADERSHIP: The best would tend to get to the top while now the worst tend to get to the top and stay there for all too long. Under panarchism all forms of leadership would be self-inflicted for the subjects and individuals and minorities could get rid of it, for their own affairs, very fast, simply by opting out. Leadership struggles over compulsory members and compulsorily extracted revenues would rapidly end. Instead there would only be leadership struggles to make the own offers more attractive than those of others - for voluntary members. - J.Z., n.d. - Future leaders would have to compete, rightfully, non-violently and efficiently like good and free businessmen, to stay in business, retaining employees and customers. - J.Z., 16.9.04. - LEADERSHIP UNDER PANARCHISM VS. LEADERSHIP UNDER TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: The crowd will follow a leader who marches twenty steps in advance; but if he is a thousand steps in front of them, they do not see and do not follow him, and any literary freebooter who chooses may shoot him with impunity.” - George Brandes. - With experimental freedom, under full exterritorial autonomy, even for a few volunteers only, the situation would become very different. -J.Z., 22.10.82, 22.12.10.

LEADERSHIP: The messiah complex is the illusion that we can somehow save ourselves by changing the man (or woman) on top.”- Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.409. – Letting merely volunteers follow their leader, genuine pioneer or mere guru, at their own expense and risk is quite another matter. Observing them would mainly be merely a new form of entertainment – but, in a few cases, it would be very enlightening. – J.Z., 24.9.07. - THE MESSIAH COMPLEX, SAVIOURS, PROPHETS, DEMAGOGUES, FUEHRERS, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX

LEADERSHIP: The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it.” - Confucius, The Confucian Analects, 8:9. - Territorial leadership has more misled than led. Let each volunteer group of the people have the leader or leaders they trust - and as long as their members do so, individually. Experimental freedom for all. That would maximize progress, at least in balance, while costing and risking least to bad leadership. - J.Z., 26.11.02. - PEOPLE, ELITISM, ARISTOCRACY, GUIDANCE, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

LEADERSHIP: The people must lead their leaders.” - Arthur Seldon, Charge, Temple Smith, London, 1977, p.13. – To each genuine “people”, i.e., each community of volunteers, whatever leadership, representation or self-management system it prefers! – J.Z., 22.12.10. - PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY, PARLIAMENT, SELF-GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTATION

LEADERSHIP: The people turn to a benevolent rule as water flows downwards, and as wild beasts fly to the wilderness.” - Mencius, Book IV, 1:10.2. - And they end up misled and further impoverished by taxes and restrictions of e.g. the Welfare State or more or less complete State Socialism. - Rather try out the attractions of the absence of any kind of territorial rule combined with the attractions of voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy for free experiments among like-minded people - under their leaders or in free societies of their kind. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 28.5.12. – TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

LEADERSHIP: The President felt that he himself was disintegrating - and they wanted him to give unity to the entire nation. He was tired, tired, tired ... - Mordecai Roshwald: A Small Armaggedon, p. 143. – If a president in a crisis situation took his nominal responsibilities (*) serious, then he could hardly sleep without being drugged. As a consequence, he makes “his” “decisions”, affecting the lives of hundreds of millions in a state of tired sleeplessness or under the influence of some drugs. In the case of Hitler his drug taking became revealed. For how many others is it hushed up? Churchill, seems to have been a heavy drinker. How many others lead or misled while under the influence of one or the other or even several drugs? – How many, in their condition, would not have been legally allowed to fly a plane or even drive a heavy truck? - - (*) Objectively, no one could be morally and effectively responsible for a whole country and all its population and thus should not be given such decision-making power. Everyone’s knowledge and abilities are limited. In all spheres individuals and groups of like-minded volunteers should become and remain quite free to make their own decisions for themselves, their own contracts, as sovereign producers, exchangers and consumers, in a quite free market for all goods and services. – Imagine, for instance, how impossible it would be for anyone to pick the kind of meal that would be liked, would be healthy and affordable, for all of millions of subjects. [Hitler, too, dreamed of an “Eintopfgericht”, a simple meal for all of his subjects. But he could not enforce it for more than one day in a year.] And that is a relatively simple job for a territorial leaders, compared with the many which they are now, quite vainly, trying to tackle, in a wrongful, irrational and even silly continuation of ancient “kingship” notions. Obviously, not one of the current mis-leaders knows how to stop and prevent inflation, mass unemployment, poverty and war. Nor do they really care to learn to know this, as long as they are getting away with their empty promises. They do have power, but they do not know how to use it rightfully and rationally. Objectively, it cannot even be done with territorial power. It is comparable to that of “nuclear weapons”, which are too powerful to be really useful, even as sufficiently reliable deterrents. These “weapons”, too, cannot prevent accidental wars, caused essentially by the very nature of territorial warfare States. - If they had only voluntary followers then they would have to put up or shut up. At least the free competition from other leaders, who are successful in the same territory, would see to that, i.e. the consumer sovereignty or free choice of their then voluntary members. - J.Z., 1.11.08, 28.5.12.

LEADERSHIP: The relationship between leaders and followers is a sado-masochistic relationship. – Nobody else should be territorially forced into it. Everyone should be free to secede from it. – J.Z., 31.1.09. – PEOPLE, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.” – Stendhal - Also ascribed to Marie Beyle. – Within communities of volunteers that might, actually, in most cases, be the case. Unless their leaders are merely popular confidence tricksters. – But competition will be severe from serious experimenters and through extensive publicity for all failures and successes of communities of volunteers under personal law. – J.Z., 30.1.09, 22.12.10. - POLITICIANS, PUBLIC INTEREST, NATIONAL INTEREST, COMMON GOOD, PRESIDENTS, PREMIERS, PRIME MINISTERS, REPRESENTATIVES

LEADERSHIP: There is no necessary connection between the desire to lead and the ability to lead, and even less to the ability to lead somewhere that will be to the advantage of the led. ... Leadership is more likely to be assumed by the aggressive than by the able, and those who scramble to the top are often more motivated by their own inner torments than by any demand for their guidance.” - Bergen Evans: The Spoor of Spooks and Other … - 1954. – No more territorial leadership over all too many peaceful dissenters. It amounts to despotism over them. Only leadership over like-minded volunteers has sufficient consent or mandate. And it must thus become confined to exterritorial autonomy under personal law. – J.Z., 22.12.10.

LEADERSHIP: There is no political process of knowing or selecting in advance the persons who will be most creative. The only process that will bring the creative minority to the top, that will encourage their effectiveness, is complete freedom.” - Leonard E. Read, - Elements of Libertarian Leadership, "p.108. – Including full exterritorial autonomy for communities, societies and competing governments of volunteers only, all under personal laws and without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” - Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ch.6. – What is true under territorialism does not apply once the experimental freedom of panarchism is introduced. Successful experiments could then be conducted by small groups and spread from them, just like technical or natural science innovations can. – J.Z., 30.1.09. - INNOVATION, IDEAS, REFORMS, CHANGE, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, DIS., REVOLUTIONS

LEADERSHIP: This must be said: There are too many 'great' men in the world; there are too many legislators, planners, founders of societies, leaders of nations, fathers of their country, etc., etc. Too many people place themselves above mankind in order to guide its footsteps; too many people make a career of being concerned with mankind.” - Bastiat, quoted in G. C. Roche III: Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.246. - - Like many such comments, this one, too, ignores that this would not matter much or would matter only to relatively few, who would thereby also maximize their chance to learn from their mistakes, if only all these 'leaders' led or misled only the volunteers of exterritorial and autonomous communities, as long as these would individually consent, to be so led or misled. - J.Z. 20/10/82. Anarchists propagandists are few in numbers now, when they have so much to complain about. How many of them would be left, as mere complainants or protestors - after this reform is realized? Most of them would be too busy, involved with their own free lives and the affairs of their voluntary communities and would advocate only by the examples they would set or, at most, by responding to polite or paid enquiries. - J.Z., 10/82, 22.12.10. – They would not have to pay for publicity for their successes. They would get it automatically. – J.Z., 28.5.12. - ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LEADERSHIP: Those who do not think or do not think deeply enough will outnumber those who do and will tend to elect those who, likewise, do not think or do not think deeply enough, i.e., who share the wide-spread prejudices and myths representing superficial thinking. More or less enlightened individuals ought to be free to opt out of this mess, as the first significant step towards their own further enlightenment and liberation and that of others. - J.Z., 20.10.82, 22.12.10. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR VOLUNTEERS.

LEADERSHIP: To be a leader of men one must turn one's back on men.” - Havelock Ellis, 1859-1939. – By now they are rather cautious and “approach” their subjects only indirectly, through the mass media or websites. – For that makes tyrannicide a bit harder, too. – J.Z., 11.1.08. - What is usual under territorialism will not happen often, if at all, under panarchism. For then individuals and groups can safely turn their backs on territorial "leaders" or mis-leaders and freely begin to do their own things. - J.Z., 23.1.09, 28.5.12. - PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LEADERSHIP: To save people leaders must be lost.” – Israel Zangwill, 1864-1926, Lore and Maurice Cowan, compilers, The Wit of the Jews, Leslie Frewin, London, 1970, p.75. – We only need to secede from our territorial leaders to become free to exterritorially do our own things together with like-minded volunteers. – Leave the existing leaders in charge of their remaining volunteers, directing their circus, zoo or cabaret performances, but from then on without any territorial monopoly and power, only for their paid-up members. – J.Z., 2.12.10, 28.5.12. - PEOPLE, JOKES, TYRANNICIDE, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, STATISM

LEADERSHIP: Too many people believe this world is rather a hell than a potential paradise and that, as a hell, it requires a master, the stronger the better. - J.Z., 12/72. – Territorialism leads us to the Hell of a general nuclear holocaust. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – How often have they promised a paradise and how often have they delivered it? – J.Z., 28.5.12. – Q., TERRITORIALISM, NWT, WARFARE STATE, DIS., STATISM

LEADERSHIP: We should listen first and foremost to our own experience ... We should stop looking for saviors ... Society has not existed for thousands of years because it had a succession of saviors. It's existed because it has institutions and processes through which people can realize their own goals.” - Thomas Sowell. – Are there better institutions for this than panarchies or polyarchies? – J.Z., 11.1.08. – They would, finally, introduce free market relationships, with free pricing, free competition, freedom of contract, association and disassociation – into those spheres presently still territorially monopolized by wrongful, ignorant, prejudiced and incompetent governments. Just look at their records.  In vain do we try to periodically replace them by others, hopefully better but still of the same, wrongful, coercive, monopolistic, collectivist and irrational territorial type. – J.Z., 28.5.12. – “SAVIORS” VS. FREE INDIVIDUALS, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM, Q. 

LEADERSHIP: We still accept as leaders politicians who have nothing to offer except a constant activation of our prejudices." - O. A. Oeser. The fallacy lies here in the „we“. There are always dissenters and different leaders. Let them be free to act, voluntarily, exterritorially, in their own affairs – and the popular prejudices would begin to shrink – since then their supporters would have to pay for them out of their own pockets and with their own liberties. – J.Z., 11.1.04. – DIS., PREJUDICES, PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

LEADERSHIP: When leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators - the instruments, not the guides of the people. If any of them should happen to propose a scheme of liberty soberly limited, and defined with proper qualifications, he will be immediately outbid by his competitors, who will produce something more splendidly popular. Suspicions will be raised of his fidelity to his cause. Moderation will be stigmatized as the virtue of cowards, and compromise as the prudence of traitors - until, in hopes of preserving the credit which may enable him to temper and moderate on some occasions, the popular leader is obliged to become active in propagating doctrines and establishing powers that will afterwards defeat any sober purpose at which he ultimately might have aimed.” - Edmund Burke. - - Here, too, he thought only of the narrow options and the inevitable dilemmas, which uniform territorial organization of compulsory members into a State have to offer. - J.Z. – Territorial States should no longer be constructed or maintained at all but rightfully and peacefully demolished or diminished to powerlessness – by all dissenters effectively seceding from them and also achieving the freedom and right to do their own things among their own volunteers under full exterritorial autonomy or full experimental freedom for their own institutions. – J.Z., 22.12.10.

LEADERSHIP: When Standards Fall: The exemplary standard has been lowered! With all too rare exceptions, persons holding positions of leadership in every walk of life - religion, education, politics, business, you name it! - are guided more by what will get applause or votes or dollars than by what their highest consciences dictate as sound and moral and right. They are led more by public opinion polls or box-office returns than by an inflexible integrity. The pursuit of excellence is in a slump; it has seriously floundered.” - Leonard E. Read: Then Truth Will Out, p.108. – It can flourish only among volunteers who are exterritorially autonomous. – J.Z., 22.12.10.

LEADERSHIP: Why 'give a damn who heads up the conspiracy against the taxpayers and citizens?’ - Robert P. Baker, OUTLOOK, Nov.72. – The first leader, who aspired only to rule over volunteers, could make a great difference. He might be the leader of a government in exile, that in future aims to rule only over its volunteers, in free competition with the other kinds of governments or societies which other volunteers would prefer for themselves in their home-countries. Such governments would even be the best possible allies for the existing territorial democracies and could come to reshape these democracies into their own image of really self-governing communities of volunteers only. – J.Z., 22.12.10. – GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, ALL FOR VOLUNTEERS ONLY, ALLIES, DEMOCRACIES, DEFENCE.

LEADERSHIP: You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other person. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself. Regardless of the imaginative titles, official have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal.” - Ken Schoolland, The Adventure of Jonathan Gullible, Leap Publishing, Cape Town, with Commentaries by Ken Schoolland and Janette Eldrige, 1981 ff, 2004 ed., p. XI. – Traces of panarchist thinking can be found in many anarchist and libertarian writings. So much so, that many people overlook the differences, which can be summed up in one word: “tolerance”, especially in the political, economic and social action spheres. – J.Z., 30.1.09. - VS. RIGHTS

LEADERSHIP: Your greatest problem and your greatest opportunity, and your greatest glory, is that people listen to you. You awaken their deepest and their best dreams. They follow their dreams - and you.” - Robert Moore Williams, The Star Wasps, p.115. – That can be achieved only exterritorially and for volunteers only, under personal law. – Most political “scientists”, writers, lecturers and teachers have not yet understood that. - J.Z., 22.12.10.

LEARNING: But one learns from books and reels only that certain things can be done. Actual learning requires that you do those things.” – Frank Herbert, Children of Dune, ANALOG 2/76, p.134 or 135. – And yet territorial governments have reserved to themselves political, economic and social experiments – and managed to almost never learn sufficiently from them. Those in power tend to blame always other factors than their own mistakes and thus they repeat their own mistakes over and over again. 4000 years of price controls and of monetary despotism! Thus those, who disagree with territorial governments, ought to be set free to engage in their own experiments – in panarchies and polyarchies of volunteers, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. Territorial rulers even tried to control the arts, literature, technology and science! – J.Z., 18.11.07. - FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTATION, EXPERIENCE

LEARNING: I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” - Chinese Philosophy. - VS. FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIALISM

LEARNING: There’s only one thing more painful than learning from experience, and that is not learning from experience.” – Dr. Laurence J. Peter. – Experience requires experimental freedom. In some spheres that can only be provided by panarchism. – J.Z., 31.09. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIENCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

LEAVE ALONE: Leave people alone.” – Proverbial wisdom. – E.g., Bob Howard, FREE ENTERPRISE, 2/76. – But, probably, it goes centuries back. – “Be intelligent enough to leave it alone.” – St. John’s Bread, undated. – Or experiment only at your own risk and expense – and that of like-minded people. – J.Z., 31.1.09. - LAISSEZ-FAIRE, ALONE, PANARCHISM

LEAVE ALONE: Leave your brother, your equals, your inferiors, your superiors, your neighbours and your enemies alone. You do not have to love them but you do owe them that degree of justice. - J.Z. 18.4.92, 13.1.93. 11.12.03.

LEAVE ALONE: Look around, … See, most of the world is just ordinary people who simply just want to live their lives, enjoy their children, and be left alone. They don’t want to be controlled by anybody. That’s what it’s all about.” – James P. Hogan, Mirror Maze, p.266. – We should not forget about the diverse multitudes that like to be controlled and commanded by others. How many of them would make use of individual secessionism and panarchistic alternatives immediately or very soon? Probably not many, but enough. It is the opening up of this process that counts. They will secede and try something else, whether it is better or worse, as soon as they are ready for it. The most free systems will have their attractions for them, with higher standards of living, and no taxes, even if and while they still do not yet understand the “miracles” of the free market, of laissez-faire, laissez passer, free enterprise, free exchange and free competition. – Even many of the dumbest do presently look and find bargains on the consumer market and use technical gadgets that they do not really understand. – J.Z., 31.1.09. - VS. CONTROLS

LEAVE ALONE: The ground was rich; a clear stream plunged through it. Society would not let him alone, so he left society.” – Con Sellers, Mr. Tomorrow, p.49. – By now there is not enough wilderness left in which one will be left alone. Moreover, it does not offer the usual economic conveniences. Other kinds of individual secessionism and autonomy, the exterritorial and voluntary ones, are, alas, not yet sufficiently recognized. – J.Z., 18.11.07. – We can’t all live in the wilderness, for then it would be no wilderness any longer. Exterritorial autonomy would be practical even within cities. – We do already purchase or subscribe to our life’s’ necessities from many different suppliers without that causing much friction. – J.Z., 31.1.09. -BACK TO NATURE? FORWARD TO NATURE? SOCIETY, STATE, RETREATISM? PROGRESS? PANARCHISM

LEAVE ALONE: They [The makers of the Constitution] conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928. - Alas, it and he did not go far enough to express, recognize and protect e.g. the right of individuals to secede and to establish their own kinds of competing and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, under their own personal laws. - J.Z., 20. 5. 06. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, RIGHT TO IGNORE THE STATE

LEAVE ALONE: We are still a long way from a full realization of the wisdom of leaving trouble alone. (*) We do not yet comprehend its value and its vital service to mankind. We are far from admitting that the individual is generally the only person capable of understanding his own trouble and curing it. It will require another generation to appreciate the wisdom in the old expression "mind your own business." - Ernest Benn, Modern Government, p.78. - - (*) Rather: To not attempt to solve a problem territorially, for a whole population, coercively and collectively. Instead: allow everyone to attempt to solve it in his own preferred way, either alone or in association with other volunteers. – That is how progress was achieved in all other spheres except the three still monopolized by territorial governments, namely the sphere of political, economic and social systems. – In spite of almost endless and colossal failures of the territorial monopoly for such systems, it is still widely believed in and taken for granted. – The personal law and exterritorial autonomy alternative is barely discussed in the “science” and “practice” of politics. Within this personal law and voluntaristic framework all kinds of reformers could and would mind their own business easier and better than they can under territorialism, which confines experimentation to those with power or the majority behind them. - J.Z., 28.11.07. - INDIVIDUALISM, SELF-HELP, MYOB, SELF-HELP, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

LEAVE ME ALONE, LET ME BE, LEAVE THEM ALONE, AS LONG AS THEY LEAVE YOU ALONE: I don't care what you do with your own life. Go to hell with you own life. Leave me alone. - From a pop song heard on 5 Oct. 92. Alas, such widespread sentiments tend to be applied only to private lives - although they could and should be applied to our public lives and associations as well. - J.Z., 4.1.93.

LEAVE: Of all 36 ways to get out of trouble, the best way is – leave.” – Chinese Proverb. - Alas, individual and group secessionism remains constitutionally and legally suppressed, not only by openly despotic regimes. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY GROUP SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EMIGRATION, FLIGHT, REFUGEES, WITHDRAWAL

LEBANON: NEUE ZUERCHER ZEITUNG, 17.10.58, Ueberschrift: Die neue Regierung in Libanon. Ein Absatz daraus: “Ihre eigentliche Feuerprobe aber steht der neuen Regierung noch bevor; sie muss innert moeglichst kurzer Zeit den verschiedenen revolutionaeren und gegenrevolutionaeren Organisationen, die sich waehrend der Krise im Land breit gemacht haben, wesentliche Attribute der Souveraenitaet, wie Polizeigewalt, Steuerhoheit und Gerichtsbarkeit, wieder entreissen, diese in ihrer Hand vereinigen und im Namen Libanons statt im Namen einer Partei zur gerechten Anwendung bringen.” - Prof. Rittershausen bemerkte dazu, in einem Gruss an v. Bth: “Zerfall des Staates in seine prae-etatistischen Elemente! Interessant.” - Leider beanspruchten die meisten dieser Parteien oder Bewegungen auch ein territoriales Monopol und so bekaempften sie nicht nur die Zentralregierung sondern auch einander.  - Josephus berichtete, dass waehrend der Belagerung von Jerusalem durch die Roemer innerhalb Jerusalems drei Parteien einander blutig bekaempften. Auch heute gibt es noch keine freiwillige Einheit in dieser “heiligen” Stadt. - Aber, wenn, wo und welche Moeglichkeiten gab es oder gibt es, sie in dieser Hinsicht aufzuklaeren? - Ich sprach darueber einmal mit einem jungen Lebanesen. Der war aber ganz dogmatisch und intolerant, genauso wie ein totalitaerer Nazi oder Soviet, obwohl er ueber andere Fragen ganz intelligent und gut informiert war. - Viele setzen, anscheinend, lieber ihr Leben ein, fuer eine falsche Idee, als etwas kritisch nachzudenken ueber andere, gerechte und friedensfoerdernde Moeglichkeiten. - J.Z., 9.12.04.  - STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, NATIONALISM, NATION-BUILDING

LEFEVRE, ROBERT & OPITZ, EDMUND A.: Must We Depend Upon Political Protection? Pine Tree Press, Colorado, 1962. Opitz took the "Yes" position and LeFevre the "No" position in this debate.

LEFEVRE, ROBERT, Birth of a Man, 4pp from his book (fiched by LMP): "This Bread Is Mine", 1960, pages 367-384, here copied from THE VOLUNTARYIST, No. 90, Feb. 98: 335, in PP 1689-1693.

LEFEVRE, ROBERT, FREEDOM, LIBERTARIANISM, COMPULSION & PANARCHISM: The libertarian favors a condition of freedom for all, yet he realizes that freedom, because of its nature, can never be imposed by force. - Robert LeFevre, “LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL”, Spring 1974. - Consequently, opponents of anarchism must be left at liberty, to continue and enjoy, as much as they can, the kind of statism they do like, as long as they do. Anarchists must not threaten them with the abolition of their kind of beloved State and government but, rather, help to guarantee it to them, as long as it remains their own free choice. Towards them anarchists can rightly advocate only the one-man revolutions that are exemplified by individual secessionism, based on individual sovereignty or self-ownership, as soon as people are enlightened enough to want to claim this basic right. - And even then they might only be partly enlightened and will only choose new and lesser ties but still restrictions upon their own liberties. They should be free to do so. Anarchists should not threaten their choices with prohibitions and obstacles but, at most, try to convert them, by words or by their own cooperative and competing examples of living in complete freedom. – J.Z., 1986, 2004, 28.5.12.

LEFEVRE, ROBERT: Birth of a Man, 4pp from his book (fiched by LMP): "This Bread Is Mine", 1960, pages 367-384, here copied from THE VOLUNTARYIST, No. 90, Feb. 98: 335, in PP 1689-1693.

LEFEVRE, ROBERT: This Bread Is Mine, American Liberty Press, 1960, 389pp, favors secession at least on pp 249ff & 369ff. Fiched in PP 157-160.


LEFEVRE'S PANARCHISM: He realized that some people want to be controlled by government. He never suggested that they be denied the fulfilment of that need. He never suggested overthrowing the politics that fed that need. He did advocate withdrawing from it completely. 'Let the State exist for those who want it, but let it not harm me or any other who does not want it’. " – Carl Watner, LeFevre, VII. - Watner never clearly decided whether the State and government that would allow individual dissenters to withdraw from it, to do their own things among themselves, in all spheres, would still be a State and government or whether it, like the personal law groups formed by the dissenters, would then be merely a volunteer community or protective association. In this passage he assumes the State to continue. In another passage he still equates it with an unlimited government and asserts that all governments are unlimited governments. Naturally, he could simply assert that a State with voluntary membership and without territorial powers would no longer be a State. But it would remain otherwise unchanged for those who remained voluntarily in it. In condemning all "limited" governments as essentially still being unlimited, he has denied the effectiveness of limiting them to voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy only, which he here defends as rightful. His periodical THE VOLUNTARYIST, has, to my knowledge, never seriously tried to settle this question. In recent years it got side-tracked into taking an absolutist non-violent position. - J.Z. 4.1.93.

LEFT & RIGHT: Left and Right are but two wings of the same bird of prey.” – Robert LeFevre. - “… the left wing may well be flapping with vastly more force and velocity than the right wing, as indeed it seems to be doing in the late 20th century. I don’t know if Bob really understood that.” – K. E. Grubbs, Jr., THE FREEMAN, June 89. - But if it did so and as long as it does, the flight would merely be going in circles. No progress would be achieved. – Both left and right should no longer be tied down to a fictitious territorial “unity”. Exterritorially both should be free to go their own ways, by their own methods, with their own volunteers. That would teach all the experimenters more than further centuries of arguments could. - J.Z., 15.11.07. -CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE

LEFT & RIGHT: the formulas “left” and “right” have no meaning, if anything they are equal because both are supported by a false alibi and both aim at an identical goal, the power that crushes.” … - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, p.446. – At the very least both have the leadership principle and territorialism in common and in our times all too often also mass extermination devices, i.e., they subscribe to the “principle” of collective responsibility, even when it leads to largely automated mass murder. – Not that the democratic, republican, conservative or centralist politicians are any better in this respect. - J.Z., 18.11.07, 23.12.10.

LEFT & RIGHT: the political “left” and “right” were just two wings of the same bird of prey.” – Butler D. Shaffer, Every Government Is opposed to Human Freedom, quoting a friend. – I hold that this applies only to territorial governments. - - Shaffer does not sufficiently distinguish between them and mere corporations (*), even when the corporations are without legalized territorial privileges [except for recognizing them as legal entities, and patent and copyrights monopolies (which should not exist in my opinion)], and when they have no involuntary investors, customers and employees. – J.Z., 20.11.07. – (*) E.g. in his otherwise excellent book “Calculated Chaos”. - POLITICAL SPECTRUM, TERRITORIALISM, CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES

LEGAL TENDER: All this is equivalent to denying all men’s right to make their own contracts, or to acquire any contract rights which congress may not afterward, at pleasure, alter, or abolish. - - It is equivalent to saying that the words of contracts are not to be taken in the sense in which they are used, by the parties themselves, at the time when the contracts are entered into, but only in such different senses as congress may choose to put upon them at any future time. - - If this is not asserting the right of congress to abolish altogether men’s natural right to make their own contracts, what is it? (*) – Incredible as such audacious villainy may seem to those unsophisticated persons, who imagine that a court of law should be a court of justice, it is nevertheless true, that this court intended to declare the unlimited power of congress to alter, at pleasure the contracts of parties, after they had been made, by altering the kind and amount of money by which the contracts may be fulfilled. That they intended all this is proved, not only by the extracts already given from their opinions, but also by the whole tenor of their arguments, - too long to be repeated here – and more explicitly by these quotations, viz.: There is no well-founded distinction to be made between the constitutional validity of an act of congress declaring treasury notes as legal tender for the payment of debts contracted after its passage, and that of an act making them a legal tender for the discharge of all debts, as well those incurred before, as those made after, its enactment. – Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace 530 (1870). - - Every contract for the payment of money, simply, is necessarily subject to the constitutional power of the government over the currency, whatever that power may be, and the obligation of the parties is, therefore, assumed with reference to that power. – 12 Wallace 549. - - Contracts for the payment of money are subject to the authority of congress, at least so far as relates to the means of payment. – 12 Wallace 549.” – Source? Probably Lysander Spooner. - J.Z. - (*) One should remember, that such wrongs were committed in a context of even greater wrongs, since half a million men were sacrificed in a civil war to suppress the right of secession and the right to trade freely and to assert the supremacy of the federal government, i.e. of Abraham Lincoln, its president. The liberation of the slaves was only late in the Civil War declared to be an additional war aim. – And it did not lead to their full liberation, either, not for decades. – Lincoln should have declared: All have the right to secede, States, State subjects, federal subjects, slave owners and slaves from slave owners, soldiers from conscript armies, tax payers from tax collectors, free traders from protectionists, protectionists from free traders, democrats from republicans, republicans from democrats etc. – However, one should not expect such declarations from territorial power-addicts. – They rather fight to the death – of hundred-thousands of their subjects. - J.Z., 17.11.07.

LEGAL TENDER: Say no to government money, and you can say no to the red tape and restrictions.” – JAG, June 79. – Merely saying “no” will not bring us full monetary freedom instead of monetary despotism, no more so than saying “no” to nuclear “weapons” will rid us of them. – A bit more in thought and action is required. - J.Z., 17.11.07. – When you say “no!” to a territorial government then you would be advised to be properly armed, trained and organized, together with many others, to uphold your rights and liberties. – J.Z., 1.2.09. – MILITIA, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

LEGALIZATION: If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.” – Lysander Spooner. – All the turf is already divided between the existing territorial governments, the country-wide protection rackets. Declaring a new territorial government is never made as easy as it would be for volunteers under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws to establish a new society or governmental system, for volunteers only and without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 10.1.08, 1.2.09, 28.5.12. – Such governments, societies or communities would have to continuously prove themselves towards all of their members and subjects. Otherwise they would lose them through individual or group secessionism. – J.Z., 23.12.10. - OF OFFICIAL ROBBERIES: TAX LAWS, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

LEGALIZATION: Legalize Freedom: Vote Libertarian.” – “Legalize Freedom: Vote Libertarian.” – Anonymous. - Why go through the dead-end road of legislation or that of territorialist and collectivist voting? - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. – As if voting by individuals, minorities or even majorities could always sufficiently and positively influence or abolish legislation. Freedom cannot be sufficiently achieved through another kind of territorial government, even if it is the least wrongful one of them all. – J.Z., 1.2.09. – FREEDOM, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

LEGISLATION: 20 % of the voters should have the authority to vote out, in a referendum, any law that has been brought in, even with an 80 % majority. – Suggestion by Robert Heinlein in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. – If as many people oppose a law and are prepared to break it, then this law is obviously useless to anyone but a politician collecting votes. Instances: Laws on prostitution, abortion, speed limits, tax evasion and drugs. – J.Z., n.d. – Even individuals, who are not criminals with victims, should become free to secede from laws and institutions, no matter how large the majority is that supports them. – J.Z., 23.12.10.

LEGISLATION: A databank of past legislation and its failures, its motives, measures and the causes of its failures could now be compiled and consulted much more easily than ever before. Thus such a reference work should be established. Then, if any legislator proposed or voted for any law or legal clause or measure that, according to this databank, had before already been tried and failed to achieve its objective, regardless of how much money and manpower had been spent upon attempting to realize it in this way, all the proponents and those who voted for the new bill should automatically lose their job as “representatives” of the people because, obviously, they would not be doing their jobs, as they are supposed to but would be acting in ignorance or out of prejudice at best. – J.Z., 24.5.91, 13.10.07. – However, no territorial system can be sufficiently “reformed”. Only systems confined to volunteers can be sufficiently reformed or indefinitely and rightfully maintained, fully in accordance with the opinions of those, who remain their voluntary members, although they are free to secede from them. – J.Z., 22.12.10.

LEGISLATION: Advantages of Legislative Separation: The purpose of all this would of course be to create a legislature which was not subservient to government and did not produce whatever laws government wanted for the achievement of its momentary purposes, but rather which with the law laid down the permanent limits to the coercive powers of government - limits within which government had to move and which even the democratically elected governmental assembly could not overstep.” – F. A. Hayek, Economic Freedom and Representative Government, p.21. – No constitutional, legal and juridical reform can turn any territorial government into a quite rightful, rational and useful institution. – J.Z., 17.1.08.

LEGISLATION: All legislation whatsoever is an absurdity, a usurpation, and a crime.” – Lysander Spooner, in the title of one of his pamphlets. – That does no apply to volunteers determining their own personal laws only for themselves. – However, he is right for all territorial laws, constitutions and jurisdictions. – J.Z., 23.12.10.

LEGISLATION: All this pretended delegation of legislative power – that is, of a power, on the part of the legislators, so-called, to make any laws of their own devices, distinct from the law of nature – is therefore an entire falsehood; a falsehood, whose only purpose is to cover and hide a pure usurpation, by one body of men, over arbitrary domination over other men.” – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Works I, p.5. - & USURPATION OF POWER, TERRITORIALISM, AUTHORITARIANISM, INTOLERANCE, DOMINATION OF MAN OVER MAN, IMPOSED LAWS UPON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

LEGISLATION: All who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord around his neck, and if the law was rejected, the innovator was instantly strangled.” – Edward Gibbon, 1737-1794, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. - It would be much more humane, to innovators and their victims, also more enlightening for all, to let people have any law or legal system, as long as it applies only to volunteers, instead of territorially, to the whole population. – J.Z., 13.10.07. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

LEGISLATION: Are there many things more unethical and immoral than most territorial legislation and the enforcement of its laws, rather than the declaration, and enforcement only of all genuine individual rights and liberties? – J.Z., 14.3.99, 13.10.07, 17.1.08, 23.12.10. – Even these rights should only be protected for those who recognize them and want them applied among themselves. Panarchies of volunteers could restrict them in accordance with the wishes of their volunteers. That would not be an offence against them. – J.Z., 5.2.09. – PANARCHISM, Q., HUMAN RIGHTS

LEGISLATION: Ever since society has existed, disappointment has been preaching ‘Put not your faith in legislation’; and yet the trust in legislation seems hardly diminished." – Herbert Spencer. - In spite of the ancient warning: "Put not your trust in princes", the practice was still based on: "The King is dead! Long live the King!" - Disappointed with the results of all previous elections - we simply have still another one. - J.Z., 23.1.09. - This trust is morally and intellectually no better than trust in superstitious or magic practices and formulas. It can be effectively undermined in the long run only by individual and group secessionism, combined with full experimental freedom, under exterritorial autonomy, while at present it is supported by strong legalized monopolies and extorted tributes and, generally, by territorialism. – J.Z., 1.2.09. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, POWER, GOVERNMENTS, STATES, TRUST, STATISM, THE SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, LEGISLATORS

LEGISLATION: I confess that I am one of those who think that the choice, the impulse, should come from below, not from above, from the citizen, not from the legislator; and the contrary doctrine seems to me to lead to the annihilation of liberty and of human dignity.” – Bastiat, in G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.247. – Even then there is not guaranty for liberty when every pressure group can initiate some territorial legislation favourable to itself. Only personal law, voluntarily chosen, would safeguard against both types of abuses – all those, who want to be safe against them. – J.Z., 5/73. - INITIATIVE, CHOICE, GRASSROOTS, DEMOCRACY

LEGISLATION: if legislation is a business then I fear for the business relations that it has. – J.Z., 29.5.91. – (I probably read this somewhere. – J.Z., 17.1.08.) Rather: then all other businesses would have to be afraid of it. However, it is not a business but a giant territorial monopoly, upheld by prejudices, myth, errors and coercion and fed by the coercively collected tribute payments, which all genuine businesses have to make to it. – Thus it is to be feared even more and to be abolished; at least as a territorial monopoly over whole populations and to be replaced by communities of volunteers, all peacefully competing with each other, like private enterprise businesses do, under freedom. But at least some of them, the ones for statists, would still offer whole package deals of governmental services to their voluntary members, until their subjects finally discover that they can get the same or better services more cheaply elsewhere. - J.Z., 10.1.09, 5.2.09, 28.5.12. - LEGISLATORS & BUSINESS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, FREE ENTERPRISE MONOPOLISM, COERCION, TAXATION, SUBSIDIES, CORRUPTION

LEGISLATION: It is not merely that legislation is being manufactured at a rate and on a scale never before known; that scores of legislative bodies are going, to use Lord Rosebery's phrase, full speed ahead; that there is rivalry in the production of enactments and ordinances; and that more and more, in the estimation of many persons, the achievements of a nation are to be measured, not by the real work accomplished by men and women on farms, in manufactures, in schools and laboratories, in science and art, but by the quantity of statutory matter turned out from the legislative factories fitted with the closure and other modern appliances for large and quick delivery. ... The point which Lord Rosebery's speech will bring home to many is that much of this legislation is restrictive of personal liberty, and recasts the structure of society." - The Earl of Rosebery addressed the Society of Comparative Legislation in 1908. Describing this address the TIMES wrote (July 2) the above. – If politicians had to sell their mass-produced laws to voluntary customers and only these would have to pay for them and suffer under them, then how many of their laws could they then and thus sell to satisfied customers? – J.Z., 23.12.10.

LEGISLATION: It might help if three separate discussions of each new proposed bill and 3 votes on it should be required, at least three months to 6 months apart. – J.Z., upon reading: Shane Tourtellotte, The Virtual Congressional Caucus, ANALOG, April 00, page 116, 15.3. 03. – However, the only really effective parliamentary reform would require confining constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and administrations to their volunteers, with this voluntarism remaining assured through continuous freedom for individuals and groups of dissenters to secede. – J.Z., 23.12.10, 28.5.12. - MAJORITY DESPOTISM

LEGISLATION: Legislation doesn’t lead to order; it leads to disorder.” – Robert LeFevre. – When government-run and on a non-competitive and non-profit basis. – J.Z., 10.7.86. – Personal laws, though, confined to the members of communities of volunteers, all without a territorial monopoly, can very well lead to sufficient order among their volunteers and also between the members of such communities, to achieve internal as well as external peace. – J.Z., 1.2.09. – PERSONAL LAWS VS. TERRITORIAL LAWS, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION, ORDER VS. DISORDER

LEGISLATION: Let every legislative, executive or judicial act automatically expire 10 years after its enactment." – Pyrrho, THE CONNECTION, No. 133, p. 18. - By then enough evidence against it should have been accumulated. – J.Z., 1.2.09. - Panarchies, being made up of volunteers only, would not need that kind of precaution. - J.Z., 23.1.09. - EXPIRY TO BE PREDETERMINED, SUNSET LAWS

LEGISLATION: Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them." - H. L. Mencken. - Sent in by C.B. 11 5 07. – Moreover, they are rather short, too. Moreover, by now we are no longer legally obliged to abide by all of them. – They are personal laws by now, only for their volunteers. - J.Z., 1.2.09. - VS. TEN COMMANDMENTS

LEGISLATION: The commons, faithful to their system, remained in a wise and masterly inactivity.” - Sir James Mackintosh, Vindiciae Gallicae, section 1, p.14 (1838). Originally published in 1791.The phrase "a wise and masterly inactivity" was used in America by Representative John Randolph of Roanoke: "We ought to observe that practice which is the hardest of all - especially for young physicians - we ought to throw in no medicine at all - to abstain - to observe a wise and masterly inactivity." - REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, January 25, 1828, vol. 4, col. 1170. - The phrase was mostly associated, however, with John C. Calhoun, who used it during the nullification crisis and later during the Oregon controversy in 1843. While vice president, Calhoun spoke to the people of South Carolina by addressing the legislature at the close of the session of 1831: "If the Government should be taught thereby, that the highest wisdom of a State is, 'a wise and masterly inactivity,' - an invaluable blessing will be conferred." - The Works of John C. Calhoun, vol. 6, p. 143 (1859). See Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, American Political Terms, pp. 263-64 (1962). - This kind of legislative inactivity is not enough when all the old interventionist measures remain untouched. Much legislative repeal activity is then required, or simply the declaration that to all voluntary and new and self-responsible and tolerant activities the old legislation does no longer apply or that all dissenters are now free to secede to do their things for and to themselves. - J.Z., 26.11.02. - PARLIAMENTARISM, LAWS, REGULATIONS, LAISSEZ FAIRE, NON-INTERVENTION

LEGISLATION: The ignorance, blindness and bias of legislators might be somewhat overcome with a computerized information retrieval on legislative history, on the number of occasions when the same kind of legislation has been tried and failed. This was, to my knowledge, first suggested by Herbert Spencer, who suggested, for all of English legislation, to register the kind of the perceived crisis, the proposed and realized legislative “solution” for it, the experience with it and then the reasons for its repeal. – J.Z., 4.7.92, 13.10.07. – Now this experience of mankind with man-made laws can be put electronically together and made accessible to all citizens. Proponents of new laws who, as their proposals show, have ignored it, should have to suffer the consequences of this laziness, their negligence, their prejudices, their ignorance, either by dismissal or by a huge penalty or reduction in their salaries and pension rights – to give them a strong enough incentive to check out this experience first. Also all existing laws going counter to this experience, should be repealed, even if only a single citizen points out this fact and is proven correct. – Anyhow, even individuals and small minorities should become quite free to opt out of these messes of legislation. - J.Z., 17.1.08, 23.12.10.

LEGISLATION: the natural right of the colonists to make their own laws.” – John Chamberlain, THE FREEMAN, 1/1975. – The terms “the colonists” or “the people” or “the community” are, as a rule, interpreted territorially and should thus be replaced by terms like “everyone” (showing immediately that this is only rarely true) or “communities of volunteers”. And “laws” should be replaced by “personal laws”, while the “territorial sovereignty” that is implied should be replaced by “exterritorial autonomy”. – Our language use is and remains our worst enemy. – J.Z., 13.10.07.

LEGISLATION: we have accepted the fallacy that enough legislation backed by governmental funding will rectify countless social and moral problems. Here we violate part of the faith that makes free enterprise work, i.e., the belief that all good and lasting change must come from a spontaneous, freely-given consent of the individual man.” – Charles Heath, The Golden Egg, The Goose And Us, p.48. - VS. VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT, FREE ENTERPRISE, SOVEREIGN CONSUMERS, COMPETITION, SPONTANEITY, INDIVIDUALISM, DIS.

LEGISLATORS: The legislature, like the executive, has ceased to be even the creature of the people: it is the creature of pressure groups, and most of them, it must be manifest, are of dubious wisdom and even more dubious honesty. Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle - a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game … If the right pressure could be applied to him he would be cheerfully in favor of chiropractic, astrology or cannibalism.” - H. L. Mencken, "The Library," THE AMERICAN MERCURY, May 1930, p.123. - This view of Mencken's comes from his book review of The Dissenting Opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes (1930). – How many more decades or even centuries – before the right conclusion is drawn from these facts? Dissenters ought to be free to opt out from under them and to form their own communities of volunteers, under personal laws and without any territorial monopoly claim? – J.Z., 1.2.09. - LOBBIES, PRESSURE GROUPS, PARLIAMENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICS, LAWS, VESTED INTERESTS, PRIVILEGES, CORRUPTION, PRINCIPLES, POLITICS AS USUAL, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

LEGITIMACY, CITIZENS, VOLUNTARISM, SANCTION, BOYCOTT, SECESSION: The citizen grants legitimacy to any institution - or withholds it." - Willis Harman. (Ferguson, ibid {?}, 246.) – CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, SANCTION, BOYCOTT, SECESSION, PANARCHISM

LEGITIMACY: A government is not legitimate merely because it exists.” - Jeane J Kirkpatrick, US Ambassador to UN - On Sandinista government in Nicaragua. – Morally no territorial government is defensible as a legitimate institution, although it may be fully constitutional and legal. – J.Z., 4.1.08. - OF GOVERNMENTS, IMMORALITY OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM

LEINWAND, GERALD, Editor: Minorities All. The story of the countless men and women who believed in the American Dream and labored to make it their reality. Pocket Books, N.Y., 1971, indexed, 192pp, JZL. - It suffers under the wrong premise that "the" American Dream has already given the fullest rightful and practicable autonomy to every minority and individual there and does not seem to explore the exterritorialist and voluntaristic alternative at all. Free speech, some remaining economic opportunities and "the" vote on territorial politics are just not enough, especially for members of minority groups. - J.Z., 1.2.1999. – The USA constitutional amendments constitute an all too flawed and incomplete bill of individual rights and liberties. With its remaining territorialism and even imperialism this American Dream is still only another territorialist nightmare and Anti-Americanism has been its wide-spread by-product. It, too, is ignorant, prejudiced and territorial and does not appreciate what was right and still is in the U.S.A. and has nothing better to offer. – The original American Dream assumed that this was a country in which each individual would be free to realized his or her own dream. That was always only a hopeful and wishful dream, for full individual sovereignty wasn’t realized there, either, right from its beginnings and even less in its subsequent history. If it had been, then e.g. neither the American Revolution nor the Civil War would have been bloody events. – A Prussian nationalist might have proudly pointed out for comparison an earlier Prussian law, which stated: A slave who enters Prussian soil does thereby become a free man. - J.Z., 29.5.12.

LEMIEUX, PIERRE, Declaration of Individual Sovereignty. English Translation: - I declare myself a sovereign individual upon whom nobody has a moral right to impose anything without my consent; and I honor the general obligation to respect the equal sovereignty of other individuals. I thus declare, following the example of Henry David Thoreau, that "I do not want to be considered a member of any society which I did not choose to belong to" (A Duty of Civil Disobedience, 1849). This declaration is addressed to any individual, master-slavist, group, mafia or State that pretends to impose obligations upon me that I have not agreed to in my own interest or as a free and voluntary contribution to the common good. - - The present declaration is addressed particularly to those States who claim to impose upon me their so-called sovereignty and their rackets camouflaged under the word "laws." I recognize that a sovereign individual may, as a lesser evil, accept submission to a State to which he did not consent because he judges that the advantages of this submission continue to exceed the costs in terms of expropriation and personal dignity. But this State can best be described as a "good tyrant" -- the interpretation John Simmons gives us of John Locke (On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society, 1993). However, when the State imposes upon a sovereign individual higher costs than the value of its forced, so-called protection, then it becomes a bad tyrant -- a "band of robbers and murderers" as explained by Lysander Spooner (The Constitution of No Authority, 1870). I declare, as a sovereign individual, that I am the only judge of the utility of any organization which embellishes itself with the word "State." - - I of course reject the mafia principle which says that I should leave if I am not satisfied. It is rather the oppressors of sovereign individuals who are outlaws and who have the moral obligation to cease and desist from their harmful actions. - - To all those who set eyes on this declaration, I serve notice that any submission on my part does not imply acceptance of violence, or threats of violence against me, and that no such submission implies that I will submit in future. I proclaim my sovereign will to live in peace and declare that, by right, their edicts, obligations and prohibitions are not binding on me. - #TL05D: How To Seize Your Freedom In Canada - - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM

LENCHINA, ALICE: A Secessionist Prophet, plan 90, page 7, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLAN 506.

LENIN: See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON, Panarchie – immer konkret beschreiben.

LEON, SY & HUNTER, DIANE: None of the Above, Fabian Publishing Co., Santa Ana, Cal, 1976, 248pp, has some exterritorialist references on pages 112, 170, 197, 211/2, 225.

LESS IS MORE: What is worse, finding a whole worm in an apple you have just bitten into or only half a worm left in it? – Old proverbial joke. Reducing the wrongs and damages of territorial governments by one half is already a great achievement. Avoiding them altogether or reducing them to zero would amount to anarchism. Reducing them to those degrees that volunteers want for themselves or abolishing for them, in their own communities, those that they would reject for their own affairs, would maximize consumer satisfactions and amount the panarchistic realization of each ideal for its voluntary supporters only. No more compulsory membership in any organization – means more freedom, justice and peace for all. – So far the “worms” of territorial statism are still all too much unseen by most territorial statists or swallowed whole, as supposedly good for us. - J.Z., 14.3.09, 23.3.09, 23.12.10. – This proverb is certainly true e.g. for poisons, errors, false steps or measures, prejudices, governments bureaucracy, regulations, accidents, sicknesses, etc. – J.Z., 25.12.11. - PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VS. COMPULSION, COERCION, MONOPOLIES, TERRITORIALISM, JOKES

LET A THOUSAND NATIONS BLOOM: 2009 Blogging on Secession: Upcoming: Secession Week Blogging! - 2009 June 25. - 1 Comment - tags: Independence Day, Politics, Secession - by patrissimo - The Fourth of July is commonly known as Independence Day, but a better term for it is Secession Day. Secession almost always involves multiple groups of people, some small and local, others large and distant, who want to rule the same territory. And history tells us that large, distant rulers are often reluctant to grant independence. The word “independence” takes all the historical messiness involved in winning freedom from a hostile enemy and sweeps it under the rug, while the term “secession” puts this inherent tension right out into the open. - - So Saturday, July 4th is Secession Day. And to commemorate this day, Let A Thousand Nations Bloom is going to host a Secession Week Blogging Event. Starting on Monday (6/29), we will post a roundup of secession-related links every day. Some will be original pieces here, some original pieces from other blogs, and some older articles.  This is a brand new event, so I don’t know how popular it will be, but secession is a hot topic lately so we should be able to get a decent following that we can build on in future years. - If you’d like to make an original contribution to the event, write a post next week and email it to us at If you have a blog or website and find our Secession Week posts interesting, please post links to us. - Perhaps, even some exterritorialist secessionism and associationism was discussed by that group or will be. - J.Z., 30.9.11.

LET GO: Let dissenting individuals and groups go, withdraw, secede. Let them act among their like-minded volunteers quite autonomously, exterritorially, under personal laws, independent of the principles, beliefs and preferred systems of supposed experts of others, of territorial majorities and other minorities, independent of present territorial political leaders, bureaucracies, constitutions, legislation and jurisdiction. Full experimental freedom in the political, economic and social sphere, too, not only in science, technology, religion and the arts etc. - J.Z., 25.8.98, 26.6.01. - DE-CONTROL, PERMIT SECESSION, LET THEM OPT OUT, DECENTRALIZE EXTERRITORIALLY, FREE ENTERPRISE FOR THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT & SOCIETY, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

LET PEOPLE BE: A long time ago I made me a rule. I let people do what they want to do.” – John Wayne in Hondo. – Naturally, e.g. child molesters, bank robbers and murderers excepted, for they don’t let people be. – J.Z. 1.2.69, 29.5.12. - & DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IN THEIR OWN SPHERE, LAISSEZ FAIRE, LEAVE ALONE, NON-INTERFERENCE, LIBERTY, RIGHTS ETC. PANARCHISM

LET PEOPLE LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES: Do you believe in “live and let live” or “live and let die”? Do you believe in enjoying yourself and letting other people enjoy themselves or do you believe private property should be taken from you and from others? – J.Z., 2.7/75. – By now I am dissatisfied with this formula myself? Please offer better and more stimulating questions. – J.Z., 21.11.07. One should not leave such wordings alone until they are close to perfect. This is one of the aims of this collection. It invites everyone to improve it further. – J.Z., 310.11.07. - PROPERTY, Q.

LET THEM HAVE IT, IN THE BEST MORAL SENSE: Let even have Nazis, Soviets, Maoists, Castro followers etc. have their own volunteer communities, to do their own things to themselves. That might suffice to teach at least the teachable among them, perhaps only after many more years of failures. - J.Z., Dec. 04.

LET THEM HAVE IT: Let the Welfare State believers have it – for themselves, at their expense and risk. - Let the modern liberals have the benefits of their “liberalism”, as long as they want them, at their own cost. Let the classical liberals have the benefits of their limited interpretation of laissez faire, mainly in economics only. Let the various radical libertarians, market-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, universal laissez faire advocates – have their choice, for themselves, to their own advantage and risk, without forcing any dissenter to participate in their free societies and market-, free enterprise and consumer sovereignty relationships. Let the various other kinds of anarchists, of every shade and colour, have their preferred systems – but only for themselves, without any unjustified claims towards those, who strongly disagree with them, especially on political, economic and social matters. - Let the protectionists of all kinds have their systems for themselves – exclusively at their own expense and risk, while the free traders have, among themselves only, all the benefits of free trade among themselves. - J.Z., Dec. 04, 29.5.12.

LET THEM, LET THEM BE, LEAVE THEM ALONE! Maybe they're right, some of them. But they can't all be right." - Poul Anderson, Dialogue with Darkness, p. 71. - So, let them do their own thing, all of them, each by himself and to himself, by like-minded people and to like-minded people and let none of them do it to others. - J.Z., 14.8.85. - Alas, even in SF novels this possibility has only rarely been fully developed. I proposed once to Poul Anderson that he should do so in one of his numerous novels. Alas, he revealed himself in his reply as merely a limited government advocate. - J.Z., 9.12.03.



LEVIATHAN STATE: Begin dismantling the Leviathan State at home and abroad …” Roy Childs, Liberty Against Power, p.8. – The best, easiest and most just way of dismantling it, as far as it should be, for all of its involuntary victims, consists of the same way in which the exclusive Catholic Church was dismantled: Dissenters and Nonconformists achieved the right to opt out or secede from it and to establish their own churches and sects that corresponded to their own beliefs. For political, economic and social systems the same freedom has still to be achieved, i.e., individual and group secessionism, with the groups of volunteers living under their own personal laws in full exterritorial autonomy. What worked well in the sphere of religion and already in many other spheres, would also work very well in those three important spheres that are now still monopolized and mismanaged by territorial States. – For foreign despotic regimes it could best be started by fully recognizing all kinds of governments and societies in exile, all of them quite clearly operating only for their own present volunteers and on behalf of all their future volunteers, and clearly tolerating all the other such governments and non-governmental societies. - J.Z., 22.11.07. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIALITY, PERSONAL LAWS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, TERRITORIALISM, DIS., IMPERIALISM, INTERNAL & EXTERNAL

LEVIATHAN: The leviathan state, that monster devouring civilization in this century, is in the throes of death. This is not a wish or a prediction, but a conclusion drawn from a broad look at the trends of the last decade and a half, which, if we take the right steps, can continue on into the next century. What has happened around the world – nations states collapsing, markets outwitting planners, citizens rising up against government masters – can and is happening here at home.” – Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - - Should we patiently wait for its natural death, suicide, collapse or abdication or for all too belated and successful violent revolutions? - A panarchist platform and revolution program, based on the best declaration of individual rights and liberties, which could and should be compiled at present, could greatly speed up this process. Even the threat of a nuclear and general holocaust was as yet not sufficient to achieve that, in the absence of wide-spread panarchistic ideas about freedom of action and tolerance for all sufficiently tolerant people. - Just remember that it took 12 very bloody years to bring the Hitler Regime down and Mussolini's regime and that of Lenin and Stalin, Mao, Castro and that of the North Korean Dictatorship lasted even longer. - Until anarchists and libertarians bother to develop, publish and apply quite rightful liberation, resistance and revolution programs, the criminal regimes remain relatively safe and their victims unsafe and unfree and all too much exploited. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06, 29.5.12. - STATE, THE GREAT MACHINE, CIVILIZATION, TERRITORIALISM, FEDERALISM, BIG GOVERNMENT, POWER, PANARCHISM, LIBERTARIAN SOLUTION PROGRAMS

LEVITATS, I.: The Jewish Community in Russia, 1772-1844, N.Y., 1943.

LEVY, A., The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, Darwin Press, Princeton, 1994. - RCBJ.

LEX RIBUARIA: The oldest part of the Lex Ribuaria (tit. 31) is found to contain a passage which ensures to the Frank, Burgundian, Alamann or any other, the benefit of his own law. 3 - LIU, Extraterritoriality, page 29. 3 Jenks, op. cit., p. 16. 

LEX SALICA: [8] Furthermore, according to Maitland (1898), the so-called Lex Salica was "a wonderful ‘system of personal laws’" and "let us remember that, by virtue of the Norman Conquest, the Lex Salica is one of the ancestors of English law." - RCBJ. - PERSONAL LAW, ENGLISH LAW, MAITLAND

LIBERAL PARTY: In Australia, and mutatis mutandis the United Kingdom, the essential difference between the soft socialist Labor Party and the avowedly free enterprise Liberal and National Country Party coalition is that the former is committed to socializing profits and the latter to socializing losses.” – Prof. Laughlan Chipman, QUADRANT, 4/76. – Alas, he did not advocate the right of individuals and of groups of dissenters to opt out from under both of them. Enlightenment is never directly achieved by large collectives. These can, mostly, become somewhat enlightened only through free experiments first only among a few. Territorial politics prevents that, regardless of whether Liberals, Labor people or Conservatives or Nationalists are in charge. – J.Z., 22.11.07, 23.12.10. – However, one should also take into consideration that the numerous experiments and precedents of successes and failures in history are also largely ignored by our “great” leaders. – Thus it should be up to each individual to pick and choose among all the current free experiments offered by volunteers, regardless of how well or how badly they are informed, just like they are free to choose their reading matter and their lecturers and teachers (after compulsory schooling and state controlled universities) and their goods and services in their shopping trips, their hobbies, sports, travel aims, music and arts involvements. – J.Z., 17.1.08. – SECESSIONISM & PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERALISM, CLASSICAL & MODERN, ALSO ANY FORM OF SOCIALISM, ALL ONLY FOR VOLUNTEERS: Classical liberalism for its adherents. Modern liberalism for its supporters. At the same time and in the same country: Any form of socialism, communism, anarchism, monarchism, etc. – but all only for their supporters and at their risk and expense. – J.Z., 25.1.04.

LIBERALISM, CLASSICAL & PANARCHISM: The best description of the connection may be still P. E. de Puydt’s article “ panarchy”. See it in several languages on

LIBERALISM, MODERN: Liberalism used to mean freedom. Classical liberalism performed mightily and achieved major breakthroughs in the area of worship, free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of economic enterprise. Then despotism returned and liberalism betrayed itself.” - Edmund Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 12/75. – Among the main reasons for this is the fact that classical liberalism never attacked monetary and financial despotism thoroughly and consistently enough to replace them by full monetary freedom and voluntary taxation. Far less did they attack involuntary State membership and subordination, by advocating individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. They were not even critical towards the employer-employee relationship, which promoted, indirectly, State socialist notions through its remaining and inherent flaws. I.e., Even the classical liberals did not advocate, as a rule, full freedom of association, full freedom of contract and exchange. It didn’t even introduce fully free trade and free migration. – It left territorial rulers in charge of war and peace! – It did not even abolish the postal monopoly. It never produced an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties – although it had many decades for this job. - J.Z., 22.11.07.

LIBERALISM, PANARCHISM: Liberalism is the belief that society can safely be founded on this self-directing power of personality, that it is only on this foundation that a true community can be built, and that so established its foundations are so deep and so wide that there is no limit that we can place to the extent of the building. Liberty then becomes not so much a right of the individuals as a necessity of society.” – L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, 123. – Alas, I never found them clearly standing up for exterritorial autonomy, personal law and individual secessionism. – J.Z., 23.12.10.

LIBERALISM: Anti-liberalism captured the popular mind disguised as true and genuine liberalism. – Mises, Omnipotent Government, p.4. – Territorial statism has conquered both, the genuine liberals and the genuine socialists. – If genuine individual consumer sovereignty, individual choice, freedom of contract and association and experimentation had prevailed in this sphere, rather than the territorial laws passed by “representatives” of majoritarian voting, we would have seen some outstanding successes and some outstanding failures of personal law associations and communities, societies and competing governments and all citizens would have been free to chose between them and for themselves only. This is the only vote or franchise that really counts and which is the equivalent of the daily vote of a free consumer for the consumer goods and services that he wants or needs. – We should all become sovereign consumers towards all kinds of “governmental” or “public” services that are competitively offered to us under comprehensive free enterprise or e.g. cooperative or voluntary socialism or under any other self-management or “leadership” of authoritarian regime. – To every tyranny its 1000 voluntary slaves! As long as they are willing to put up with it, i.e., do not secede from it! – What wonderful deterrent examples they would also supply, everywhere, all the time! For: “Each new generation is a new invasion by barbarians!” - J.Z., 30.11.07. Naturally, this would also mean: To each freedom lover the degree of liberty that he wants for himself and like-minded people. – J.Z., 17.1.08. - MODERN & TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CHOICE & SECESSIONISM, VOTING

LIBERALISM: Classical liberalism for its adherents. Modern liberalism for its supporters. At the same time and in the same country: Any form of socialism, communism, anarchism, monarchism, etc. – but all only for their supporters and at their risk and expense. – J.Z., 25.1.04. - CLASSICAL & MODERN, ALSO ANY FORM OF SOCIALISM, ALL ONLY FOR VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM

LIBERALISM: If our country is to survive and prosper, we must summon the courage to condemn and reject the liberal agenda, and we had better do it soon.” – Walter E. Williams, "The Gathering Racial Tragedy" - - Let "the country" look after itself. Let also those "liberals" do their things - but only for or to themselves, at their own risk and expense. Then they will soon condemn and reject it themselves, after more bitter experiences, for which they cannot blame anyone but themselves. "Give them enough rope to hang themselves!" We should condemn and reject this liberal agenda only for ourselves and let the modern liberals set further deterrent examples, enlightening to themselves and to the doubtful Thomases. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – MODERN VS. CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, LIBERTARIANISM & ANARCHISM

LIBERALISM: Is the territorial State a suitable institution to introduce and maintain genuine liberalism? – J.Z., 7.5.87, 14.11.07. - THE STATE, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, Q.

LIBERALISM: Liberalism failed – because it upheld the major oppressor, the territorial State. It operated like an anti-crime movement that would put the Mafia in charge of the fight against crime. – J.Z., 8.5.87. – Actually, the Mafia is pretty efficient in its fight against private criminal competitors. And the territorial State is pretty efficient in preventing or suppressing the competitive supply of services which it the State claims as its territorial monopoly, e.g. the money and currency monopoly. – J.Z., 14.11.07.

LIBERALISM: Liberalism must be intolerant of every sort of intolerance." Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition. – But it must become tolerant even of every kind of intolerance that is tolerantly practised only among the believers: Every form of statism for every kind of statists in the same country or even world-wide. At the same time, every form of liberalism but all confined to their believers and every form of anarchism and libertarianism – for their believers. Racism even – among its voluntary subscribers, practicing voluntary segregation among themselves, while their opponents, among themselves, would practise voluntary integration. Voluntary taxation for all groups of volunteers would be the rule. Within it all forms of taxation or contribution schemes and all forms of budgets could be practised side by side, as they are already practised among private voluntary associations. Full experimental freedom for all, all having opted out from under territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions, if they wanted to, with their activities separated by full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, with each having and using their own membership list and ID. All would have, so to speak, diplomatic immunity from territorial legislation (as long as they do not infringe genuine rights and liberties of outsiders). Then each experimenting group of volunteers could advance fast, from an initial handful, as fast as e.g. the producers of a new computer or computer program did over the last few decades or years. Like Facebook did, with now over 500 million members, U-tube, Google etc. - Most progress in the natural sciences, technology and the arts was achieved by experimental freedom. Let us have the same freedom for volunteers when it comes to the choice of and development of alternative political, social and economic systems. Protectionism for Protectionists, and also Free Trade for Free Traders. Any form of Free Banking for its advocates and any form of Central Banking for its believers. Any form of self-management of enterprises and of shared ownership in productive and exchange enterprises – for their voluntary participants and investors. Any form of health policy or insurance or age security arrangements – for their supporters. “Release all creative energies!” (Leonard E. Read) – Do so in every sphere! – Thousands of different experiments could then be made among their supporters somewhere in the world or even world-wide (among volunteers) undisturbed, all at the same time, but going in different directions, engaging in different activities, just like we do for entertainment and tourism, in sports, in our hobbies, in our reading, listening and viewing - and thus enlightenment, satisfaction and progress could be advanced fast and enormously, no longer being held back by territorial voting and popular errors, wide-spread ignorance and lack of interest in what is important to us, independent of the myths, prejudices, ignorance and dogmas of others, more or less embodied in majority supported territorial legislation. – Each could advance at the own speed or stagnate or relapse, if that is his or her preference. - J.Z., 24.12.10, 29.5.12. - VS. INTOLERANCE, DIS.

LIBERALISM: Liberalism’s solution to every domestic problem is to tax and inflate more and to allocate more federal funds; its solution for foreign crises is to “send the Marines (*) accompanied, of course, by politico-economic planners…” - Murray N. Rothbard, in Outside Looking In, p. 71. – It is surprising with how few and how false ideas our “great” territorial “leaders” or “mis-leaders” manage to get themselves into power and maintain themselves in it for all too long. But then territorial rule is almost designed for abuses and fools, who imagine themselves as little gods or as sheep, guided by a good shepherd – even if it is towards the abattoir. – (*) or the bombers! – J.Z., 30.11.07. – MODERN LIBERALISM, TAXATION, INFLATION, GOVERNMENT SPENDING & SENDING THE MARINES

LIBERALISM: On paper the formula is always perfect, and perhaps it would work out as predicted if the human hand would not touch it. (*) Take the case of liberalism (nineteenth century), which was the political expression of the individualistic thought-pattern. At the beginning, when liberalism was emerging from its adolescence, its only tenet was that political intervention in the affairs of men is bad. Hence, it advocated whittling away the power of the State, without reserve, and proposed to abolish laws, without replacement. This negativeness was all right until the liberals got into places of power, and then it occurred to them that a little positive action might be good; only the laws enacted by non-liberals were bad. The fact is – and this is something the State worshippers are prone to forget – that the comforts, emoluments and prerogatives that go with political office have great influence on the shaping of political policies; for the State consists of men, and men are, unfortunately, only human. And so, liberalism mutated into its exact opposite by the beginning of the twentieth century. Today it is the synonym of Statism.” – Frank Chodorov, Out of Step, p.258. - - The classical as well as the modern Liberals are still territorial Statists. They do not want to reduce their supposedly ideal society or State to volunteers only, under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws and subject to individual secessionism. To that extent both of them are still authoritarians. – J.Z., 2.2.09. (*) Or if there existed full experimental freedom in this sphere - for all kinds of volunteers. – We let free experimentation and consumer sovereignty decide already in so many other spheres. - J.Z., 22.11.07. ) - CLASSICAL VS. MODERN LIBERALISM, WHICH IS STATIST

LIBERALISM: Our contemporary obsession is alchemy’s cousin – the belief that society can be made more perfect – in fact transformed – by manipulation. (*) It is not a science at all, but a secular religion, sometimes mistakenly called liberalism.” – Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.68. - - What he says is only true for territorialist attempts to reform a whole country and all its population in any radical and consistent way by territorial legislation and institutions. Actually, the all-over society can be reformed, but only indirectly, in a decentralist way, including non-geographical decentralism. By thus releasing all creative and reformist tendencies, in their great varieties, to operate in free competition with each other, by their voluntary supporters, and exclusively at their risk and expense. Free enterprise and full consumer sovereignty for all political, economic and social systems. Just like e.g. in the arts, in technology, religion, life-styles, poetry, publishing, scientific research, technology etc. - - (*) The general society can be transformed but not directly and dictatorially, i.e. not by territorial, centralized, monopolistic and coercive actions - but only by free experiments of volunteers, in their own communities. While these are bound to make many mistakes, the volunteers would, gradually, accumulate in the successful communities. The unsuccessful ones would lose many to all of their members. All of them, with their failures and successes would be confined to their volunteers, all living intermixed with each other in the same territory - and this would have a very enlightening effect. Lastly, the sovereign consumers of political, economic and social systems, thus offered to them by fully free enterprises (communities, societies or competing governments) in these spheres as well, for their choice and participation, would tend to make sufficiently informed choices, which they almost never do under territorialist voting and “representation” and majority decision-making. – Just imagine how popular those communities will soon be that have no unemployment, no inflation, no taxation and fully free trade for their members! These advantages could easily be combined with full tolerance for e.g. racial, religious and wealth differences. Rapid reforms could occur among volunteers and spread, relatively fast, from them to new volunteers, either joining them or copying their successful methods. Majority or territorial government approvals and a prolonged enlightenment campaign would no longer be needed. – The facts, resulting from free actions, allowed at last, by and among at least a few volunteers, would be allowed to largely speak for themselves. - J.Z., 22.11.07. - SOCIETY, PERFECTION, REFORM, TRANSFORMATION, MANIPULATION, INTERVENTION, PANARCHISM

LIBERALISM: Some are of the opinion that they have become liberals merely because they have changed the direction of their intolerance.” – Brudzinski. (Manche meinen, sie seien liberal geworden, nur weil sie die Richtung ihrer Intoleranz geaendert haben.) – They are not liberals but authoritarians when it comes e.g. to the choice between exterritorialism for volunteers and territorialism for involuntary subjects, free banking and central banking, free migration and controlled immigration, free trade and protectionism, voluntary taxation and compulsory taxation, freedom in education and compulsory mis-education. – J.Z., 2.2.09, 29.5.12. – PANARCHISM, INTOLERANCE

LIBERALISM: The essential aim of liberalism, and the central liberal value, is the maximization of individual choice.” – George Will, quoted in THE FREEMAN, Nov. 85, 681. – But how many of them were consistent enough, like the young Herbert Spencer, to favour individual secessionism? (“Social Statics”, 1850, chapter 19, The Right to Ignore the State.)– J.Z., 2.2.09. CLASSICAL, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE

LIBERALISM: The ideal society is conceived as a whole which lives and flourishes by the harmonious growth of its parts, each of which is developing on its own lines and in accordance with its nature tends on the whole to further the development of others.” – L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism. - Page 123? – Under territorialism, popular votes, egalitarianism, unity and centralization notions and party politics and “positive” legislation, this ideal is soon transformed into its opposite. – Let all dissenters secede and do their own things, among themselves. Full experimental freedom for all. That is the fastest and only quite rightful way to progress, through independent and exterritorially autonomous societies or communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 24.12.10. - PANARCHISM, SCIENCE, CULTURE, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERALISM: The program of [classical] liberalism, condensed into a single word, would have to read: property.” – Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) – One should also be “liberal” towards e.g. State Socialists doing their own things, even if that amounts to doing away, largely, with private property in the means of production, exchange and transportation, even communication, as long as their statism is done at the own expense and risk, instead of being also territorially imposed upon numerous dissenters. One word can rarely, if ever, cover all the rightful options of reality. – J.Z., 24.12.10. CLASSICAL LIBERALISM & PROPERTY, DIS.

LIBERALISM: Without panarchism and monetary freedom, liberalism is still all too illiberal! It remained tied to monetary and territorial despotism - and their inevitable consequences. - J.Z., 99. – It did not even manage to do away with the postal monopoly and all of protectionism. – JZ., 29.5.12.

LIBERALS, MODERN: Modern Liberals, for years, have had a selective love of liberty. … In a word, they advocate freedom in intellectual, but not in economic matters. But this distinction among realms is artificial; the doctrine based upon it is false and its consequences in reality are self-destroying.” – David Kelly, THE FREEMAN, 10/75. – We need full freedom of choice, experimental freedom, exterritorial autonomy, in the sphere of whole political, economic and social systems, for individuals and for societies and communities of volunteers, not for territorial majorities and their parliaments and governments. The territorial equal vote is a wrongful vote on the affairs of others. The full individual vote would be one for an economic, political and social system that one wishes to practise peacefully - together with other and like-minded believers in it. Compare the peaceful competition between tens of thousands of different religious bodies and of private associations, clubs and leagues, all doing their things, among themselves, however limited their exterritorial autonomy is, so far. Also the decentralized and voluntary way in which natural science and technology advance. – J.Z., 24.12.10, 29.5.12. – VOTING, CHOICE, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM UNDER EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM

LIBERALS, MODERN: The modern liberals must re-discover classical liberalism. – J.Z., 9/74. – Alternatively, they should confine their modern liberalism to the modern liberals and leave classical liberals to practice their classical liberalism among themselves and allow also all other isms to do their own things, among their followers, always only at the own risk and expense. Then, modern liberals – and all kinds of other factions – will become tolerable to those, who do not share their ideas, errors and prejudices. – J.Z., 17.1.08, 24.12.10, 29.5.12.

LIBERALS: Finally, Liberals tend to try to find some nice framework of International Law within which to fight a terrorist struggle, rejecting the pragmatic concept of control and suppression in favor of one of negotiations and recognition.” - Newt Gingrich, Window of Opportunity, A Blueprint for the Future, p.231. - One form of negotiation and recognition, which neither the modern liberals nor the modern republicans have seriously considered, so far, has been called panarchism, polyarchism, multiarchis. or exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities, based upon individual secessionism, free choice of government and individual consent. They never offered terrorists or their sympathizers this freedom option and thus, to some extent, drove the less self-restrained and more irrational and prejudiced people, quite predictably, into terrorist actions. Even a cornered rat fights. - J.Z., 3.7.00 & 23.1.02, 24.12.10. - MODERN, NEGOTIATIONS, RECOGNITION, CONTROL, SUPPRESSION, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, TERRORISM, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERALS: For centuries liberals worked to bring about government based on the consent of the governed, though they disagreed a great deal on how democratic or republican forms of government could avoid the problem of both an unconstrained ruler and an unconstrained majoritarianism.” - David Boaz, ed., The Libertarian Reader, The Free Press, 1997, p.312. - (Claiming copyrights even to the writings of Paine, Madison, Tocqueville, Mill, etc.! – J.Z.) - - And for the same centuries the vast majority of the Liberals (as well as that of the Conservatives, Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, Libertarians) were illiberal or closed-minded enough to consider only the single territorial government option and to ignore the possibility of a multitude of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, based upon unanimous consent and not confined to any territory. – J.Z., 3.10.07 - POLITICAL CONSENT

LIBERALS: I am a liberal, I mean, one so altruistically moral, I never take my own side in a quarrel.” – Robert Frost, quoted in C. Bingham, Men & Affairs, p.40. – It would only be rightful and sensible to be tolerant towards all who do their own things, exterritorially, only among themselves, at their expense and risk, instead of territorially imposing them upon any peaceful dissenters. In this way one can advocate freedom to experiment for almost all. I would exempt those, who want to build, stockpile and ultimately use mass extermination devices, for with these they would not only wipe themselves out but all too many innocents. If some were able and willing to apply biological and chemical “weapons” only to themselves, committing suicide in this way, not risking any other lives by this experiment, I would not object but rather say: good riddance! – J.Z., 24.12.10. - MODERN, MORALITY, ETHICS, UTILITARIANISM, RIGHTS & ALTRUISM VS. SELF-INTEREST & SELFISHNESS

LIBERALS: Just as power is the God of the modern liberal, God remains the authority of the modern conservative. Liberalism practises regimentation by, simply, regimentation. Conservatism practises regimentation by, not quite so simply, revelation. But regimented or revealed, the name of the game is still politics.” – Karl Hess, Death of Politics, p.4. – I call it territorial politics. Exterritorial politics, in all its tolerant diversity, all by communities and societies of volunteers and “governments” over volunteers only, remains largely un-discussed in public. (*) – Territorial politics is only dead as a genuine ideal. Otherwise it is still all too much alive. - J.Z., 22.11.07. – Panarchism may be the only way to preserve conservatism and to confine it to conservatives. – J.Z., 2.2.09. – (*) In the meantime it has become discussed on the Internet more widely than it was ever before discussed in print. But it is stilly very far from having significantly changed public opinion. – J.Z., 29.5.12. – POWER, GOD & CONSERVATISM, PANARCHISM

LIBERALS: Liberals believe government should take people’s earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people’s earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one’s property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage.” – Walter Williams - - For freedom lovers the main question here is whether there should be such a robbery in the first place and how much longer we should put up with it. - J.Z. 24. 11. 06. – Under voluntary membership in all societies, communities and governmental or statist associations, none with a territorial monopoly, all such questions would be peacefully, tolerantly and freely settled, in a great variety of ways, for all people content with these various solutions, because they would then have chosen them for themselves, at their own expense and risk. Consumer sovereignty and service enterprise competition or experimental freedom in every sphere, for all! – J.Z., 4.12.10. - CONSERVATIVES ON LEGITIMACY OF LOOTING & SPENDING OF THE PILLAGE, TAXATION & GOVERNMENT SPENDING

LIBERALS: Liberals, in common with many conservatives, lay claim to the precious quality of impartiality, of cold objectivity, and to a sense of mystical impartial justice which, enables them to view both sides of an issue. Since there are always at least two sides to every question and all justice on one side involves a certain degree of injustice to the other side liberals are hesitant to act. Their opinions are studded with 'but on the other hand'. Caught on the horns of this dilemma they are paralyzed into immobility. They become utterly incapable of action. They discuss and discuss and end in disgust." - Saul D. Alinsky, quoted by Brian Martin, Changing the Cogs, p.29. - I would rather call this the territorialist's dilemma, resulting from the ignorance of or non-appreciation of the exterritorial autonomy options for volunteers, that could and should be introduced for all dissenters in the political, economic and social spheres, too, as part of a general freedom to act and experiment. - J.Z., 12.1.93. - At least the modern liberals have been all too active with their numerous statist schemes and laws, which often distinguished them not at all from State Socialists. In some instances the State Socialists have been even more or earlier for the reintroduction of fragments of laissez faire than the modern liberals were, e.g. when it comes to freely floating exchange rates and at least a reduction of immigration barriers. - J.Z., 12.1.93, 16.9.04, 29.5.12. - IMPARTIALITY, OBJECTIVITY, PARALYSIS, IMMOBILITY, TERRITORIALISM, STATE SOCIALISM, PANARCHISM

LIBERALS: There are no true liberals in the Liberal Party. They are all territorial statists, just like the members of the ALP and the Labor Party are – and the Conservatives, the Democrats and the Republicans – and most other parties. – Only their voluntary members and voters deserve their “policies”. – J.Z., 19.6.76.

LIBERATION & OPPRESSION: From liberator to oppressor is merely a step - if you are also a territorialist. (After watching a TV show on Bask suppression of Spaniards after the Basks obtained their autonomy. Africa offers many instances demonstrating that rule by black dictators, instead of white ones, does not amount to liberation.) - J.Z. 3.1.93.

LIBERATION & PANARCHISM: Within the framework of territorial States no full liberation is possible for anybody. – J.Z., 24.4.89.


LIBERATION FROM DOMINATION: Contemporary national liberation movements are themselves social movements. They will not come to an end before every group is liberated from the domination of other groups ..." - Qathafi, [Gaddhafi] The Green Book, p.75. - Criminals with victims ought always to be dominated to achieve indemnification, deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation and punishment. J.Z. 12.1.93. – Did he mean “by other groups? – Did he at least hypothesize, although never practise, panarchism? – J.Z., 2.2.09. – Was there a worse criminal in the country, which he dominated for all too long? In what respect was he ever a genuine liberator? – J.Z., 25.12.11. - LIBERATION FROM DOMINATION

LIBERATION OPTIONS FOR ALL, SELF-MANAGEMENT & SELF-GOVERNMENT OPTIONS FOR ALL: The libertarian options are to be opened up for libertarian individuals and groups, anywhere and everywhere, while, at the same time, in the same country and the world, all other ism options are to be opened up for THEIR true believers, in full exterritorial autonomy and tolerance, as was already achieved for churches, philosophies, arts, crafts, sports, entertainments, fashions etc. - J.Z., 23.4.89.

LIBERATION WAR: Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. By John Gray. Allen Lane, 2007. Ix + 243 pages. Gray quotes a speech by Robespierre in 1792 that offers advice still of value today: The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and to expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. (p. 146)” – Since in every country there are usually many factions or minorities, at least some of the population of a country is likely to readily embrace the program of an invading force. If the invaders asked for nothing more than that and were to recognize all the other factions and minorities and the majority as well, in whatever political, economic and social system they do want for themselves, only then could they rightly expect to be welcomed by all as liberators. If a majority faction ruled before then all it would lose would be its rule over dissenters, who always caused some trouble for it and so it might also become quite satisfied. – J.Z., 21.1.09. – If the aggressors, invaders or liberators had allied themselves, long in advance, with all kinds of governments and societies in exile, all meant only for their present and future voluntary members, and if this fact and the already existing exterritorial autonomy of these allies in the host countries were sufficiently publicized, then such a genuine liberation could easily happen, without or with hardly any bloodshed. For it would mean that then, in the temporarily occupied country, everyone could get the society or community of his or her dreams or individual choice, for himself or herself and for all like-minded people, as long as they want to. So why should they resist such an aggression, invasion or liberation effort? Even the presently territorially ruling regime would remain – but only for its voluntary victims. – It would then be wise to also abstain from any revenge, retaliation and indemnification claims. That one is finally free to do the own things, at the own risk and expense, should be enough of a victory. For too long all had subscribed to territorialism and many thus suffered some of its worst consequences. To that extent they should then blame themselves. - J.Z., 24.12.10. - LIBERATION WITH ONLY DEMOCRACY AS A WAR AIM? PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, ON THE PANARCHIST MODEL

LIBERATION WARS: Conquering only to set others free, such as the people under Aztec rule; …” – Robert B. Marcus Jr., The Nineth Circle, ANALOG 8/74. – However, wars are rarely the only or best means to achieve such an aim. And “the people” embodies a myth, that of national and territorial unity and a uniform population, all with the same national aims. All peaceful minorities and the peaceful majority ought to be liberated – all to live under the personal laws and exterritorially autonomous communities of their individual choice. – J.Z., 22.11.07.

LIBERATION: by respecting everybody’s sovereignty, you liberate them and cooperate far more cordially than when they’re forced to get along.” – L. Neil Smith, The Nagasaki Vector, p.105. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

LIBERATION: Freeing oppressed nationalism is perhaps the most dangerous of all philanthropic enterprises.” – William Bolitho, Twelve Against the Gods, 1929. - - Freeing oppressed nationalities and other oppressed groups is not necessarily the most dangerous of all necessary, just and peace-promoting enterprises, provided one engages in a quite just liberation effort for all minorities, instead of trying to establish merely another territorial domination by just one group. It should start with the recognition of the full exterritorial autonomy of all governments in exile that aim only at extending their kind of exterritorial autonomy into their oppressed homeland population, while recognizing, in the guest country as well as in their home country, for the future, and for all other countries in the world, all other exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, this being their main liberation aim. – How dangerous mere territorial liberation attempts are, even for supporters of representative democracies, is presently well demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. – And yet, officially no other liberation is contemplated and prepared for. - J.Z., 18.11.07. – MINORITY AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, NATIONALISM

LIBERATION: From liberator to oppressor is merely a step, whenever you are still a territorialist. Formerly suppressed minorities become territorial oppressors if they are merely territorially and “nationally” “liberated” - towards members of those communities that formerly suppressed them. Rather than using their new liberties creatively and productively and recognizing them for all others as well, the newly liberated think primarily of revenge or retaliation. – A genuine liberation program is still amiss or not yet sufficiently published. - J.Z., n.d. and 22.11.07. - UNDER TERRITORIALISM

LIBERATION: He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself.” - Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795. – SELF-LIBERATION RATHER THAN NATIONAL LIBERATION WARS, WAR AIMS, QUITE RIGHTFUL ONES, ENEMIES & LIBERTIES, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE

LIBERATION: I believe that it is desirable and necessary to free men and nations from tutelage and dependence, and then to assist them. But I do not believe that we have the right to coerce them into happiness as we conceive it." - Willy Brandt. - 1.) As if the totalitarians were right and a uniform "people" would exist. 2.) Even if there are only a handful of freedom lovers in a whole nation, these few do have the right to be free, as free as they want to be and have the right to ask for our assistance and we have the right to give it to them. 3.) Only when people want to be freed and only for those who want to be freed - is there any case for a liberation effort. 4.) There is a great difference between coercing whole other nations in the direction of liberty and providing individuals and groups of it with the chance for individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy from authoritarian regimes. 5.) The latter could start e.g. with recognizing exterritorial types of governments in exile - for all their present and future voluntary members. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 8.4.89, 29.5.12.

LIBERATION: It better befits a man to laugh at life than to lament over it.” - Seneca. - Neither complaints nor laughter are enough. Moral and reasonable beings would reduce the occasions for either. - J.Z., 25.11.02. – Especially by individual and group secessionism combined with exterritorially autonomous experiments among volunteers, doing their own things, at the own risk and expense. That freedom to experiment would spread experience, knowledge and enlightenment and make complaints, jokes and satire against the territorial despotism superfluous. – J.Z., 24.12.10. - START IT WITH LAUGHTER RATHER THAN LAMENT & COMPLAINTS, JOKES, SATIRE, HUMOR TOWARDS TERRITORIAL OPPRESSION & EXPLOITATION

LIBERATION: Let us hang no one, and set everybody free." - Frederic Bastiat, Economic Sophisms, p.241. – Only as free as they want to be, individually and in their communities of volunteers! – J.Z., 2.2.09. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERATION: Let us try to slow down the process of concessions and help the process of liberation.” – Aleksander I. Solzhenitsyn, Words of Warning to the Western World, p.29. – Alas, he still thinks in terms of territorialism. - If we made exterritorial autonomy concessions to all the various groups and movements, then the process of genuine liberation for all, via individual choices for all, could proceed at the fastest pace possible. – J.Z., 15.11.07. - CONCESSIONS, COMPROMISES & PANARCHIST TOLERANCE FOR ALL MINORITIES, EVEN THE STATIST ONES

LIBERATION: Liberation for all - to the extent that they want to be liberated - instead of "victories". – J.Z., n.d. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERATION: Liberation in its grandest meaning should be liberation from imposed authority and institutionalized hierarchy itself. Liberation merely from one tyrant is a temporary thing, as it has turned out. Liberation from tyranny is a more decent, more substantial goal. …” – Karl Hess, Dear America, p.253. - - Nor is its replacement by territorial and majoritarian democracy good enough. – J.Z., 22.11.07. - LIBERATION FROM TYRANNY, INSTEAD OF MERELY FROM ONE TYRANT, ONE MINORITY OR MAJORITY OR THE OTHER: PANARCHISM, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN

LIBERATION: Liberation” under the management of any government or political set-up – what’s that got to do with freedom?” – Nestor Machno, The Anarchist Revolution. – Alas, he, too, thought only of territorial and anarchistic liberation, instead of leaving it to individuals which kind of government, community or society and personal law system they would wish and work for and would be able to get for themselves, even if they would have to be among its founding fathers. For all kinds of political, economic and social systems we should have the same kind of freedom of association and freedom of contract that we have for all other kinds of associations and contracts. Voluntary slaves, serfs or subjects have the right to their kind of subordination – as long as they can and are willing to put up with it, i.e., do not secede from it. They should be no more subjected to anarchism than religious people should be subjected to atheism. – J.Z., 22.7.07. – GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, VS. GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OR PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, ANARCHISM, DIS.

LIBERATION: No “national liberation” for nations do not exist as entities to be liberated, but rather individual liberation – the liberation of every individual from the authoritarian state (*) and the creation of a free society, within which all human action and interaction is voluntary.” – Doug Kennell. - - (*) But only as far as an individual would want to become liberated, for the time being. – If he still prefers certain dependencies and shepherds or authoritarian institutions or monopolies, then he and like-minded people should be left alone with them. – J.Z., 22.11.07.

LIBERATION: The faster all-over liberation of all would or could proceed - the better. However, reliance on educating all or inducing them to participate in a general revolution for the complete liberation of all, may actually be the slowest method or no-way of getting there at all. The fastest way consists in letting each advance, stagnate or regress at the own speed, in accordance with his own preferences, at his own risk and cost, thus multiplying natural and free learning experiences. - J.Z., 6.12.91, 11.12.03.

LIBERATION: The libertarian options are to be opened up for libertarian individuals and groups, anywhere and everywhere, while, at the same time, in the same country and the world, all other ism options are to be opened up for THEIR true believers, under full exterritorial autonomy and tolerance, as was, largely, already achieved for churches, philosophies, arts, crafts, sports, entertainments, fashions etc. - J.Z., 23.4.89, 24.12.10. - OPTIONS FOR ALL, SELF-MANAGEMENT & SELF-GOVERNMENT OPTIONS FOR ALL

LIBERATION: The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men.” – John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), U.S. President, Speech, University of California, 3.23.63. – Together with his Soviet counterpart he came close to liberating ourselves of everything, in the “modern” and “scientific” way. – J.Z., 7.1.08. – J. F. K. may have spoken, sometimes, like a panarchist, e.g. in his statement in West-Berlin: “I too, am a Berliner!”, but he certainly wasn’t one. – J.Z., 2.2.09. – He remained a territorialist and was prepared to commit nuclear mass murder, rather than attempting to liberate the people, which he threatened with these “weapons”. – He did not even advocate individual and minority secessionism from totalitarian territorial regimes, on the basis of exterritorial autonomy and prepared for it by recognizing corresponding governments and societies in exile. As territorialist men and “nations” we can never be free enough. -J.Z., 24.12.10. – DIS., SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIALISM

LIBERATION: While almost all people in a territory can be all too much suppressed, not all of them can be territorially fully liberated, simply because mentally not all people are as yet sufficiently prepared for full liberation. Full liberation, as well as any degree of liberation can be successfully achieved only within groups of volunteers. And as such they would arouse the least resistance, once this limitation is fully understood. Then a wide-spread attitude towards the secessionists might even be: Good riddance! – J.Z., 18.11.07. - TERRITORIAL? VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

LIBERATORS: The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – H. L. Mencken – Imagine the consequences in Afghanistan and Iraq - if the U.S.A had come as true panarchist liberators, instead of as advocates of a uniform territorial and majoritarian democracy, which does not work very well in the U.S.A. either, even after more than 2 centuries. – J.Z., 2.2.09, 24.12.10. - REFORMERS, STATISTS, REVOLUTIONARIES, SAVIOURS, PANARCHISM

LIBERTARIAN ELECTION VICTORY: Precondition for a rapid victory of libertarianism and its protection requires the redefinition of the world “victory” as meaning: Any kind of libertarianism for any kind of libertarian according to their own individual choice and this under conditions in which any other kind of ism is also realized, but only by and for and at the expense and risk of those, who do like it for themselves and as long as they can, individually, stand it. If e.g. the LP ever won in all local governments, States and the USA federal and presidential elections then it should allow all its opponents to secede. To gain the limited and above indicated election victory it should advocate individual and secessionism not only for its own members but for the members of all other movements as well. – J.Z., 22.24.04, 4.11.04. 23.11.04. - Then even the opponents of libertarianism might vote for such an LP victory. – J.Z., 24.12.10. - PANARCHISM, ELECTIONS & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VICTORY, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITY RULE

LIBERTARIAN KNOW-IT-ALLS: Libertarians, who imagine that they already know all the answers and have nothing to learn any more as libertarians, may, indeed, bring about some reforms, may start themselves on careers, may gather considerable funds for their limited aims, may make names for themselves, but they rather lose as libertarians and will compromise libertarianism. – J.Z., 5.9.86. - - Libertarian know-it-alls are not much or not sufficiently better than statist know-it-alls. They tend to slow down rather than speed up the progress of libertarianism. Only if they aimed at realizing their limited freedom reforms to their own affairs and were tolerant towards all other reformers doing their own things for or to themselves, could they optimally promote liberties and rights. – J.Z., 14.11.07.

LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING and the Research Centre for Monetary and Financial Freedom, Libertarian PEACE PLANS stand for: Panarchism, Productive Coops, Free Trade, Libertarian Defence, Liberation Revolution and Militias, Alternative Media and Enlightenment Options, a Libertarian Encyclopaedia, Archive of Ideas, Bibliographies, Abstracts, Indexes, Definitions, Classification Schemes, Directories, Reviews, Slogans for Liberty Encyclopaedia, Refutations Encyclopaedia, etc., on the road towards a complete and permanent Libertarian Library, Publishing and Information Service, making optimal use of all affordable and powerful alternative media so far vastly under-utilised for libertarian texts, like microfiche, floppy disks, CD-ROMs and DVDs, to bring about a genuinely cultural revolution and sufficient enlightenment, together with PIOT: Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams. - J.Z., in an email, 4.6.03. - Postal address: John Zube, LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, P.O. Box 7052 or 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia, e-mail: - Tel. (02) 48 771 436. No FAX! - Main website: - It lists alphabetically the authors of PEACE PLANS Nos. 1-1545 and offers and introduction to microfilming and some essays on monetary freedom and panarchism. Total nearly 5 Mbs. Supplementary lists, alphabetically and by PEACE PLANS numbers, covering PEACE PLANS 1546 - 1779, on 5.8 Mbs, are now available at - - Cross references in these lists are still very - incomplete. - LMP's main website offers a 2,000 pages guide to the PEACE PLANS issues that LMP has produced since 1977, containing, on about 500,000 pages, libertarian and anarchist books, pamphlets, magazines, newsletters, dissertations, bibliographies, directories, indexes, essays and articles, letter, review and leaflet collections, etc., with an average of over 300 pages per microfiche: $ 1 cash each, post-free for orders of at least 10, or 2 International Reply Coupons or $2 in cash. Other payments are not accepted. (However, I am willing to exchange microfiche for printed or digitized texts that I still want. - J.Z., 20.8.11.) Had any other individual published more freedom texts, more cheaply, in any medium, up to 2002? - J.Z., in email, 4.6.03, somewhat revised: 20.8.11. - Since 2002 and PEACE PLANS issue Nor. 1779, no further PEACE PLANS have been issued on microfiche. Willy nilly, I followed the trend to digitizing texts. - J.Z., 20.8.11. - - John Zube's Libertarian Microfiche Publishing. - The biggest publishing venture on earth. - That is very much exaggerated. True is only that, at least for a while, 1977 to 2002, as an individual, with limited means, I was able to publish more libertarian texts, at least on the unpopular but very cheap and easy medium of microfiche, than anybody else I knew. My microfilm agency in Sydney was highly computerized and automated and thus could reproduce my microfiche masters and duplicates very cheaply, once I supplied it with the photo-ready paper master, sometimes for up to 2 dozen books at a time. However, since then many individuals may have produced more libertarian texts either online or discs, not to speak of audio or video records. E.g., David Hart. - Moreover, genuine publishing requires not only production but also distribution. Usually, I produced only 100 duplicates of my microfiche, since I could easily and fast order more from my micrographic agency. Alas, only rarely was such re-ordering required. The medium remained all too unpopular with anarchists and libertarians, too, although with it they could have easily published all their texts. I estimated that ca. 300 libertarians, active like me in this respect, could have done it. Well, they did not use this affordable opportunity, either. Neither have they published since then everything of interest to them online or on discs, although the disc publishing has become even cheaper than microfilm publishing. Recently, for instance, I bought 10 DVDs, with a capacity of 7 GBs each, for only A $3. - The same publisher, which reproduced my LMP literature list there, has also published my "Slogans for Liberty" collection, coming to ca. 38 Mbs. It contains many MBs of notes and quotes on panarchism, which I extracted for this A to Z collection. - J.Z., 19.9.11.

LIBERTARIAN NATION.ORG: Free-Market Alternatives to the State [September 2001] - A list of topics (e.g. education, immigration, police and protection, taxes, etc.) leading to related articles.

LIBERTARIAN PARTY & INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONS: U.S.A.: Its 1990 platform it recognizes individual secession as a right. - - If the Libertarian Party came out quite clearly and primarily in favour of individual secessionism, then I, as an individualist anarchist, would have no other quite as fundamental objection against it. – J.Z., 1986, 2004.

LIBERTARIAN PARTY, USA: Libertarians have quietly become America’s best organized and most significant third party. Unlike flash-in-the-pan parties organized around cults of personality like Ross Perot’s and Ralph Nader’s, Libertarians have organized at the grass roots for the long haul. They are fast approaching the point where they may force the major parties to reckon with Libertarian ideas.” – Bob Ewegen, THE DENVER POST, 11/24/01. - As long as the LP does not also advocate individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, it will remain its own worst enemy. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – PANARCHISM

LIBERTARIAN PARTY: A libertarian party which seriously and believably aims at individual and minority secessionism and at voluntary communities under personal laws, even for all its opponents, is morally in a very different position from one that would introduced libertarianism territorially for all, whether the remaining statists like that or not. – J.Z., 27.4.89, 19.11.07. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, INCLUDING “LIMITED GOVERNMENTS” THAT ARE NOT CONFINED TO VOLUNTEERS ONLY

LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Before long, people were jockeying to become “King of the Libertarians” simply, tragically, because a throne (*) had been built into the structure by accident. (**) - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.75. - (*) Rather, the absolutism of a territorial monopoly, even though only for an otherwise “limited” government. – J.Z., 27.9.07. - - (**) Not merely by accident. The limited government advocates are so intent on territorialism and know so little of its alternative, voluntary and exterritorial autonomy for alternative societies, communities and governments of all kinds, except territorial ones, that this alternative was altogether ignored by them or even condemned, out of ignorance and prejudice, with ridiculous arguments, like e.g. Ayn Rand did, in “The Virtue of Selfishness”. – J.Z., 27.9.07.

LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Dear fellow freedom-lovers, The LP still needs to rethink some of the fundamentals of its platform. The usual party struggles for victory over the other parties make the job all too hard, expensive and prolonged. A better approach would be to turn enemies and bystanders into allies: by obviously, for them, too, fighting for their freedom, as well, but for only as much freedom as they do want for themselves, namely, complete self-government by their own standards, which is only possible on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy for all but the remaining aggressors. In other words, only by dropping out of "party politics as usual" can you hope to rapidly gain freedom for all LP supporters and also as much freedom as all others want for themselves. Make it unmistakably clear that you want to let each and everyone (apart from totalitarians, fanatics etc.) to become happy in his own way, not only in the LP way - and they will become your friends and allies in a common liberation efforts against all territorial despotism and intolerance and their inevitable consequences. No other party could quite consistently offer them such a platform. … Many more such ideas, references and historical examples and proposals are combined in my growing reference work ON PANARCHY, so far in 24 volumes but only on 24 of my LMP microfiche (These were later digitized. - J.Z., 20.8.11.) also in some special works in my PEACE PLANS series, like the writings of J. G. Fichte, Herbert Spencer and P. E. de Puydt and some modern writers on the subject ( or dealing with the historical precedents of exterritorial autonomy, especially in China, by foreign powers, the "unequal treaties", which the foreign powers failed to turn into "equal treaties", via corresponding rights for Chinese people in their countries. Territorial governments, too, are often their own worst enemies. - With a panarchistic or polyarchistic platform the LP could soon come to peacefully compete with the Republican, the Democratic and all other parties and movements, in practical experiments at the risk and expense of its supporters only and could thus easily win more adherents from all of them without frightening them with what they believe to be too much liberty. Naturally, it should also advocate exterritorial autonomy for volunteers of the Democratic Party and for volunteers of the Republican Party. Actions speak louder than words. But the right ideas and words must first find their way into its platform, to get almost everybody as its ally, except the totalitarians and fanatics. - PIOT, John Zube, in email, 4.6.03, revised: 29.5.12. –

LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Most self-described “libertarian activists” seem to be little more than political hoods, itching to get their hands on the coercive apparatus of the State. Their idea of liberty is to become the oppressors, rather than the oppressed. But if the resources now being dissipated in the political process, were instead applied to chipping away at the boundaries of state sovereignty, who knows what might result? The urban roadway monopoly offers a prime opportunity for such an effort.” – Taylor Radford, THE CONNECTION 105, p. 64, 24.7.82. – The gradualist and step by step approach to liberty, fighting one battle after the other, often for a long time and with only small gains, is usually overtaken by the lawmakers throwing up more legal barriers than were taken down by the liberators. I rather favour the all-over approach of e.g. individual secessionism, combined with exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. Also the all-over educational approach of at least a libertarian encyclopedia, abstracts and review collection, bibliography, directory, refutations encyclopedia, definitions encyclopedia, libertarian projects list, an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties, and a comprehensive libertarian library, which could now be offered on a cheap HD of only 320 GBs. (A $ 149, recently in Bowral ALDI shop.) – Why are so few libertarians interested in such large and affordable educational possibilities, which are not outlawed in most countries? – J.Z., 15.11.07. – Two days ago, at Dick Smith’s, in Mittagong, I bought a MAXTOR 500 GBs one for only A. $ 99. – [Since then I have seen HDs offered for as low as $ 55 to $ 60 per TB for HD of one to 3 TBs. – J.Z., 29.5.12.]  If only libertarian text collectors and publishers were making enough use of this kind of technology! If copyrights were renounced, then local libertarians could, between them, buy one such disc filled with libertarian texts and make the required copies of it themselves, without involving the monopoly charges of the P.O. and any further custom duties that might be charged and without any further delays except the copying process. – Selected extracts on CDs & DVDs could and should also be offered and these could be easily and cheaply snail-mailed. - J.Z., 2.2.09. No scanning job is too large – if it is divided among sufficient scanners. Alas, we have not yet a common projects list to coordinate such efforts. – J.Z., 6.2.09. – By now even a Seagate Expansion external HD o 2 TB is down to A $ 139. – 4 times the capacity of the above-mentioned & this for only $ 40 more! Imagine it filled with a libertarian library and on your desk! - J.Z., 24.12.10.


LIBERTARIAN PARTY: The vote as a somewhat forceful means is not inherently immoral. It depends upon what purposes it is used for. It can be used, however difficult that may be, under majority voting, merely defensively against old or new and so far legalized wrongful or aggressive actions, rather than supporting the continuance or even further interventionism. It could somewhat and sometimes legitimize and mobilize the power of the State against some internal aggressive or otherwise wrongful actions. However, merely voting against external aggressors is hardly helpful. On the other hand, voting for quite rightful war and peace aims, based upon recognizing all individual rights and liberties, in a believable way, indicating that one will really uphold them (e.g. by internally recognizing the exterritorial autonomy of minority groups, welcoming refugees and deserters) could prevent or shorten wars and lead to the liberation of people who were abused by their governments. Voting against monetary despotism and for monetary freedom, if it were put on the election agenda, could also help. Voting could be used to achieve the repeal of many despotic laws, of many to all taxes and of the repression of individual and group secessions. It could lead to the redistribution of all State assets to the citizens. (See PEACE PLANS 19 c, on a disk reproduced on It could sanction an ideal declaration of individual rights, - etc. But territorial voting has always an uphill battle against popular prejudices and still tries to operate under territorialist principles and institutions rather than allowing people to vote themselves out from under them, as far as their own affairs are concerned. To that extent we all remain disfranchised under the pretence of havingthe” vote. It is only the kind of vote, which, as a rule, counts least for individuals and minorities. Voting to achieve territorial domination, even for the best ideal, is wrong. Voting for exterritorial autonomy or tolerance for all tolerant actions and communities, would be quite rightful. Alas such choices have so far not been offered in any elections that I know of, not even by a libertarian party. – J.Z., 27.4.89, 24.12.10. - VOTING

LIBERTARIAN PARTY: We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. - We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to live in whatever manner they choose.” - From the Libertarian Party of California Platform, Statement of Principles. - INDIVIDUALISM VS. STATE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

LIBERTARIAN PROPHETRESS ALICE LENCHINA, or Maximum Extension of the Principle of Religious Freedom and Tolerance, plan 90, page 7, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506.

LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTION: America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. - Claire Wolfe, 101 Things To Do Until the Revolution. – Is it ever too early for individual and group secessionism? Starting with sufficiently thorough discussions, perhaps also comprehensive digitized “argument maps” in order to clearly show the full case for it? It might begin in earnest, in practice, the “patriotic” way, supporting the current US government, by advocating e.g. full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of dissenters to foreign despotic governments, becoming organized in own their kind of exterritorially autonomous communities, all only of and for their volunteers (and intended for their future volunteers, when their home countries are liberated), and this while they are still living and working in their host country. The next step might be to demand the same secessionist and exterritorial autonomy rights for all American dissenters, which these “foreigners” would then already enjoy in their own governments in exile. - Such practical examples would greatly facility and speed up military uprisings and liberating revolutions in the despotic enemy countries or pacify the existing civil wars there and make them also much less bloody. – If that policy had been adopted, instead of military occupation, as in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, both full of factions that are strongly antagonistic to each other and, territorially, inevitably at loggerheads , … - - To attempt to militarily impose a unified and territorial “democracy” in such cases is quite wrongful, self-defeating and even absurd. Full exterritorial autonomy should have been recognized for all the tribal, racial, national religious and ideological groups, in both “countries”, “nations” or States, which are, anyhow, largely artificial constructs of international territorial politics rather than institutions freely chosen by their subjects or victims. - J.Z., 4.1.08, 30.5.12. - ARMED OR SECESSIONIST & PANARCHIST ONES, Q. – PANARCHIST REVOLUTIONS COULD BE BOTH, ARMED & UNARMED & WOULD BE LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE LEAST AMOUNT OF BLOODSHED, IF ANY. GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES IN EXILE AS BEST ALLIES FOR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS & FREEDOM LOVERS.

LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTION: We have reached the time when it is morally right to "shoot the bastards", but it is not yet practical to do so.” - Vin Suprynowicz, cited by Claire Wolfe in a speech before the Arizona Libertarian Party Convention, April 19, 1997. – - Before one starts shooting one should have quite rightful war- peace- and revolution aims. The coercive imposition of a limited territorial government upon a whole population, largely made up of statists, is not a sufficiently rightful aim to warrant bloodshed. Such libertarians have only the right to attempt to introduce such a government among themselves. They must leave all others to their own choices of governments or societies or communities. – Otherwise they act just like the terrorists, territorial non-libertarian rulers or foreign aggressive governments do. - J.Z., 4.1.07. - Libertarian revolutions have not yet been tried, not even systematically planned. Some suggestions on them can be found in my two peace books in PP 16-17 & 61-63. Online at - J.Z., 1.11.02. – PANARCHISM, WAR & PEACE AIMS, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTARIANISM & PANARCHISM: Libertarianism, interpreted merely as advocacy of "limited" or mini-governments, is in opposition to panarchism. It has still an essentially totalitarian feature, namely its territorialism. But there are many other strands of libertarainism, e.g. anarcho-capitalism or free market anarchism. Have all of its versions been listed and compared with each other? - J.Z., 17.9.04. – How tolerant are they already or how intolerant are they still e.g. towards statist governance systems for volunteers only, under exterritorial autonomy? – J.Z., 30.5.12. – Q., “LIMITED” GOVERNMENTS & THEIR AUTHORITRIAN TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTARIANISM EMBRACES DISSENT & TOLERANCE: Libertarianism embraces dissent and tolerance. - Jim Downard in TC, No.? p. 33. - Alas, not always for the exterritorial options, too. - J.Z., 8.1.93.

LIBERTARIANISM, ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy." - Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr., The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 10, 1971. - I see no difference between consistent libertarianism and consistent anarchism. Their common basis is voluntarism, self-ownership, natural rights and liberties, individual sovereignty, free choice. Here nothing but consumer sovereignty towards so-called "government services" is involved. – J.Z., 1986, 2004. – However, that it also requires full exterritorial autonomy under personal law for all kinds of statists is not yet conceded and clearly enough stated by most kinds of anarchists and libertarians. I would love to hear of all exceptions to this rule and to state them, at least shortly, in the Panarchy A to Z. – J.Z., 30.5.12.

LIBERTARIANISM: As everybody knows, 100 %, freedom is anarchy - the total absence of government. To be a libertarian, then, one would have to advocate anarchy, although there are those who don't. In a condition of anarchy, the means by which production and justice would be handled would be through the mechanism of the free market, except for those who hold that it would be done through collectives, the popular vote or FUEHRER. A Libertarian, therefore, is one who believes in freedom of action and thought to be achieved through anarchy and the free market - except for those who advocate limited constitutional government, fascism, communism, and monarchy ...” - Dr. Murray Mothball, in "The Lybertarian Lympoon", 34 pages, p.7, microfiched in PEACE PLANS 975. Has anyone digitized and expanded it as yet, into a large libertarian jokes collection? – A quick search for it had only 28 results. None of it offered this unique libertarian joke book in digitized form. It seems to be still the one and only one. – Has Rothbard expressed himself clearly panarchistically anywhere? Did he really make that exception or did he conceded exterritorial autonomy even to statist volunteers? - J.Z., 16.11.02, 30.5.12. - ANARCHISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, MARKET, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, FREEDOM OF ACTION, PANARCHISM, TO EACH HIS OWN, MURRAY N. ROTHBARD

LIBERTARIANISM: Exclusively libertarian programmes for all people are self-limiting. They limit the application of libertarianism to the unlikely case, if and when it might ever occur, when, finally, sufficient people are won over to libertarianism to introduce it for all in the conventional political, i.e., territorial way. Panarchistic and voluntaristic programs, on the other hand, are self-expanding from the smallest beginnings of some volunteers and inclusive and could embrace almost everybody's ideals, in diverse and exterritorially autonomous panarchies, with only those of incurable totalitarians, fanatics and other criminals excluded. By applying their libertarian programs only to libertarians, however few or many these may be, and leaving or teaching all others to live under the regimes of their own free and individual choices, as long as they want to or can stand them, they do have the potential for achieving an almost universal consensus on the basic requirements for a free society, even if, in their internal affairs, most people would, for a long time to come, prefer less free arrangements. One may not be able to persuade a Catholic to become a Protestant or a Protestant to become a Catholic but one can, mostly, win over both to religious freedom. The same attraction lies, inherently and for the most diverse movements, in the panarchistic offer of full exterritorial autonomy for all who desire it. - J.Z., 15.2.89, 3.4.89, 30.5.12. OBSTRUCTS ITS CHANCES BY ADHERING TO TERRITORIALISM.  PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

LIBERTARIANISM: For libertarianism to win soon and easily enough, it is necessary that it defines its “victory” properly. The only just and deserved victory of libertarianism would not consist in conquering State power and imposing libertarianism territorially on all the statist dissenters, but in realizing libertarianism, any kind of libertarianism, only for its particular supporters, while leaving other kinds of libertarians to their own devices and also all kinds of statists to their self-chosen laws, institutions and fate. Libertarians, too, must learn to tolerate the application of all kinds of different faiths, convictions and more or less limited knowledge by and to those, who hold them, as long as these others leave the libertarians also free to do their own things among themselves. Voluntarism and individual choices are to be considered primary in this respect as well. Naturally, this can be done only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for all societies and communities of volunteers. Thus libertarians must come to demand experimental freedom for any kind of ism, among its supporters, always at their risk and expense, to obtain, as soon as possible and with the least effort and struggle the same freedom for themselves. Otherwise they do merely provoke maximum resistance and difficulties for their own aspirations. It may take them another 200 years of persuasion attempts, at least persuasion efforts of the usual kind, to get the majority on their side. But we may now not have as much time left. Territorialism, with is WMDs, might wipe us out before libertarian enlightenment has spread to the majority. – Anyhow, I want freedom in my time or at least freedom for my children grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Thus sufficient tolerance even for the practice of opposite ideologies among their opponents should become one of the major practices of libertarianism. – Its own parties and movements should aim at exterritorial autonomy for their own volunteers and also for the volunteers of all other movements. With this kind of mutual tolerance as a target - and also as a method - they will achieve their various objectives for themselves much sooner than they could otherwise. Afterwards, once they can practically demonstrate the workings of liberties and rights, quite unhindered, very little further persuasion efforts would be needed to find new members for their communities or imitators and copyists of their successes in other communities. – Even the mere Westminster model of democracy was widely copied all over the world – with all its remaining territorialist flaws. Models, which are much purer and closer to the genuine freedom, peace and justice ideals, and which are also practically demonstrated as workable by their volunteers, would tend to spread much faster, perhaps even as fast as innovations in the computer sphere do. Mere libertarian enlightenment efforts, although they could and should be further improved, may already have come close to the limits of what they can achieve. Thus they ought to utilize the opportunities that alternative and parallel institutions could provide them with. By advocating them for all dissenters, not only for themselves, they would make numerous allies rather than keeping up numerous animosities, as they presently do, while all are committed to the monopolistic and coercive territorial model, even when offered in its best form as a very limited government. They could and should make panarchism attractive even to the ruling territorial politicians, because it would offer them sinecures among their volunteers. - We ought to choose our preferred menus for ourselves and let the others have theirs – in every sphere. Each according to the own tastes and preferences. We should aim at filling our shopping carts with the “public” goods and services we prefer for ourselves and uphold the right of the others to do their things for or to themselves. There is nothing inconsistent with the best aspects of libertarianism in this, its individualism and voluntarism. No system, not even the best, should be territorially enforced any longer. Only tolerance for all tolerant people is to become compulsory. The old saying, I believe it was ascribed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it!” – should become our slogan and practice: “We disapprove of what you want to do, but we defend to the death your right to do it among your own volunteers!” In this sphere as well, we have all to learn to cultivate our gardens and let all others cultivate theirs. On that basis we could even become allies or at least remain neutral towards each other. We all need less enemies and less strife than we have under the present territorial system. – J.Z., 22.4.04, 4.11.04, 24.3.09, 24.12.10, 30.5.12. - PRECONDITIONS FOR ITS VICTORY THROUGH PANARCHISM, MUTUAL TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, MINORITY RIGHTS & LIBERTIES FOR ALL, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER

LIBERTARIANISM: He reduces the libertarian creed to one central axiom, “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” – Neither the State nor any private party therefore can initiate or threaten the use of force against any person for any purpose. Free individuals should regulate their affairs and dispose of their property only by voluntary agreement based on contractual obligation.” - Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.561, on Rothbard. – But did R. clearly enough apply this principle to whole communities and societies of volunteers, of whatever kind, doing their own things under full exterritorial autonomy and personal law? – J.Z., 24.12.10. - ROTHBARD LIBERTARIANISM: If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy." - Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr., The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 10, 1971. - I see no difference between consistent libertarianism and consistent anarchism. Their common basis is voluntarism, self-ownership, natural rights and liberties, individual sovereignty, free choice. Here nothing but consumer sovereignty, freedom of contract and quite free associationism with regard to so-called "government services" is involved. – Whether one wants to hire only private competitors for particular present government services or whole package deals should not make a difference in principle. - J.Z., 1986, 2004, 2.2.09. - ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM, ROTHBARD

LIBERTARIANISM: Ignorance and prejudices, short and tiny visions, among libertarians as well as among others, are the main obstacles to the realization of libertarianism, first and at least among libertarians only and for any other ism for those, who subscribe to it. – J.Z., 30.9.85. – Once some examples of libertarianism can be freely set, then we can leave their further spread, via voluntary adoption, merely to the attractiveness of its first examples and practices. – J.Z., 14.11.07, 30.5.12.

LIBERTARIANISM: Law is extremely important in a libertarian society. You don't have many laws in a libertarian society, but those laws that you do have, you take very seriously.” - Charles Murray. – Even the few libertarian laws should only be applied to libertarians. Moreover, I suspect that there would be many different libertarian groups that would wish for somewhat different sets of libertarian laws for themselves. – J.Z., 2.2.09. – Each kind of libertarianism for its supporters. Just like each kind of anarchism for each kind of anarchists. Moreover, each kind of non-territorial authoritarianism and governmentalism – for their supporters. That should be penalty enough for them. Also very educational. Think of the many defectors from totalitarian communism, who became very active anti-communists. – J.Z., 24.12.10, 30.5.12. – PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, VARIETIES OF LIBERTARIANS.

LIBERTARIANISM: Libertarianism embraces all the philosophies that seek to restrict the sphere of State action and release the free modes of social action.” – Kenneth R. Gregg, Jr., The Three Enlightenments. – How far did he go in this panarchistic direction? Here he points to a target but did not yet describe it clearly enough. Perhaps, in the meantime, he has. – J.Z., 24.12.10.

LIBERTARIANISM: Libertarianism is the only philosophy, which recognizes that all human beings are born free and should be able to live their lives in whatever way they choose. (*) Libertarians believe that all people have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is we are all born (**) with these rights, and no-one, especially not the government, has any right whatever to take that away from us.” – TANSTAAFL, Sydney, Feb., 1976. - - (*) Even in non-libertarian ways! – (**) Why assume that these rights begin only at birth and not at conception? - J.Z., 14.11.07. – Even the statists should be free to live their way – among themselves – but without a territorial monopoly. – Underlining by me. - J.Z., 24.12.10.

LIBERTARIANISM: Libertarianism is the philosophy which says that you can run your life better than the government can, and you have the right to be left alone in order to do it.” – Anonymous – Alas, it usually confines itself to the model of territorialism, even though it aims to reduce government activities to governments that are, otherwise, “limited”. – It still favours territorial government instead of being consistent and coming out for panarchism, in accordance with voluntarism, individualism, laissez-faire and free market relationships. – J.Z., 2.2.09, 30.5.12. - RUNNING YOUR OWN LIFE BETTER THAN A GOVERNMENT CAN

LIBERTARIANISM: Libertarianism means individual liberty and personal responsibility. This is only possible when government is small.” - Michael Cloud, Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion, The Advocates for Self-Government, 2004, - p.211. – - Rather than striving for a small and limited governments for libertarians and statists alike, thereby provoking the greatest possible resistance and postponing libertarianism for ourselves indefinitely, we should ally ourselves to all others isms with the single common aim of exterritorial autonomy for all our and their voluntary communities. Then, when governments or societies become a matter of individual choice, we will be able to have our diverse kinds of libertarian societies for ourselves. For disagreements between us are likely to continue, too. Let the statists try to realize their statist dreams at their expense and risk. That is “punishment” enough for them. – Under that kind of platform they can even be our allies. - J.Z., 20.4.07, 30.9.07. - LIBERTARIANISM & SMALL GOVERNMENT OR LIBERTARIANISM FOR LIBERTARIANS ONLY & ANY OTHER ISM FOR ITS FOLLOWERS? LIMITED TERRITORIAL STATES ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS. PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, DIS.

LIBERTARIANISM: Libertarianism offers nothing less than the completion of the revolution of liberty against power, carrying on the grand traditions of classical liberalism to their infinitely radical conclusions – the dismantling of all systems of power and privileges.” – Roy A. Childs, Jr., Liberty Against Power, Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco, 1994, p.10. – Only to the extent that they are territorially imposed. Among volunteer communities they may be continued or re-established in any form, as long as their individual members are willing to tolerate them, especially by not seceding from them, individually or in whole groups. At least for a while Childs did share that tolerant viewpoint. – J.Z., 5.10.07. – I never found out why he gave it up. – J.Z., 30.5.12. - POWER & PRIVILEGE

LIBERTARIANISM: Libertarianism that is universal and consistent in principle does not specify material agency, only an ideal aim of reciprocal physical autonomy for each person; aka NAP (non aggression principle), ZAP (zero aggression principle), PAT (physical aggression truce) and so on. Agency for achieving that ideal can theoretically manifest in a variety of forms: formal state, private security service, local defense co-op, community values consensus and so on.” - Terry Liberty Park, in email of 21/3/05. - Any form of progress, conservation or reaction that is supported by volunteers among themselves. – J.Z., 2/05. - NON-AGGRESSION, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE

LIBERTARIANISM: Libertarianism will either come about via the extensive use of tools of the information revolution or it will not come about. 500 years of printing were not sufficient to bring it about. – Freedom of action in the political, economic and social spheres may be necessary to promote this kind of enlightenment sufficiently.” - J.Z., 21.1.84, 19.11.07, 30.5.12. - ENLIGHTENMENT & FREEDOM OF ACTION & EXPERIMENTATION, PANARCHISM

LIBERTARIANISM: The libertarian favors a condition of freedom for all, yet he realizes that freedom, because of its nature, can never be imposed by force. - Robert LeFevre, “LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL”, Spring 1974. - Consequently, opponents of anarchism must be left at liberty, to continue and enjoy as much as they can the kind of statism they do like, as long as they do. Anarchists must not threaten them with the abolition of their kind of beloved State and government but, rather help to guarantee it to them, as long as it remains their own free choice. Towards them anarchists can rightly advocate only the one-man revolutions that are exemplified by individual secessionism, which is based on individual sovereignty or self-ownership and exterritorial autonomy for societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers - as soon as individuals and groups of volunteers are enlightened enough to want to claim and practise these basic rights and liberties. - Even then they might only be partly enlightened and will only choose new and lesser ties but still restrictions upon their own liberties. They should be free to do so. Anarchists should not threaten their choices with coercion but, at most, try to convert them, by words or by their own cooperative and competing examples of living in complete freedom. – J.Z., 1986, 2004, 30.5.12.

LIBERTARIANISM: The only real aim of libertarians is the Exit-Option, the right to secede, always and everywhere.” – “eigentuemlich frei” (André F. Lichtschlag), in an email-interview with Kurt Fleming and Uwe Timm, in: Uwe Timm, Gesammelte Schriften, p.228. – It is not enough to favour only individual and group secessionism without full exterritorial autonomy for them afterwards in whatever societies, communities or governance systems they want for themselves. – J.Z., 30.5.12. - EXIT OPTION, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, OPTING OUT, WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

LIBERTARIANISM: Theoretically, at least a full-blown libertarian society would tolerate, even encourage peaceful dissent. It would thrive on such disagreements and exchange of ideas. ..." - Jim Downard in a TC issue, page 34. - Not only tolerance for the exchange of ideas but also for diverse and exterritorially autonomous actions is required - and voluntary free exchange of the products and services of these free actions. - J.Z., 8.1.93.

LIBERTARIANISM: Who ever refuses to obey the General Will, shall be compelled to do so by the whole body; and this means only that he will be COMPELLED TO BE FREE." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau. - A limited libertarian and territorial government is and will be far from "everyone's" ideal and should, therefore, not be imposed, not even if a large majority vote could be attained for it. - J.Z., 6.4.89.

LIBERTARIANISM: You’d think people would learn, after two centuries, wouldn’t you?” – Sam Nicholson, Triad, in ANALOG, Jan. 79, p.162. – Only individuals and their voluntary associations do and can learn sufficiently. Thus they should be set quite free to apply their own learning among themselves. Then, by numerous diverse people living in a territory and also numerous diverse minority groups all doing their own things for and to themselves, the whole population will advance as fast as it can, by individual free choices, seeing human nature with all its faults and limitations, all its diversity and it hang-ups, ignorance, prejudices, habits and traditions. – J.Z., 18.11.07, 30.5.12. - LIBERTARIANISM & ITS LACK OF PROGRESS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

LIBERTARIANS: God save me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies.” – English proverb, traced by Apperson to 1477. Libertarians, too, are often their own worst enemies. If they strove only for any form of libertarianism for any kind of libertarian and, at the same time, for any form of statism for any kind of statists, then they might have achieved their ideal for themselves long ago. But most try still to impose their freedom ideals upon the majority of opponents or doubters of liberty and thus caused a hard and prolonged battle for themselves. – J.Z., 14.11.07. - FRIENDS & ENEMIES, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTARIANS: Oh ye of little faith!” One can get along with most classical liberals and most anarchist and libertarians only so far and no further. When it comes to quite consistent advocacy of rights, liberties and voluntary choices for oneself and all others, to quite consistent voluntarism for all kinds of faiths, beliefs and convictions, to freedom to experiment among volunteers, then most of them draw the line somewhere and do not want to grant their opponents or competitors the same freedom of individual choice, which they do desire for themselves. They still adhere to the territorialist monopoly, although often on a smaller scale. Within it they want to see only their own ideal realized, no matter how many errors or prejudices it might still contain. The more they are convinced of the correctness of their ideas and opinions, the more they want to force them also upon those, who disagree with them. They are not content with the present or possible future opportunity to merely practise their own beliefs, convictions, systems and constitutions among themselves only, among all their voluntary followers, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy, but rather aim at forcing it upon all dissenters in a territory as well. I.e., not only upon dissenting aggressors but also upon peaceful and tolerant groups of dissenters, who wish to do their things only to themselves. The statists won’t tolerate the non-statists and the non-statists won’t tolerate the statists. Almost all want their preferred system to dominate territorially, over the whole population – and yet they do often believe themselves to be liberators. – J.Z., 12.8.06, 30.10.07. - CLASSICAL LIBERALS & MINI-ARCHISTS, ALL STILL TERRITORIALISTS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INTOLERANCE

LIBERTARIANS: There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other on everything, but I am not one of them.” - David Friedman, "The Machinery of Freedom", Arlington House Publishers, 1973, 1978, p.227. (Paperback edition, Harper Colophon Books, 1973, p.232.) They could and should come to agree at least upon exterritorial autonomy for all libertarian volunteer communities - as well as for such communities for all kinds of statists. So far most of them hardly discuss this option at all. As territorialists they are inevitably at loggerheads: E.g., pro or against party actions, pro or against abortion, pro or against full monetary freedom, pro or against productive cooperatives. - J.Z., 29.10.02. – And yet almost all libertarians still believe that all of them would peacefully fit into territorial States and that they could persuade the majority of voters to allow them to establish and maintain “limited” territorial governments. – J.Z., 3.1.08. “There may be two libertarians in the world who agree on absolutely everything, but I am not one of them.” – Anonymous - INTERNAL DISSENT, DISAGREEMENTS, JOKES

LIBERTARIANS: Whoever refuses to obey the General Will, shall be compelled to do so by the whole body; and this means only that he will be compelled to be free. – Rousseau. – “By the whole body”. Without him it is, obviously, not the whole body. And there are almost bound to be other dissenters in a whole territory. A limited libertarian and territorial government is and will be far from everyone’s ideal. Therefore, even it should not be territorially imposed, not even if a very large majority vote could be attained for it. Those in favour should simply form their own limited government, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, as soon as possible – but only for themselves. Usually, they do not have the chance to win over the majority during the next elections, in years or decades. Therefore, they should mainly aim at achieving their own exterritorial autonomy for themselves and as well for all other minority groups, as, probably, the fastest and easiest way to achieve what they want for themselves. – J.Z., 6.4.89, 19.11.07. - MOST MODERN LIBERTARIANS & THE GENERAL WILL OF ROUSSEAU, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTARIOS MEXICANOS, Panarquia, una idea genial. - Panarquia, una idea genial [Libertarios Mexicanos] July 2009. Abstracts in English are wanted and review hints, as well as links to the full texts, if they are relevant to this collection. - Titles can be deceptive. - J.Z., 13.10.11.

LIBERTIES: All particular rights and liberties are just aspects of general free and rightful conditions. Thus when any of them are threatened, ignored or suppressed, anywhere, at any time and against anyone, then all liberties and rights of all the people on Earth are under attack. Wild beasts of prey are then still on the prowl among us. Here is a vast scope for much more solidarity among all rational human beings, i.e., for their standing together against all criminals with victims and all other aggressors. Such resistance should be sufficiently and suitably informed, trained, organized and armed as well. – However, if certain rights are intentionally not practised within some communities of volunteers only, then this is their own internal affair and does not warrant any armed intervention by outsiders. Even rights and liberties should not be forced upon anyone who does not appreciate them. Such people still have to learn to appreciate all rights and can rightly only be forced to respect them in the members of other communities of volunteers. As soon as they are sufficiently enlightened in this respect, then they should be free to opt out of such restrictive communities. – J.Z., 30.8.99, 20.11.07. – Others might refuse to accept them as members, because they have still too many errors and prejudices in their heads. Then they would have to establish another panarchy or polyarchy for themselves. – J.Z., 24.12.10. - LIKE RIGHTS ARE INTERCONNECTED & MUTUALLY SUPPORTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LOCAL MILITIAS FOR THE DEFENCE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INTERNAL AFFAIRS

LIBERTOCRACY: The large website of GREG FLANAGAN, introduction  with links to his other pages, 2p: 359, 360 in PP 1689-1693. - An index to Libertocracy can be found on sheets 739-744 - but this PEACE PLANS compilation of his pages is neither as complete nor follows the order of the website. - Flanagan advances his libertarian utopia only as one option for panarchists, those who would agree with him. - J.Z., 17.9.04. - Introduction with links to his other pages, 2p: 359, 360 in PEACE PLANS 1689-1693. - - See: FLANAGAN, GREG, PANARCHISM

LIBERTY & ITS LIMITED UNDERSTANDING BY THE PUBLIC, MATURITY, ENLIGHTENMENT, FREE EXPERIMENTATION, FREE CHOICE AMONG EXPERIMENTS & COMMUNITIES: If none were to have liberty but those who understand what it is, there would not be many free men in the world." - Lord Halifax. - 1.) As if understanding could in this sphere already be equated with realization of liberty and full freedom of action. - 2.) If all do not understand and do not want all liberties, there is no reason to impose them upon them or to expose them to this "risk". Let it be a matter of individual choice. Let each enjoy as much liberty as he can already comprehend and therefore is likely to choose for himself. The appetite for more will usually come with the eating. - J.Z., 12.11.82. -  3.) Let individuals be free to pick and choose liberties, for themselves, as they may now, in the Western countries, pick and choose among consumer products and services. - J.Z., 8.4.89.

LIBERTY, MAXIMUM & EZRA POUND: It is quite possible that we have already attained the maximum liberty compatible with civilization." - Ezra Pound, Freedom de Facto. - How could that be determined, as long as individuals and groups are not free to secede from the present territorially established "civilizations" in order to experimentally and exterritorially and voluntarily and at their own risk and expense establish something among themselves, which they consider to be better than the establishment? That would be like asserting, regarding science and technology, before they fully established the scientific and experimental method that no higher state of science and technology could be attained or should be expected. Why should one expect a contradiction between liberty and civilization, when it obviously exists only between licence or arbitrariness and civilization? It is no wonder that with such muddled thinking E. P. could have subscribed for a while to fascist notions. - J.Z. 8.1.93. - Moreover, he made that remark in a century full of State-organized mass murders! - J.Z., 9.12.03, 30.5.12.

LIBERTY: All institutions are to be tested by the degree to which they guarantee liberty. It is not to be admitted for a moment that liberty is a means to social ends, and that it may be impaired for major considerations.” – William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.30. – - Agreed, if one includes the freedom of individuals to be as unfree as they want to be. Then the main characteristic of freedom that is still involved in this is voluntarism. – J.Z., 23.11.07.

LIBERTY: Americans have the mistaken viewpoint that Lady Liberty is only a peacetime luxury, who is ill-equipped to fight the nasties. Therefore, they reason, we need an equally nasty Big Brother. Americans have forgotten that Lady Liberty is one ferocious mother when protecting her children.” – Mary Ruwart . - I recently found a very similar thought in the old German letters of Ulrich von Beckerath, which I am digitizing. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. - However, liberty would not be ferocious, especially not with mass extermination devices, but liberating for all kinds of volunteers. Thus it could turn most subjects of despotisms into at least secret neutrals or even into allies, especially the conscripts and taxpayers of despotic regimes and its inflation victims. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – WAR AIMS, LIBERATION RATHER THAN UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER DEMANDS, PRISONER OF WAR TREATMENT, NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBING, LIBERTY NOT ONLY IN PEACE BUT ALSO IN WAR, WHEN IT IS EVEN MORE NEEDED, USEFUL & POWERFUL

LIBERTY: and law, to use Rousseau’s phrase, is the expression of the general will. - - So far we are on common ground, not only with Rousseau, but with the whole democratic tradition which has been built up on the theoretical foundation laid by Rousseau. Where the anarchist diverges from Rousseau, and from that aspect of the democratic tradition, which has found expression in parliamentary socialism, is in his interpretation of the manner in which the general will should be formulated and enforced. - - Rousseau himself was not consistent on this question. He was quite convinced that some form of State must exist as an expression of the general will, and that the power invested in the State by general consent must be absolute. He was equally convinced that the individual must retain his liberty, and that upon the individual's enjoyment, of liberty depended all progress and civilization.” – Herbert Read, Anarchism and Order, p.130. - A genuine “general will” can exist only among volunteers. And the proper political organization for volunteers is exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, not a territorial State, which has always its dissenters and out-voted minorities. – J.Z., 28.11.07. - LAW, GENERAL WILL, PANARCHISM, DIS.

LIBERTY: As government expands, liberty contracts.” – Ronald W. Reagan, 40th U.S. President. - Did he shrink government sufficiently? - J.Z., 25. 11. 06. - In spite of such speeches, he, too, was one of these “contractors”. His total tax take was greater after some tax reductions and it was spent partly on producing still more mass murder devices, thus making everybody still more insecure in the name of security. – Thou shalt judge them by their actions, not by their words. - The establishment, multiplication of and expansion of exterritorially autonomous governments, societies and communities, on the other hand, would, in balance, do the contrary, namely spread more and more liberty and rights, via quite free individual choices and the best examples set and demonstrated by such choices. - J.Z., 3.1.08. - . - LIBERTY SHRINKS WHEN GOVERNMENT EXPANDS GOVERNMENTS PANARCHISM & POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTY: At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose object often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition, and by kindling dispute over the spoils in the hour of success.” - Lord Acton (John E. E. Dalberg), The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877. - The rightfulness and benefits of liberty can be sufficiently demonstrated only through freedom of action even for minorities and individuals, i.e., through panarchism. Optimally utilizing all alternative media for all kinds of enlightenment efforts can solve only part of the problem. Without freedom to act for the already enlightened - and for others to demonstrate their errors, prejudices and mistakes at their expense and risk, general enlightenment and progress will be too slow. - J.Z., 24.11.02, 30.5.12. - LIBERTY LOVERS & THEIR ALLIES, MINORITIES, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Despotism can no more exist in a nation until the liberty of the press be destroyed (*) than night can happen before the sun is set.” (**) - Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832). - The Lacon (1829). - Quite a few territorial governments granted large degrees of freedom of expression and information - but not all other individual rights and liberties, especially not freedom to secede and freedom to experiment with other political, economic and social systems, together with other sovereign individuals in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. The latter is even more important than the former. – How can one concentrate on one liberty only and forget about all the others? - J.Z., 26.11.02, 25.12.10. - - (*) This is not clearly enough expressed. Despotism is complete when even liberty of the press is suppressed. But freedom of the press is certainly not the only obstacle to despotism in the sphere of freedom of expression and information. We have now e.g. radio and TV, pirate broadcasts, citizen band radio, email, disks, websites, audio and video records, telephones and faxes, flash memory sticks, satellite communications. – Besides, there is compulsory schooling, conscription, taxation and an avalanche of other interfering legislation and institutions. – J.Z., 25.12.10, 30.5.12. (**) The Moon can at least temporarily block the sunlight to parts of Earth. - J.Z., 18.1.08. - MEDIA, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, NEWSPAPERS, PRESS, DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, DIS.

LIBERTY: Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” – Henry David Thoreau. - "May" become serfs or slaves, not just victims of taxation and inflation etc. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – Obedience to self-given or self-chosen personal laws should be distinguished from obedience to territorially imposed laws. – J.Z., 22.1.09. – Those, who are obedient only to their own self-given or self-chosen personal law systems, are, actually, as free as they want to be! – J.Z., 3.2.09, 30.5.12. - DISOBEDIENCE, OBEDIENCE & RESISTANCE, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Each man now has only to answer whether he will stand pat and be changed, willy-nilly in a world he can wistfully say he did not want and did not make – or whether he will stand up, be counted, be confronted and be committed to the change to which his conscience and his reason dedicate him. There are just those two courses.” – Karl Hess, The Lawless State, p.29/30. – He would best stand up by achieving individual and group-secessions and exterritorial autonomy for himself and for all kinds of groups of volunteers, who would prefer their self-chosen personal laws to laws and institutions territorially imposed upon them by the majority or even a minority. – J.Z., 24.11.07.

LIBERTY: Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.” – Sallust. – Thus to each and everyone, who is not a criminal or aggressor with victims, the society, community or State of his own individual free choice – but all without any territorial privilege. – J.Z., 2.1.08. - SLAVE MENTALITY, STATISM

LIBERTY: for as Lenin pointed out, “it is nonsense to make any pretence of reconciling the State and liberty.” – Albert J. Nock. - That is true for the territorial State but not necessarily for the, competing and voluntary States, communities or societies under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, formed and maintained only by volunteers. – J.Z., 24.11.07, 29.5.12. - THE STATE

LIBERTY: For only with liberty can one learn to be free, as it is only by working that one can learn to work.” – Malatesta, Anarchy, p.39. – FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS.

LIBERTY: forge an empire for liberty.” - Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, July 1976. – Even liberty should not be imposed imperialistically on unwilling “subjects”. Let them suffer under the kind of lack of freedom that they do prefer for themselves! – J.Z., 23.11.07. – TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTY: Freedom from man-made laws – J.Z., 9.12.91. - Unless they are the self-chosen personal laws of a panarchistic community of volunteers. – In other words: Freedom from territorially imposed laws! - J.Z., 6.2.09, 25.12.10. - LAWS

LIBERTY: Freedom is the one thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.” - Source? – If all anarchists and libertarians fully recognized this thought then they would all become quite tolerant advocates of panarchies, even for their opponents. – J.Z., 25.12.10. - LAW OF EQUAL RIGHTS & EQUAL FREEDOM, MUTUALITY

LIBERTY: From liberty flow all the blessings of peace, prosperity, and human happiness, from power flows war, impoverishment and despotism.” – Murray Rothbard, LAISSEZ FAIRE REVIEW, May/June 74. - I would confine that statement on power largely only to territorial powers. – J.Z., 23.11.70. – Exterritorial self-management powers for volunteers only - are quite another matter. – The main power should, probably, be an ideal militia of volunteers for the protection of all genuine individual rights and liberties. As such it should also be exterritorially autonomous, world-wide. - J.Z., 25.12.10, 30.5.12. - POWER OF TERRITORIALISM VS. POWER OVER THE OWN AFFAIRS & THAT OF ONE’S GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS, DIS.

LIBERTY: He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” - Thomas Paine, "Dissertation on First Principles of Government," The Writings of Thomas Paine, ed. Moncure D. Conway, vol. 3, p.277 (1895). Originally published in 1795. – If one wants to secure full panarchist liberties and rights for oneself then one has also to concede it to others, even one’s opponents. That is possible under exterritorial autonomy for volunteers but not under territorialism, which provokes active antagonism. With each free to do the own things at the own risk and expense much of the animosity, caused by territorialism, will simply disappear. We “will all be free to “mind our own business” and will have our hands and minds full doing just that. – J.Z., 25.12.10. - ENEMIES, OPPRESSION, WAR AIMS, PEACE AIMS, LIBERATION, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

LIBERTY: He who opposes the public liberty overthrows his own.” – William Lloyd Garrison: William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life, p. 200. - Quoted in Seldes, The Great Quotations. - Not if one understands under public liberties or national liberty the territorial monopolization of decision-making in certain spheres, e.g. on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties, international trade, exchange media and value standards, imposed upon a whole population or in any other spheres that ought to be subject to individual rights and liberties, in accordance with quite free individual choices. Exterritorial autonomy, individual sovereignty, individual and group secessionism vs. territorialism! - J.Z., 4.2.09, 25.12.10. – DIS.

LIBERTY: I am a panarchist, anarchist, individualist, voluntarist, free marketeer, free trader and propertarian – not necessarily in that order. And in my view these characteristics are all mutually supportative. – J.Z., 1988, 2.12.10, 30.5.12.

LIBERTY: I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.” – H. L. Mencken. - While liberty may quite rightfully be defended by defensive force, it may not be imposed by force. Even with regard to it the panarchistic choice should remain for individuals, minorities and majorities. - J.Z., 25. 11. 06. - – No political, economic or social ideal should be forced by anyone upon anyone. – To each his own! – J.Z., 3.1.08. – Rather, because I believe in it, 100%, as far as my own affairs and choices are concerned, I do not wish to impose it upon anyone else. With the above remark Mencken may have come as close to panarchism as he ever did. – J.Z., 25.12.10. – FORCE, COERCION, COMPULSION, TOLERANCE FOR THE TOLERANT, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS

LIBERTY: I confess to considerable doubts about the eventual stability of democracy, unless buttressed by constitutional safeguards and a general climate of opinion which thoroughly understands the case for liberty in general.” - Lord Robbins. Liberty and Equality. – Territorialism cannot lead to genuine democratic self-government for all. It rather tends to majority- or minority-despotism. – J.Z., 26.12.07. However, we are not obliged to put up with territorialism forever. We have already abolished in almost all spheres except those of political, social and economic systems. – J.Z., 26.12.07. – DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: I have always in my own thought summed up individual liberty, and business liberty, and every other kind of liberty, in the phrase that is common in the sporting world, “A free field and no favor.” – Woodrow Wilson, Speech in Washington, Jan. 29, 1915. – No favor for any system, e.g. by a territorial monopoly for it! – J.Z., 10.7.86. – Alas, Wilson, too, was all too much a territorialist. How many less would have died in the World Wars and under Nazism and the totalitarian Communists, if he had not been? – J.Z., 25.12.10. - PANARCHISM, LAISSEZ FAIRE VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: I only know that liberty will produce a result more nearly in accord with the desires of the myriad human beings affected by, and interested in, the problem and its resolution.” - R. K. Foley Jr., – THE FREEMAN, 11/75, p.685. – Under fully free choice for individuals, i.e., under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws for communities of volunteers, it will provide a great variety of different systems leading to different results. The most satisfactory ones will gradually spread more and more, while, finally, the disappointing ones will be practised only by some incurable sectarians and fanatics, at their own risk and expense. A single one is unlikely to ever satisfy all human beings, no more so than a single sport, game, tour, fashion, art, or kind of literature, unless that single one is precisely the kind of framework which makes diversity possible and likely, even in the political, economic and social sphere, like panarchism or polyarchism does. – J.Z., 24.11.07. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTY: I’m for liberty.” – SLM: SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 5/79. – For as much or as little liberty as individuals want for themselves, always only at their own risk and expense. – J.Z., 23.11.07. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE

LIBERTY: If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom, and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.” - W. Somerset Maugham. - To the extent that "nations" or "peoples" are territorially organized they are already despotically restricting liberty. - J.Z., 23.11.02. - FREEDOM

LIBERTY: If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty, are they thereafter any the less slaves? If people by a plebiscite elect a man despot over them, do they remain free because the despotism was of their own making?” - Herbert Spencer. – One should distinguish the actions of sovereign individuals and their associations from involuntary subjects of territorial regimes. Volunteers may restrict their liberties but are unlikely to do so completely or indefinitely. They also remain free to secede. Vive la difference! – The man who, in 1850, advocated the right of individuals to ignore the State, here speaks of the fiction of a territorial “people” acting like a real entity. A plebiscite can rightly bind only the majority of the voters to some extent. - J.Z., 25.12.10. DEMOCRACY, VOTING, REFERENDUM, PLEBISCITE, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, STATISM, DIS, PEOPLE

LIBERTY: If none were to have Liberty but those who understand what it is, there would not be many freed Men in the world.” – George Savile, Marquess of Halifax, (Lord Halifax.), 1633-95, The Political, Moral and Miscellaneous Reflections. OR: Political Thoughts and Reflections, 1750. - There aren't any as yet! - J.Z., 11.2.02 - But let each man have as much liberty as he wants and can stand, for the time being. A uniform degree of liberty for all people in a territory would prevent that. – J.Z., 12.11.82. – Under free individual choice, in this respect as well,  most of them would gradually advance, at their own speed, to higher degrees of liberty, and be it only because it would pay them more to do so. – J.Z., 21.11.07, 30.5.12. - 1.) As if understanding could in this sphere already be equated with realization of liberty and full freedom of action. - 2.) If all do not understand and do not want all liberties, there is no reason to impose them upon them or to expose them to this "risk". Let it be a matter of individual choice. Let each enjoy, for himself, as much liberty as he can already comprehend and therefore is likely to choose for himself. The appetite for more will, usually, come with the eating, as a French proverb has it. - J.Z., 12.11.82 - 3.) Let individuals and their voluntary associations become free to pick and choose among all liberties and rights - for themselves, as they may now, in the Western countries, pick and choose among ordinary consumer products and services. - J.Z., 8.4.89. - Even most present libertarians and anarchists are not yet in favour of all liberties to their fullest extent. But all rational and moral men have the potential to grow into their appreciation, given the chance to do so via institutions, communities and societies that are subject to individual choice and provide their different kinds and degrees of freedom of action and experimentation. Instead of being imprisoned in the model of territorial States, we should become free like, a child, exploring its environment and abilities and thereby, gradually, maturing to become the average adult. Present adults have still to mature and grow to full maturity in full liberty. For some that might not occur in their life span but only for their children, grandchildren or even later descendants. – My father’s father was still a monarchist. Even full liberty should not be imposed upon anyone. E.g., no "free love" relations, or extensive drug usage, just because they are possible under liberty. - Full freedom demands that all stages or states of liberty remain optional for individuals rather than compulsory. Freedom to be unfree or somewhat restricted is also a very important right, to be granted even to all of one's enemies, to fundamentalists and fanatics, although only in their own private and exterritorially autonomous communal spheres. - Each and everyone is to "mind his own business" as best as he can or wants to. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. . – Would an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties really go beyond the intelligence and judgment of an average person? – What remains really and largely unknowable, incomprehensible, contradictory and absurd are rather the millions of interferences with liberties and rights. All, or most, naturally, done “with the best intentions”. - J.Z., 26.12.07. – Well, there are certainly not many quite free men in the world as yet. I for one have never met one. – J.Z., 11.1.08. – Let each proceed at his own speed, from infant to adult, mature, informed and responsible adult, if he can. If he can’t, or will not, if he can, then he should suffer the consequences. – The full appreciation of all genuine individual rights and liberties requires the option to learn their morality and benefits step by step, via free individual choices, i.e. through the choice among a multitude of diverse panarchies, polyarchies etc. - J.Z., 3.2.09, 25.12.10, 30.5.12. – MAN, UNDERSTANDING IT, MATURITY, ENLIGHTENMENT, FREE EXPERIMENTATION, FREE CHOICE AMONG SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES, LIBERATION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free. If in other lands the eternal truths of the past are threatened by intolerance, we must provide a safe place for their perception.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), U.S. President, Speech, 6/30/38. - But he rather used bombs and even ordered atomic bombs built! - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – He could have promoted anti-totalitarian revolutions or military uprisings by recognizing a variety of governments in exile, all only for their volunteers. Instead, he fought, largely, the victims rather than the victimizers and did not even welcome all refugees from the victimizers. And this as leader of a State started by a revolution! – His ignorance of quite rightful war aims and rightful warfare was as great as his ignorance of economics and of genuine individual rights and liberties. – But he was certainly not alone in this. – Have any of the territorial leaders since his death been much or sufficiently better in these or other respects? - J.Z., 25.12.10, 25.12.10. – LIBERTY AS A WEAPON, WAR AIMS, HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, INDIVIDUAL VS. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DES., PRISONERS OF WAR? AIR RAIDS, LIBERATION, TYRANNICIDE, LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

LIBERTY: If we are ever to attain a condition of being free, we must see liberty as a universal, and not merely the privilege of some to be free at the expense of others.” - Robert LeFevre, The Libertarian, p.22/23. -  But for each his individual liberty should only go as far as he wants it to go, until he is ready for more. – This can only be achieved when individuals are free to secede and to join or establish alternative communities that are exterritorially quite autonomous and correspond to their degree of enlightenment. – People should remain free to suffer themselves under their own ignorance and prejudices or lack of interest. - “A man ‘converted’ against his will is of the same opinion still.” Free men would not want people among them who are “conscripted” into liberty. They would want to deal only with volunteers for liberty. – By being quite free to set attractive examples themselves, they would most rapidly attract further volunteers to their libertarian communities. - J.Z., 22.11.07, 30.5.12. - AS A UNIVERSAL RULE? YES & NO! PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTY: If we do not renounce violence today in order to fight enslaving forces, in the new economic and social order of things, we can follow only the line of persuasion and practical experience. (*) We can oppose with force only those, who try to subjugate us in behalf of their interests or concepts, but we cannot resort to force against those, who do not desire to live as we do. Here, our respect for liberty must encompass the liberty of our adversaries to live their own live, always on condition that they are not aggressive and do not deny freedom to others.” – D. A. de Santillan, After The Revolution, 1936. – (*) … of setting practical examples? – J.Z. - TOLERANCE FOR ADVERSARIES TO LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, DOING THE OWN THINGS

LIBERTY: If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky. - Freedom should not be confined to e.g. freedom of expression and information. Freedom for tolerant actions is required as well. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – Did N. C. ever stood up for this? – Hardly in the economic sphere. - J.Z., 25.12.10. - LIBERTY FOR DISSENTERS, SECESSIONISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS OF DISSENTERS AS WELL. PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.” - Carl Schurz – – Did he interpret this remark panarchistically, including the right of individuals and voluntary communities to choose for themselves e.g. less than full liberties, as a basic individual right, too? – J.Z., 23.11.07. - Even the full measure of liberty should merely be offered as an option, never as an obligation for all. – Imagine, e.g., making full sexual freedom (Or freedom from any religious spleen – J.Z., 25.12.10) obligatory for all! – Under panarchism each would choose only as much in liberties and rights as he wants for himself, by choosing or establishing a corresponding panarchy or polyarchy or voluntary community. – J.Z., 1.9.08. - LIBERTY, EQUAL LIBERTY, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE EVEN FOR STATISTS – DOING THEIR OWN THINGS TO THEMSELVES! EQUAL FREEDOM & RIGHTS, TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE DO WANT THEM FOR THEMSELVES

LIBERTY: In many ways, the pragmatic, skeptical, down-to-earth approach of many people in this country has been more Marxist than the actions of many foreign Marxists, with their harsh denials of creativity and their insistence on state power as superior to immediate human needs and desires. - - Marx himself, on the other hand, flatly said that so long as the state exists there is no liberty, and when there is liberty there will be no need for a state. The fact that more and more Americans, weary to death of the exercise of state power over their lives, weary to death of pompous promises and failed programs, are beginning to share this notion, doesn’t mean we are or should be Marxists. Rather, it seems to me, our role in the surge of conflicting forces is to be the people who finally take the great step or leap forward to new freedoms, without overwhelming institutional power, without hierarchical organization (*), but with work in which we fully participate and from which we are in no way alienated, with communities in which we also fully participate without lazy delegation of our citizenship, with a new and bursting respect for and joy in the infinitely creative nature of the human mind and in the as yet barely-touched horizons of self-respecting and responsible societies of mutual aid and myriad diversity.” – Karl Hess, Dear America, p.167. - (*) There is nothing wrong with hierarchical organizations – among volunteers only, prepared to put up with the drawbacks of hierarchies. But territorial organizations, claiming to represent and to rightfully rule all people in a territory, are inherently wrong for all non-criminal and non-aggressive dissenters in that territory. - J.Z., 18.1.08. - MARX, MARXISM, STATISM & THE FREEDOM ALTERNATIVES. PANARCHISM, , POLYARCHISM, REPRESENTATION, DEMOCRACY

LIBERTY: In order to practise liberty successfully, a nation needs first to have a critical mass of individuals who truly understand it. … Put differently, a free political economy and social order first requires free men and women. … They must behave in ways, which allow life to carry on without too much intrusion by the state. And they must be capable of thinking and acting for themselves and taking responsibility. They must, in the fullest sense, be individuals.” - Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft, 2002, HarperCollins, – p.468. – As a national territorialist she left, in most cases, exterritorially autonomous societies and communities of volunteers out of her considerations and thereby, like all other territorialists, helped to stop or slowed down the progress of enlightenment, freedom, justice and peace to that degree, which the leading territorialists managed to comprehend - usually, all too little. – As if freedom to act and to experiment in this sphere were wrong and useless. - J.Z., 25.12.10.

LIBERTY: Indeed, few of any persons possess the ability or right to drag others on the path of liberty. Each of us must find his own way, a way illuminated without compulsion from the varying light from many lamps from other believers inching their respective ways toward the goal of liberty.” – Ridgway K. Foley Jr. – THE FREEMAN, March 77, p.186. - Even if their aim is not liberty but something else – they should be free to try to realize their ideal among themselves, immediately, in their own panarchies or polyarchies. – J.Z., 24.11.07. - TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, FREEDOM OF ACTION & EXPERIMENTATION, PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: Indeed, in our rush towards the dominance of Power and Privilege over our lives, the fact that there is an alternative system possible to us is being lost amongst the rubble of our civilization. It is a system which has never been fully debated, defended or implemented, but only misunderstood, misrepresented and forgotten, a system which has always had a glorious tradition and rigorous defenders: the SIMPLE SYSTEM OF NATURAL LIBERTY. It is that system in which all individuals have the liberty to fully direct the course of their lives unhampered by government interference, to take any actions they wish, to long as they do not aggress against the person or just property of others. It is a system in which power is taken out of the hands of the State and wealth is left in the hands of individuals who produce it.” - Roy Childs, Liberty against Power, p.6. - NATURAL LIBERTY

LIBERTY: Individual liberty cannot in the long run survive unless the economic base of society is independent and separate from the State and buttresses the brittle self-restraint of men in power.” - Philip Vander Elst. – However, exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers do have the right to restrict their economic liberties as much as they like and are able and willing to put up with. – Primitive utopians are born again and again and do still have to learn their lessons, gradually and at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 18.1.08. - INDIVIDUAL, FREE ECONOMY & THE STATE, SEPARATION OF THE ECONOMY FROM THE STATE & POLITICIANS, AT LEAST AMONG VOLUNTEERS FOR THIS CONDITION & SUCH COMMUNITIES, PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: Individual liberty is to be above the law, not under it, above the constitution, not under it, above any statist jurisdiction and above policing, administration and regulations, not under them. – J.Z., 7.6.94. – Individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, voluntary associationism under full exterritorial autonomy – to be above the territorial constitution, law, jurisdiction and administration. – J.Z., 25.12.10.

LIBERTY: Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving the citizen as much freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights of others, the institutions render him truly a free man. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner.” – James Fenimore Cooper, American author, 1789-1851. - But the suppression of individual rights and liberties is the actual practice of territorial politics, which has very little to do with genuine liberty and almost everything with power, monopolies, centralization and abuses. - It amounts to the denial of freedom of action for most citizens, even the denial of a significant say, apart from the really insignificant individual vote, one among millions. Even an elected representative in parliament has just one vote among many and usually he is under party discipline, pressure from lobbies and that of his ignorant and prejudiced voters. What rightful and positive things can one expect from such a system? - The present "political liberty" does not leave him "to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner" - except in a very limited private sphere. Thus this remark upholds one of the still all too numerous myths. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. - LIBERTY & INDIVIDUALITY THROUGH POLITICAL LIBERTY? HAPPINESS, DIS.

LIBERTY: It has always been true that there could be no liberty without law; for if everybody is free to do as he pleased there is no liberty for anybody to do as he pleases. … On the other hand, every law is a restriction of liberty … The problem has been to find out where law should end and liberty begin.” – Ivor Jennings, The Queen’s Government. – A basic and quite common error: Everybody means everybody, so there is no contradiction. To do as one pleases, does not mean to do as one pleases with the rights, liberties, property and lives of others, but only with one’s own rights, liberties, property and life, within their inherent limitations. What he misconceives is a “freedom” to restrict or do away with the freedom of others. But this is a straw-man, not an inherent contradiction of the concept of equal rights and liberties for all. - Any particular liberty, freedom or right is already its own law and a very demanding one, at that, one requiring respect for it in all other people. – J.Z., 12.11.82, 21.11.07. – He, too, simply repeated the wrong assumption, once again, that there should be one equal and uniform law for all people in a territory rather than competition between self-chosen personal laws of exterritorially fully autonomous communities of volunteers. – We should not expect our liberation to come from people as poor in ideas and in correct thinking as this author was in this statement. But he has, probably, the majority on his side, even of the supposed intellectuals. – An encyclopaedia, sufficiently refuting these and tens of thousands of all too popular errors, myths, prejudices, false assumptions and conclusions is, unfortunately, still amiss, just like xyz other reference works that are still urgently needed for genuine seekers after freedom, peace and justice. - J.Z., 26.12.07, 25.12.10. - LAW, LICENCE, ARBITRARINESS, LAW, RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, STATISM, GOVERNMENT, DIS.

LIBERTY: It is a good thing to demand liberty for ourselves and for those who agree with us, but it is a better thing and a rarer thing to give liberty to others who do not agree with us.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, Nov. 22, 1933. – Alas, he did not follow that policy! – J.Z., 29.7.07. – He, too, did not permit the non-statists to opt out from under his rule. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – Saying one thing and then doing another seems to be a specialty for territorial politicians. – J.Z., 25.12.10. - TOLERANCE

LIBERTY: it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. It is a reward to be earned (*), not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike – a reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving, and not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious to be capable of either appreciating or enjoying it. Nor is it any disparagement to liberty that such is and ought to be the case.” - John C. Calhoun, A Disquisition on Government, C. G. Post edition, p.42/43. - (*) Rather, an option for people sufficiently enlightened. – Naturally, habitual criminals with victims would be rejected. – Afghanistan and Iraq showed that it is especially wrong to try to force (not full freedom or diverse autonomous communities of volunteers upon all people in a country but, instead) a single territorial democracy upon very diverse peoples, which they do not, to a large extent, want for themselves, especially seeing that they are, as yet, not even sufficiently tolerant in the sphere of religion. – J.Z., 1.10.04, 1.10.07, 17.1.08, 24.12.10, 30.4.12. - TO BE EARNED NOT TO BE LAVISHED ON ALL ALIKE, CRIMINALS & OTHER AGGRESSORS, PANARCHISM, DIS.

LIBERTY: It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." – James Madison. - Territorial States, by their very nature, are mostly organized as Warfare States and also as authoritarian regimes towards those of their own minorities which they do not favour. – J.Z., 4.1.08. - SECURITY & THE THREATS ASSOCIATED WITH TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: It is doubtful if any social prophet in America ever made a stronger case for self-autonomy than Warren did when he wrote: Our surrounding institutions, customs, and public opinion call for conformity. They require us to act in masses like herds of cattle: they do not recognize that we think and feel individually and ought to be at liberty to act individually; but this liberty cannot be enjoyed in combinations, masses, and connections in which we cannot move without affecting another.(*)– “Individuality” – THE PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONIST, I, April 5, 1833, 1. – Quoted in: Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.69. - (*) Here one should distinguish territorial from exterritorial organizations, organizations with compulsory membership and those with voluntary membership. Only those with exterritorial autonomy and voluntary membership can, apart from free market consumer choices, come closest to the wishes of individuals. If they do not, there is always individual secessionism from them and the possibility of establishing or joining other communities more to one’s liking or to try to be merely a sovereign consumer, producers and exchanger on a free market. – J.Z., 24.11.07. - AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VS. TERRITORIALISM, COERCIVE COLLECTIVISM

LIBERTY: It is the fact that people are ultimately free to choose their way of living (within physical limits) that makes political liberty more than just an empty issue.” – Tibor R. Machan, “reason, 5/72. – As long as they are only given the choice between different territorial political systems their choice is by far not comprehensive enough. Radical freedom options for freedom lovers are largely excluded thereby. How could even Machan have missed that fact? – J.Z., 23.11.07. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: It is very difficult to preserve liberty unless those who have power to legislate at any given moment are subject to general rules which express the most permanent purposes of the state." - Arthur Shenfield, Agenda for a Free Society. – To Hell with “the purposes of the State”! Especially the territorial one. It takes care only of its politicians, bureaucrats and special interest lobbies. - What about our individual rights and liberties? Have they no place in his kind of “free society”? – J.Z., 26.12.07. - VS. LEGISLATORS, LAWS, CONSTITUTIONS

LIBERTY: It makes possible when legally instituted, the flourishing of man as a self-responsible being; this in turn renders it of value to everyone without exception.” – Tibor R. Machan, "reason", 5/72. – Precisely when it remains under territorial laws, instead of self-chosen personal laws, it remains all too limited. Quite rightful and consistent freedom institutions can then not be freely developed and spread via individual choice. The territorial political process serves power rather than liberty, justice, peace, progress, self-responsibility and individual choice. – J.Z., 23.11.07, 3.2.09, 30.5.12. - POWER & LAW, DIS.

LIBERTY: It must be obvious that liberty necessarily means freedom to choose foolishly as well as wisely; freedom to choose evil (*) as well as good; freedom to enjoy the rewards of good judgment, and freedom to suffer the penalties of bad judgment. If this is not true, the word "freedom" has no meaning.” – Ben Moreell – (*) Only as far as one’s own affairs are concerned, never at the expense of the rights and liberties of involuntary victims. – J.Z., 30.5.12. - RIGHTS & FOOLISHNESS, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUALISM, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, NOT ONLY INDIVIDUAL ONES BUT LARGE ONES, AMONG THE VOLUNTEERS OF WHOLE SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES.

LIBERTY: It requires some experience of liberty to know how to use it.” – H. H. Brackenridge, Modern Chivalry, 1792. – Former Soviet subjects in the West were often under the impression, at least for a while, that there is too much liberty in the West, while, at the same time, libertarians and anarchists complained about the lack of liberties even in the West. – Does the same apply to panarchism? - How fast could most people become accustomed to full liberty if they saw it daily applied, among panarchist libertarians, all around them? – J.Z. – EXPERIENCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM. OMNIPRESENCE OF EXTERRITORIAL ALTERNATIVES PRACTISED BY VOLUNTEERS. – J.Z., 25.12.10. – Q.

LIBERTY: It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition that he may abuse it.” – Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), Address, First Protectorate Parliament, 1654. - The less liberty the more abuses! - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – The trend has been, for all too long, to tolerate rather wrongful territorial powers and their abuses rather than genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 22.1.09, 25.12.10. - ABUSES, SUPPRESSION, LIBERTY, HUMAN RIGHTS

LIBERTY: It's amazing to me that governments around the world will try every aspect of government control before, as a final last resort after everything else fails, they will try individual liberty." - Andre Marrou, Libertarian candidate for President '92, former Libertarian Alaska State Legislator. - Compare a similar remark by Bastiat, probably in Economic Harmonies. – They are much more likely to repeat all their previous wrongs and mistakes. When remaining even unaware of their own wrongs and mistakes then they are even more likely to remain unaware of all the same historical wrongs and mistakes by their predecessors. – How many territorial governments have actually learnt their lessons from their own mistakes and those of prior governments, on more than a few points, at best? – Not one has stood up for all genuine individual rights and liberties. That’s for sure. - J.Z., 25.12.10. – GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 20 Jan., 1961. – Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 6, 61, THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Spring 75, p.77. - Maybe he should have been honest and have added e.g.: As long as they do not demand e.g. fully free trade, voluntary taxation, full monetary freedom, individual and group secessionism, personal law and voluntary community options and the right to decide themselves on war and peace. How many other individual liberties and rights do our great political leaders fail to concede? – J.Z., 23.11.07. - Most people are unwilling to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any handicap, support anyone or opposed anyone to assure the success of liberty. Nor it is possible that one man can thus act for all, at the expense of involuntary taxpayers. Moreover, this “great” leader would not allow dissenters to try to approach liberty in their own ways. And he tried to achieve it with mass extermination devices! – These are some of the reasons for the mess we are still in. Liberty cannot be realized by territorial rulers, no matter how powerful and how often they try. – They do not even know what it means. They “think” in terms of still more power in their own hands. – J.Z., 28.11.07. – How much was he willing to pay out of his own pockets or bank accounts? How many liberties and rights did he actually know and appreciate? Under him the nuclear arsenal of the US was doubled! – J.Z., 18.8.08. – Territorialists as such cannot be consistent and the best possible freedom fighters. – J.Z., 30.5.12. - TERRITORIALISM & LEADERSHIP

LIBERTY: Liberty - precious boon of Heaven - is meek and reasonable. She admits, that she belongs to all - to the high and the low; the rich and the poor; the black and the white - and, that she belongs to them all equally. …  But true liberty acknowledges and defends the equal rights of all men, and all nations.” - Representative Gerrit Smith, remarks in the House, June 27, 1854, CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, vol. 23, Appendix, p.1016. -  Does it belong to criminals with victims and other aggressors? - J.Z., 26.11.02. – Are territorially defined “nations” or “peoples” genuine entities with rights and liberties? – J.Z., 26.12.10. – Q.

LIBERTY: Liberty … that condition of man in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as possible in society." - Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty. – Since he advocated a single “limited” but territorial government he seems to have thought, written and spoken always only of one society instead of numerous and very diverse and partly even opposite ones, all only for their own voluntary members, and offering an all-over society that allows and protects this diversity. – Anyhow, in my books societies and territorial States are opposites. - J.Z., 26. 12. 07. - VS. COERCION IN SOCIETY, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OF EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, SECESSIONISM, DIS.

LIBERTY: Liberty Against Power.” – Roy Childs, title of one of his essays. – Liberty for self-management power, voluntary associationism under full exterritorial autonomy, combining individual sovereignties effectively and resulting from free individual secessionism. Also the legislative, juridical and police powers of communities of volunteers or of competitive service supplies. Ultimately, the enlightened people in arms, well trained and motivated to uphold all their genuine individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they want to make use of them, in ideal militia forces of volunteers, locally organized and nationally and internationally federated for this purpose. Liberty, as much of it as people want for themselves, through THIS kind of power! – J.Z., 26.12.10. - DIS., POWER

LIBERTY: Liberty and experiments alone can determine the best economic forms of society.” – Voltairine De Cleyre, quoted in LIBERTARIAN ANALYSIS, Vol. 1, No. 4, p.17. – Not only the best economic but also the best political and social forms of societies. – J.Z., 26.12.10. - DIS., EXPERIMENTS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM


LIBERTY: Liberty is always possible. It can come only when it is earned. It must not be thrust upon people who do not understand it or who do not want it. It can never be provided for some by others through political devices, peaceful or warlike. Liberty is the great prize. And its sacred cause is advanced by each individual who, in his heart, comes to understand.” – April 1, 1960. – Quoted from? In Carl Watner, LeFevre, p.139. - TOLERANCE TOWARDS TOLERANT STATISTS, VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

LIBERTY: Liberty is an opportunity for doing good, but this is only so when it is also an opportunity for doing wrong.” – F .A. Hayek. – It should be organized in a way that it can do the least wrong to the least number and these all volunteers, acting at their own risk and expense. Territorialism makes that impossible. Exterritorialism combined with voluntarism makes it possible. – The right to make mistakes at the own risk and expense is involved. – The public declaration and recognition of all genuine individual rights and liberties, at least to the extent that they are claimed by others, is the minimum requirement. – What rights and liberties, if any, should one concede to those, who, either formally or by their actions, are against such a commitment? – Tolerance is suitable only for tolerant people or intolerant ones who do their own intolerant things only to themselves! – The right to support one’s life is not a right and opportunity to commit murder or robery. - J.Z., 26.12.10, 30.5.12. – HUMAN RIGHTS, CRIMINALS, AGGRESSORS, FANATICS, INTOLERANT PEOPLE, DIS.

LIBERTY: Liberty Is for Others, Too. (*) Most individual favor subjective evaluation as applied to self but will, at the same time, insist on objective evaluations (**) as applied to the millions who “don’t know what’s good for them”. – In a word, very few will accord that liberty to others which they personally cherish so much. (***) These inconsistent people are the victims of an historical momentum – the darkened millennia of mankind’s past (****) – and thus have not apprehended the newest politico-economic fact on the face of the earth: individual liberty. This slowness to apprehend may, in turn, derive from our poor choice of descriptive terms. “(*****) – Leonard E. Read, Deeper Than You Think, p.52, FEE. - - (*) Criminals with victims and other aggressors against individual rights and liberties excepted! - - (**) In accordance with their subjective valued “standards”! - - (***) Or so little! Thus they wish for as little liberty for others, as they wish for themselves.! - - (****) That part of it which is based upon territorial monopolism, coercion and centralization, excluding individual choices in all too many people! - - (*****) And from our territorialist prejudices, which prevent free experimentation in the spheres of political, economic and social systems, although in all other spheres free experimentation is already very widely spread. - The fact that even such a great and long-term libertarian as L. E. Read was still not clear enough on such fundamental issues, is a model case for me to demonstrate that the discussion of all such issues must become much more comprehensive, informed, diverse and intense than it has been so far. (Politics has to be re-thought from every angle, confronting the present territorial power practice with the individualized alternatives of full individual sovereignty, leading to xyz diverses societie, communities and governance systems for volunteers only, all of them without territorialism and its major inherent flaws. When will this finally happen in most of our universities? This A to Z collection of SLOGANS, QUOTES & NOTES FOR LIBERTY is just an individual’s effort in this direction. – It has to be developed into a comprehensive political science resource – by thousands of others able and willing to tackle this job. -  J.Z., 31.5.12.) For this purpose a number of important references works, encyclopedias, archives and special freedom libraries ought to be compiled and published. – A$ 320 HD, here down, at ALDI, to A $ 150, would have room for over a million books or their page equivalents. (At Dick Smith, Mittagong, I recently bought a MAXTOR one of 500 GBs for only A$ 99! – J.Z., 3.2.09. ) (By now some of 2TB’s are offered for as little as $139! – J.Z., 26.12.10.) If that option were fully recognized and used by enough freedom lovers, genuine lovers of liberty, prepared to work even unpaid for it, in their spare time, then almost all points could become clarified much better than they were so far, especially if electronic “argument mapping” of the types proposed by Paul Monk et al, were also used. - J.Z., 24.11.07. – All libertarian texts could and should thus be made accessible to all interested in them. – J.Z., 26.12.10. - DIS., CD-PROJECT, SUPER-COMPUTER-PROJECT

LIBERTY: Liberty is obedience to the law which one has laid down for oneself.” – J. J. Rousseau, Du contrat social, I/1761. – This is one of his thoughts that indicates that he might have advanced to panarchistic thoughts in his sequel, if his social contract theory had been sufficiently accepted in his time. In that case he had promised a further book on the subject. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 15.11.07. - PANARCHISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL LAW & LAW

LIBERTY: Liberty is often a heavy burden on a man. It involves the necessity for perpetual choice which is the kind of labor men have always dreaded.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-1884), Elsie Venner, 1861. - Freedom of action, secession, association and disassociation also for all those, who would rather not be troubled by trying to learn about their rights and liberties and how to realize and uphold them. They will always find plenty of shepherds and mis-leaders for themselves, as long as they manage to stand them. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – Until then they will continue to be shorn, slaughtered and skinned. – J.Z., 31.5.12. - For those, who do appreciate their individual rights and liberties, they are also seen as preconditions for unlimited opportunities for individual achievements. – J.Z., 22.1.09. DECIDOPHOBIA, DECISION-MAKING, LIBERTY & CHOICE WIDELY PERCEIVED AS BURDENS TO BE AVOIDED

LIBERTY: Liberty is the best of all things.” - (Libertas optima rerum.) – Medieval Latin proverb. – Even regarding the choice of political, economic and social systems! We should not make an exception for them, just to uphold something as wrong and harmful as an enforced territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 15.11.07. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY UNDER PERSONAL LAWS FOR COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, OF WHATEVER KIND

LIBERTY: Liberty is the hardest test that one can inflict on a people. To know how to be free is not given equally to all men and all nations.” - Paul Valery, Reflections on the World Today. On the Subject of Dictatorship, 1931. – How many people knew then or even now enough e.g. about all monetary liberties to be able to practise them successfully? How many or how few show even now any interest in such questions? - Most of our ancestors have been slaves or serfs for all too long, so that monetary rights are still seen by them as royal or feudal prerogatives, or even as affairs of the slave masters only. – How many have so far cared about the establishment of ideal militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties, about ideal declarations of this kind, about individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy under personal laws and about defence, liberation and revolution programs based upon such liberties? – Probably only a handful of people in the whole world! – J.Z., 28.11.07. – PUBLIC OPINION, PREJUDICES, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS, ENLIGHTENMENT

LIBERTY: Liberty is the possibility of doubting, the possibility of making a mistake, the possibility of searching and experimenting, the possibility of saying “No” to any authority – literary, artistic, philosophic, religious, social, and even political.” – Ignazio Silone, The God that Failed. - Merely saying “No!” has no more chance to succeed than a prayer! –– He did not explicitly include economic, political and social liberties. – J.Z., 3.2.09. 31.5.12. – EXPERIMENTS, MISTAKES, DIS.

LIBERTY: Liberty is the power that we have over ourselves.” – Hugo Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis, I, p.625. – Without individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, fully free associationism, even regarding political, economic and social systems, how much power do we really have over ourselves, how much liberty? – J.Z., 10.7.85. – He did not draw the panarchist conclusion from this remark. Principles should not only be implicitly but explicitly expressed. – J.Z.16.2.86. - As far as possible. To their limits. They are that important. – J.Z., 15.11.07. - PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: Liberty means that each individual may choose his own way to Hell, but no SHOVING. Each person may also choose the way to Heaven, but no pushing.” – Wm. F. Fowler in L. Labadie’s DISCUSSION, No.37, p.3. – (Has the whole set of it been published by now, somewhere, online? I only ever saw a few copies of it, even in the LABADIE COLLECTION & could microfilm only issues 5-8.) – J.Z., 19.11.07. – Searching for L. L. with Google, I got today over 9 million search results, definitely more than I could peruse. – Even for Benjamin R. Tucker I got only over 3 million results. - J.Z., 31.5.12. – TOLERANCE VS. INTOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

LIBERTY: Liberty neglected is tyranny invited.” – Sprading, -, Freedom and its Fundamentals, p.106. – Which liberty has been more neglected than monetary freedom? As a result we got monetary despotism. – The same could be said e.g. for exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. - J.Z., 23.11.07. – Without them we merely get authoritarian, monopolistic, and even totalitarian territorialism, the Warfare State. – J.Z., 3.2.09, 26.12.10. - ITS NEGLECT & TYRANNY

LIBERTY: Liberty over Power.” – Murray Rothbard, LAISSEZ FAIRE REVIEW, May/June 74. - VS. POWER – The powers of all genuine individual rights and liberties vs. all territorial powers! – J.Z., 3.2.09.

LIBERTY: liberty promises to care for no one, but will, nevertheless, offer an opportunity for each to care for himself, either alone or in association with others.” – Laurance Labadie, quoted in DANDELION, Winter 78. – However, were any of his remarks clearly panarchistic? I can’t remember any such remark in those of his writings that I have read. If I had found one, I would, probably, have included it here. – J.Z., 24.12.10. - SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, CARE, WELFARE

LIBERTY: Liberty, then, when forced on a people unfit for it, would, instead of a blessing, be a curse, …” - John C. Calhoun, A Disquisition on Government, C. G. Post edition, p.42. – Only the liberty, coercively realized in a whole country or the world, for all its individuals and all their voluntary groups, to be as free or as unfree as they want to be, would not be a curse for humanity or for any of such voluntary groups, societies, communities etc. since it would depend upon their individual voluntary members to learn from their experience with lack of liberties and to chose conditions of greater or the greatest freedom for themselves, whenever they are ready for them. Politically, economically and socially even most “adults” have still to go through a gradual maturing process, at their own speed and many of them will fail in this, even if they try, for years to decades. – But tolerance towards the volunteers of other communities should be demanded from all and, if necessary, sharply enforced. – In my opinion ideally by ideal militia forces for the protections of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 1.10.07. - NOT TO BE FORCED UPON DISSENTERS, WHO PREFER STATISM FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL GROUPS THAT ARE NON-AGGRESSIVE & NON-CRIMINAL TOWARDS NON-MEMBERS, DIS.

LIBERTY: Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.” – George Washington, 1732-1788, Letter to James Madison, 2. March 1788. – It did not fully take root in his mind and was not expressed by many of his actions. – J.Z., 27.3.94. - Apparently, it has not yet taken full root anywhere! - J.Z., 26.11.02. - As all too frequent experience has shown: Even when it has taken root in some individuals or some minorities, its further spread can be successfully obstructed for many years or even decades. – At least until these individuals or minorities are quite free to secede and do their own things for themselves, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. Territorial States do prevent that in some of the most important spheres. – Washington was right only for cases, in territorial States, where liberty has already taken possession of the minds of the majority. But then - who has ever doubted that? - J.Z., 23.11.07. – We have enjoyed large degrees of freedom of speech and press for a long time – but, apparently, this was not yet enough to achieve their completion and the spread of these liberties to all others and to all other countries. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – Whatever information on liberty has so far accumulated on numerous sites on the Internet has, so far, not been sufficiently combined, sorted out, abstracted, interlinked, discussed and made easily accessible on every point. To achieve that has been made difficult in many cases through the sheer volume of information on some of the numerous sites and of the enormous number of results for particular search efforts. Man’s greatest treasure, in other words, is not yet sufficiently displayed and made accessible in wanted duplicates to almost everyone. – J.Z., 31.5.12. – DIS., ENLIGHTENMENT, EDUCATION, CULTURAL REVOLUTION, IDEAS ARCHIVE

LIBERTY: Make everything subservient to liberty; use state force only for one purpose – to prevent and restrain the use of force amongst ourselves, …” - Auberon Herbert, A Plea for Voluntaryism, in Mack edition, essay nine, p.329. - - Doesn’t that mean monopolizing and bureaucratizing the use of defensive and protective force and leaving its administration subject to the political process, to the “tender care” of politicians and their laws, to bureaucrats and their tender administrations and to governmental armed forces, often enforcing more wrongs that rights? Liberty, justice, peace, defence and protection, of individual rights and liberties, like education, religion, culture, postal and transport services are much too important to leave to their protection in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians , policemen and professional soldiers, not to speak of secret service agents. – The powers and forces of territorial States are, if experience is any guide, the least suitable ones for this purpose, starting with compulsory and statist mis-education. - J.Z., 23.11.07, 31.5.12. – LIBERTY AS FIRST PRIORITY VIA LIMITED BUT TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS OR PANARCHISM? TERRITORIALISM, Q.

LIBERTY: Many years ago a great philosopher asked: “If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty, are they thereafter any the less slaves?” - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.64. – However, people are entitled to any degree of voluntary slavery, if that is their choice, as long as they are willing to put up with it. – J.Z., 18.1.08. – SLAVERY

LIBERTY: Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, - in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, - in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, - in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” - Edmund Burke, "Letter to a Member of the National Assembly," 1791. - The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, vol. 4, pp.51-52 (1899). – Are territorial power-mongers and their coercive institutions, laws and jurisdictions the best method to still or inflame unreasonable passions? Are not free societies and communities of volunteers much more likely to quietly do their own things for or too themselves, even when it comes to whole and self-selected political, economic and social systems, just like happens now with tens of thousands of private clubs, associations and societies? – J.Z., 26.12.10. - WHIMS, PASSIONS, DIS., ARBITRARINESS, MORALITY, SELF-RESTRAINT, JUSTICE, UNDERSTANDING, WISDOM

LIBERTY: Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves.” – D. H. Lawrence (1885-1938), 1915 - As a measure of enslavement merely consider how they have allowed “protectionism”, conscription, compulsory schooling, tributes, inflation and unemployment to happen to them. – And how they still allow their “leaders” to mislead them into wrongful wars. - J.Z., 22.1.09. – If it had been full liberty, then we would not have lost it as fast, if at all. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – People free to keep themselves out of compulsory taxation, wars, inflation, mass unemployment and oppression, or mass extermination camps, would surely have made use of such options in many to most cases, just like they do rather buy and consume e.g. chocolates than rat poison. – Territorialism permits, maintains and prolongs the worst rather than the best political, economic and social systems. - J.Z., 26.12.10. - FROM LIBERTY TO SLAVERY IN A FEW GENERATIONS, DIS., DEGENERATION? TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

LIBERTY: Men love liberty because it protects them from control and humiliation by others, thus affording them the possibility of dignity; they loathe liberty because it throws them back on their own abilities and resources, thus confronting them with the possibility of insignificance.” – Thomas Szasz, The Untamed Tongue, 1990 – Let them have their choices – but do not tie them territorially down to them. At least some will learn from their experiences and make better choices, once they are free to do so. – It is probably more a fear or distrust or doubtful relationship towards liberty, apart from the usual statists and territorial errors, prejudices, false assumptions and conclusions. - J.Z., 26.12.10. – DIS., THE LOVE/HATE RELATIONSHIP OF MEN TOWARDS LIBERTY

LIBERTY: Men may, in their thoughtlessness, believe they can do without liberty; they simply are unaware that liberty is indestructible; and that the only question is, how much of it will each recognize, appreciate and, as a consequence, possess?” (*) – Leonard E. Read, Deeper Than You Think, p.133. - - (*) Rather, create, establish or choose for himself, whenever and wherever this individual choice is already open to him. – J.Z., 24.11.07.  INALIENABLE, INDESTRUCTIBLE BUT SUPPRESSIBLE

LIBERTY: most anarchists reject the Roman sense of libertas as popular government embodied in a republican constitution. Their principal concern is with freedom from external political authority. They do not accept like Locke that the State is necessary to protect individual liberty. They equally reject Rousseau’s notion of civil liberty in which one can be legitimately forced to obey the laws one makes for oneself. (*) They have no truck with Hegel’s idealist definition of liberty as ‘necessity transfigured’ so that the individual somehow realizes his ‘higher self’ in obeying the law of the State. …” - Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.37. – Most anarchists, the above-mentioned authorities and Peter Marshall himself, in the following passage, describing the predominant anarchist views, do not take into consideration the possibilities of voluntarism under individually chosen personal law communities for all the various anarchists, libertarians and groups of statists, most of them still being largely territorialists and as such intolerant towards dissenters. – J.Z., 1.12.07. - LAWS & ANARCHISTS, DIS., PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTY: My government will protect all liberties but one – the liberty to do away with other liberties.” – President Ordaz of Mexico, inaugural speech. - As an honest man he would have said: My government pretends to protect all liberties but really upholds only one, the “liberty” of my government to do away with all the other liberties of all others. - That one liberty it monopolizes for itself, territorially. – J.Z., 2.6.92. – No territorial government is fully or sufficiently effective in protecting any liberty. Not one even knows and appreciates all liberties. None has so far made a declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties. He certainly did not stand for full monetary freedom and for individual and group secessionism and personal law communities of volunteers. Only exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers have a good chance to do so, between them, including the protection of the degrees of lack of freedom, which some volunteers would choose for themselves. - Individuals and whole groups should, naturally, remain free to secede from his territorial State and all others. – J.Z., 18.11.07, 17.1.08, 26.12.10. - THROUGH TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS? TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS AS PROTECTORS? PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE

LIBERTY: My liberty is not for sale.” – Edward Bushell, 1670, standing up for jury rights. – He was not free to offer it for sale or to refuse to sell it, getting only a tax receipt in return from those politicians and bureaucrats who took many of his liberties and rights away and greatly restricted the rest. We are still in the same position today, under territorialism. We are forced to pay our secular territorial oppressors, exploiters and mis-leaders, just like we were once forced to pay our “sky pilots”. – J.Z., 26.12.10. – PRIESTS, RELIGIONS, CHURCHES, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICIANS

LIBERTY: No doubt it is generally believed that the terms are easily understood, and present no difficulty. Probably the popular notion is that liberty means doing as one has a mind to, and that it is a metaphysical or sentimental good. A little observation shows that there is no such thing in this world as doing as one has a mind to. There is no man, from the tramp up to the President, the Pope, or the Czar, who can do as he has a mind to. There never has been any man, from the primitive barbarian up to a Humboldt or a Darwin, who could do as he had a mind to. …” - William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, p.25. – DIS. - Under the voluntary and exterritorial autonomy of panarchism each can come as close to it, in his self-chosen or self-established panarchy, as it is possible for human beings to achieve. Naturally, the possession of a mind, which deserves this term, is also a prerequisite. – J.Z., 26.12.10.

LIBERTY: Nothing is more fertile in prodigies than the art of being free; but there is nothing more arduous than the apprenticeship of liberty … … liberty is generally established with difficulty in the midst of storms; it is perfected by civil discord; and its benefit cannot be appreciated until it is already old.” - Alexis de Tocqueville – He, too, did not seem to notice that under territorialism there is as yet no freedom of action for the various kinds of liberty lovers and other ideologues, to do their own things for or to themselves, among their own volunteers, in exterritorially autonomous communities, thereby either setting attractive examples or deterrent ones. Ruling politicians do not like this proposal because it would soon show up their mistakes and wrongs. At least some of these experimenters would be much more successful than the territorial politicians ever were or are now. – On the other hand, they could thus obtain a sinecure, among their remaining followers, and become independent of election outcomes. Voluntary membership, combined with individual and group secessionism, would then take the place of elections or voting. They would then be the only really significant ballot or free vote. – Each community could then advance only upon its own merits, as judged by its own voluntary members or sovereign consumers of its services. - J.Z., 26.12.07, 26.12.10.

LIBERTY: Nothing, not peace, not happiness, not prosperity, is as important for all men as liberty.” – Massimo Salvadori. – Survival comes first! But liberty steps are also survival steps. – J.Z., 9.11.82. Just consider how many people did and do only survive through black market transactions. – J.Z., 22.11.07. – All the other ideals can only be close enough approached under the greatest freedom of action for all of them, however, always only among like-minded volunteers. – J.Z., 18.11.07, 3.2.00. If no longer a mere handful of individuals, territorial rulers and their officers, had a say on mass extermination devices, then how many of these potential mass murderers would still exist? – J.Z., 30.11.07. – There is also the freedom to choose a condition for oneself in which many liberties are missing, from faithful monogenic marriages to all kinds of religious and egalitarian communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – PANARCHISM, SURVIVAL, PEACE, HAPPINESS, PROSPERITY, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

LIBERTY: Obedience to laws that we have imposed on ourselves is liberty.” – Rousseau, in The Social Contract. – But did he mean individually imposed laws or collectively imposed laws, individually chosen law systems or involuntary, because territorial submission, to law systems that one has not individually chosen for oneself and that were collectively decided upon for the population of whole territories? – Since he did not write a clarifying sequel and does not speak of exterritorial autonomy and personal laws in his writings, I do suppose that he thought only of territorial law and its collectivism rather than individualism. – He also called his work The Social Contract rather than The Individual Contract to Achieve Free Societies. - J.Z., 23.11.07. – LAWS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, SOCIAL CONTRACT

LIBERTY: Of course if we knew the whole truth Liberty would not be so necessary as far as the race is concerned. (*) But because we do not know the truth we must leave all the avenues for its discovery open, and hence every individual must have perfect liberty to follow his own inclination and desire. In this way all of society would be transformed into one great sociological laboratory in which all the isms in each succeeding age would be subjected to laboratory tests and only the truths remain. Not only does Liberty solve all of our sociological problems but it is the only possible source for material advancement. The innumerable social advantages that have come from individual inventions and discoveries illustrate this. Thus it must be perfectly plain that if the race is to climb to higher levels and make still farther advances the one big prime necessity for such advancement is liberty.” – Dr. Claude Riddle, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.536. – Did he envision simultaneous experiments by voluntary communities in the same country, under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, to speed up progress? – (*) ? - J.Z., 23.11.07. - PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT

LIBERTY: One evening, when I was yet in my nurse’s arms, I wanted to touch the tea urn, which was boiling merrily … My nurse would have taken me away from the urn, but my mother said "Let him touch it." So I touched it – and that was my first lesson in the meaning of liberty. – John Ruskin (1819-1900), The Story of Arachne, 1870. - Liberty needs freedom of action in more than government-authorized spheres, even freedom of action in fully exterritorially autonomous competition with a formerly territorial and therefore monopolistic government. Panarchism wants Statist to have their States, too, but only for their own volunteers and without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., n.d. & 26.12.10.

LIBERTY: Only by unintermitted agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle - not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.” – Wendell Phillips, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.160. – Freedom of action for volunteers and their experiments with economic freedom would every day and everywhere demonstrate how much more e.g. prosperity and happiness can be achieved through liberty. Then further agitation would hardly be necessary. – J.Z., 23.11.07.

LIBERTY: Order is a means to liberty, and not an end (*); liberty is priceless, for it is the vital medium of growth.” The child raised to adulthood within a process of libertarian education, Durant held, “will be a law unto himself because he will understand that his freedom is dependent upon the continued freedom of others; he will need no other law than this sense of fitness and mutual right.” – W. H. Durant, quoted, in Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.446. - Education in libertarianism is not enough while there is not sufficient freedom to practice it and to see, all around oneself, the practice of other systems, not based upon libertarian ideas, principles and institutions. - (*) Compare Proudhon: “Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order.” - J.Z., 24.11.07. - ORDER, DIS., PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION

LIBERTY: Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.” – US House Congressional Resolution 48 "A Republic; not a Democracy", sponsored by Ron Paul, 3/6/01. - Panarchistic liberties, rights and opportunities would go much further than classical and modern liberties, in democracies and republics, but leave them, as well, merely as options for volunteers. To each his own choices. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – Full consumer sovereignty in the last spheres where it has so far been suppressed by territorial governments, namely that of governments of self-management systems. – J.Z., 22.1.09. – REPUBLICANISM, DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM, BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, LIBERTY VS. TERRITORIAL REPUBLICANISM & DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM RATHER THAN EVEN THE BEST KIND OF TERRITORIAL RULE, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT OR SELF-MANAGEMENT

LIBERTY: Over and over and over again (to paraphrase FDR), we need to stress that once we've established that liberty is the issue in a given case (no aggressive acts), the argument is over. The way the person in question is enjoying liberty (controlling his own life) is as irrelevant as who he is. We must defend "freedoms" (*) we don't like as much as individuals we don't like.” - Robert Brakeman, SLM = SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 2/77. - - (*) Even when their choice of “freedom” means, objectively, the absence of certain individual liberties and choices – for themselves. – J.Z., 28.11.07. - AGGRESSION, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM EVEN FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT LOVE LIBERTY

LIBERTY: Panarchism gives a new meaning to Rousseau’s phrase: “Liberty is a set of laws which I have chosen for myself.” – J.Z., 26.5.89. – It becomes an individual choice instead of remaining a collectivist and territorial choice that cannot go beyond democracies, republics and “limited” governments. – J.Z., 31.5.12. –b PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & ASSOCIATIONISM

LIBERTY: People do not understand the liberty of majorities. The will of a majority is the will of a rabble. Progressive democracy is incompatible with liberty.” - John C. Calhoun, Jenkins, Life of John Caldwell Calhoun, p.453. - The main obstacle to progress is territorialism, for it prevents the most advanced as well as the most backwards people from trying out and demonstrating their ideas in practice, at their own expense and risk only. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 26.12.10. - MAJORITY, PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY, PROGRESS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT

LIBERTY: perfect liberty is equivalent to total absence of government.” - Bosanquet, The Philosophical Theory of the State, London, 1951, p.125, quoted in Benjamin R. Barber, Superman and Common Men. - For freedom lovers only the absence of imposed territorial governments is required. If they achieved that, for themselves, they could leave the liberation of the remaining statists to these statists. They would then be able not only to theorize about full liberty but to set close to perfect examples of it – all around and among the remaining majority of statists. – If for them e.g. smuggling becomes legal and taxation and military service voluntary, many of the former statists would join them. – If they advocated this “privilege” or liberty not only for themselves, but for all other minorities, then they would have many and powerful or influential allies and could achieve for themselves and all theses allies this kind of limited liberty, which would be as full and consistent liberty as the voluntary members of each personal law communities would desire for themselves. – Alas, so far, intolerant “libertarians” do” threaten” all non-libertarians with the realization of all liberties for all, a condition which the non-libertarians do fear or at least have many doubts about. Thus libertarians themselves do provoke massive resistance against their libertarian aspirations – and this quite unnecessarily and quite wrongfully as well. – Libertarianism for statists only on a voluntary basis, when they are finally ready for it, sufficiently enlightened and convinced by the examples set by successful libertarian communities! - J.Z., 22.11.07, 24.12.10. – GOVERNMENT, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: Political liberty … is simply the area in which a man can act unobstructed by others.” – Isaiah Berlin, 1969, p.122. – Quoted by Anthony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, 134. – I see in it only the all too limited territorial liberty, depending upon the votes of millions of others and of the representatives of these others. This political liberty has left us only a small private sphere and no personal choice of political, economic and social systems and has recognized only some genuine individual rights and liberties and respected even these few only fractionally. – J.Z., 21.11.07.  POLITICAL LIBERTY, DIS.

LIBERTY: political liberty always means liberty for the weaker party. It is only the weaker party that is ever oppressed. The strong are always free (*) by virtue of their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other; the weaker must always succumb. And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same; for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot, unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to ensure submission to the former.” – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, II/14 in Works I. – By rights all laws approved by a majority should only apply to that majority. Likewise their costs. Majorities and minority group members should be free to separate and to do their own things to or for themselves. Only then would we get true self-government or self-determination. – J.Z., 22.11.07. – (*) To the extent that they want to be free. – J.Z., 24.12.10. - PARTIES, VOTING, MINORITIES, STRENGTH, MAJORITY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, MINORITY AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Political liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not injure another. The exercise of the natural rights of every man has no other limits than those which are necessary to secure to every other man the free exercise of the same rights; and these limits re determinable only by law.” (*) – Declaration of the Rights of Man, by the French National Assembly, IV, 1789. – (*) Personal law was obviously not considered here. – J.Z., 2.11.85. – Complete and well formulated individual rights and liberties would set the required limits that even laws and constitutions should not be allowed to infringe – unless they are constitutions and laws of communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 15.11.07. - PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIAL POLITICAL LIBERTY

LIBERTY: Political liberty is a real possibility because people can refrain from interference with another’s life.” – Tibor R. Machan, "REASON", 5/72. – Can and do they so refrain under territorial politics? – J.Z., 23.11.07. - POLITICAL LIBERTY & TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Political liberty is good only so far as it produces private liberty.” - Samuel Johnson, in Boswell’s Life of Johnson, 1788. - Found in Seldes, The Great Quotations. – As a rule, what is considered national or territorial liberty of a whole population, amounts to numerous restrictions of individual rights and liberties, all in the name of the collective sovereignty for territorial governments, supposedly acting on behalf of the people, the common interest, the general interest, the public interest. – This territorial “liberty” is certainly not productive of private liberty. – J.Z., 4.2.09, 26.12.10.

LIBERTY: Political liberty is the absence of interference with one’s efforts to lead one’s life IN PEACE. It is not being free of interference when one is himself attacking others or otherwise violating their human rights to life, liberty, and property.” - Tibor R. Machan, “reason, 5/72. - - As long as “political liberty” is territorially organized such interference is almost inevitable. – J.Z., 23.11.07.

LIBERTY: political liberty is the condition which permits each member of society to pursue his own interests to the best of his skill and ability.” - Tibor R. Machan, “reason”, 5/72. - - Territorial politics makes precisely that impossible for consistent freedom lovers. At best they achieve some compromises with the all too ignorant and prejudiced majority. – J.Z., 23.11.07. - POLITICS AS USUAL, TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Political liberty’s a swindle because a man doesn’t spend his time being political. He spends it sleeping, eating, amusing himself a little and working – mostly working.” – Aldous Huxley, Antic Hay, 1923. – Political liberty he has only for a few minutes, every few years, and that to a very limited extent, that of one vote among millions, as long as he lives under a territorial political regime. – J.Z., 18.11.07, 26.12.10. – DIS., POLITICAL LIBERTY, VOTING, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Privileges? None! Rights and Liberties? All! – J.Z., 29.7.82. – However, only for all those who are enlightened enough to want them for themselves. – J.Z., 30.11.07. – The others have to be satisfied with however few rights and liberties they want for themselves and as long as they do. – J.Z., 3.2.09. - VS. PRIVILEGES, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS

LIBERTY: pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” – Edmund Burke, quoted in Leonard E. Read: The Love of Liberty, p.94. – Panarchists do not wish for anything more, but Burke, to my knowledge, was no panarchist. – J.Z., 24.12.10.

LIBERTY: Rawls quotes the view of Constant that freedom of the person should always override political liberty.” – William Stoddard, “reason”, 3/74. – Did Constant also favour e.g. individual sovereignty and individual secessionism and personal laws, i.e., exterritorial autonomy for volunteers? – Did he leave a private draft of individual rights and liberties? - J.Z., 23.11.07. – Full freedom should be advocated not only implicitly but explicitly. – One simple sign or saying cannot sufficiently lead everyone to his kind of utopia or free society. – J.Z., 26.12.10. - PERSONAL VS. POLITICAL LIBERTY. BOTH ARE COMBINED VIA PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson - These include all genuine individual rights and liberties. They do also include the right to act rightfully, contrary to territorial laws, the right to secede, to choose or establish a panarchy for oneself, full experimental freedom, for volunteers, even with whole political, economic and social systems, as long as no territorial monopoly is claimed. Especially, at his and our stage, the right to choose less than full freedom for oneself, together with like-minded people. – His works are online now. I have still not checked out all his remarks on personal law. But if they had been clear enough, could they have been overlooked for so long? – J.Z., n.d. & 26.12.10. - BEFORE THE LAWS, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

LIBERTY: Servitude is the blind soul. Can you figure to yourself a man blind voluntarily? This terrible thing exists. There are willing slaves. A smile in irons! Can anything be more hideous? He who is not free is not a man; he who is not free has no sight, no knowledge, no discernment, no growth, no comprehension, no will, no faith, no love; he has no wife, he has no children: he has a female and young ones; he lives not, - ab luce principium. Liberty is the apple of the eye. Liberty is the visual organ of progress.” – Victor Hugo, in Works of Victory Hugo, p.548. – Nevertheless, volunteers do have the right to live as unfree as they want to be – among themselves, as long as they leave all others alone. – J.Z., 28.11.07. - VOLUNTARY SLAVERY, PANARCHISM, STATISM ONLY FOR STATISTS

LIBERTY: So every bondman in his own hand bears // The power to cancel his captivity.” - William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, I, iii, 101. – If only that had always been true! Individual and group secessionism was only rarely recognized in recorded history and then more and more suppressed by territorialism. – According to a movie that I recently saw (“King Arthur”, Director’s Cut”, the Saxon invaders of England indiscriminately slaughtered the existing population. True or false? - J.Z., 3.2.09. – SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, SELF-HELP, SELF-LIBERATION. VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTY: So, what is liberty? It is the “pursuing of our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” - My phrasing: No man-concocted restraints against the release of creative human energy.” – Leonard E. Read: THE FREEMAN, 2/75. – Alas, he wanted to restrain people from panarchies or polyarchies or personal laws or experimental freedom under exterritorial autonomy – via his ideal of “limited government”, which still claims a territorial monopoly and would certainly not satisfy all kinds of statists or all kinds of libertarians. – J.Z., 23.11.07.

LIBERTY: Teach men to understand that by forging chains for others they forge chains for themselves, that as long as some are in fetters no one is truly free. Help them to see that liberty is the very breath of life and that only in the atmosphere of freedom can truth, prosperity, and peace flourish, Imbue us with courage to guard our heritage of freedom above all material goods, and to preserve it for others so that all men shall dwell together in safety and none shall make them afraid.” – From Jewish Prayerbook, quoted in “The Wisdom of Israel”, page 606. – Alas, Israel is still the embodiment of territorialist myths and to my knowledge only very few Jews, not only very few Christians and Muslims etc., have ever stood up quite clearly for full exterritorial autonomy not only for themselves but even for their opponents. By all means, tell me about all the exceptions! – J.Z., 26.12.10. - VS. CHAINS, LAWS, REGULATIONS, BOARDS, BUREAUCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, JUDAISM

LIBERTY: That the greatest security of the people, against the encroachments and usurpations of their superiors, is to keep the Spirit of Liberty constantly awake, is an undeniable truth.” - Edmund Burke, "A Free Briton's Advice to the Free Citizens of Dublin," no. 2, 1748. - The Early Life, Correspondence and Writings of the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke, p. 338 (1923). – Not only the spirit but also the practices of liberty and rights ought to be introduced and maintained. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – He, too failed to provide at least a draft of all genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 26.12.10. - SECURITY, DEFENCE, PROTECTION, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES – FOR COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS!

LIBERTY: The basis of a democratic state is liberty.” - Aristotle. – I wish this were true, to a sufficient extent. While it offers, usually, more liberties than do despotic States, many individual rights and liberties do remain unrecognized and unrealized or even suppressed in them as well. Make you own list and it might turn out long! – J.Z., 1.9.08. The basis of any State, even a democratic or republican one, is territorial domination, i.e., the rule not only over volunteers but over dissenters, all compulsory members and compulsory subjects. - J.Z., 26.11.02. – DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, DOMINATION

LIBERTY: The champions of civil liberty have a uniquely brilliant insight, and a truly humane dictum which they apply assiduously in the area of sexual morality – “Anything goes between consenting adults, and (implicitly), nothing goes but that which is between consenting adults.” But they steadfastly refuse to apply this rule to any area other than that of sexual morality. Specifically, they refuse to apply it to the economic sphere. But this human dictum should be applied to all parts of human life, including the profiteer, as well as the sexual pervert or deviant, or the entrepreneur as well as the fetishist; to the speculator as well as the sado-masochist.” – Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, p.201. – It should be applied also to the individual and contractual choice of whole political, economic and social systems, all only for volunteers and confined to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. – J.Z., 18.1.08. - SEXUALITY, ECONOMIC & CIVIL LIBERTIES, CONSENTING ADULTS

LIBERTY: The civilization of Rome had authority for its corner-stone, and freedom languished in chains. The Christian Church in turn, profiting by the example which the secular power set, likewise embraced the dogma of authority as the basic technique it was to employ in governing the spiritual development of its members. Throughout the length and breath of European history, Lum stated, a heated battle has raged between those who take their stand on the side of authority and force and those who place their entire trust in liberty as the most powerful of all social mechanisms. In thus rejecting Christianity, Lum sought to clear the way for the development of a more efficient and realistic approach to moral problems.” – Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p. 242, on Dyer D. Lum. – Did he clearly enough stand up for religious liberty as well as for political, economic and social tolerance? – J.Z., 24.7.07. – Did he at least advocate individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, voluntary associationism, exterritorial autonomous and all genuine individual rights and liberties? – Most of the anarchists that I know of do have an all too limited point of view or horizon and in some respects are opponents of consistent voluntarism. They are still territorialists, although on a decentralist scale. – J.Z., 26.12.10. - VS. POWER & AUTHORITY, ROME, CHURCHES, CHRISTIANITY, ATHEISM, ANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, HUMAN RIGHTS

LIBERTY: The condition of equal and fullest liberty can only be attained by those who desire it. Those who can only contemplate equitable conditions with angry feelings cannot be under an obligation to further the attainment of the same. Neither can those who find consolation in dutiful obedience to monarchs and other masters. None of these people are under any (*) obligation to further liberty or to respect the liberty of any one. How can they be, seeing they do not believe their interests run liberty-wards? How can they be under obligation to injure themselves? But – let them take warning. Be they fools or knaves, kings or slaves; be they county-councillors, tax impostors, or other invaders – if they will not respect the liberty of others, they thereby give up all title to have their own respected. When aggressively-inclined legality-mongers see the force of this argument they may, perchance, hesitate before accepting positions of privilege and rulership.” – Badcock, Slaves to Duty. - - The argument alone will not help enough. Few of them are receptive towards good arguments, facts and reasoning. But a considerable number of tyrannicide actions might help to restrain them, when e.g. the casualty list among tax collectors, secret policemen and politicians, who had voted for quite wrongful laws, would begin to grow. But the peaceful and easier as well as quite rightful approach consists in individual and group secessionism and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, in which even mis-leaders can find their sinecure among their remaining followers. – It can be advocated and realized even for one’s opponents and thus diminishes the number of enemies and clashes between them. - (*) self-felt – J.Z., 18.1.08, 26.12.10. - RESPECT FOR LIBERTY

LIBERTY: The contest, for ages, has been to rescue Liberty from the grasp of executive power.” - Senator Daniel Webster, speech in the Senate, May 27, 1834, on President Andrew Jackson's protest. - The Works of Daniel Webster, 10th ed., vol. 4, p. 133 (1857). – From the other two main branches of territorial government as well! - Likewise against all other branches of territorial governments. – – One may e.g. consider standing armies as a fourth branch. - J.Z., 3.2.09. – If the aim and means had been clearly enough declared then we would be in a very different position now. But quite rightful liberation, revolution and defence aims were never declared. Nor any quite complete and clear enough declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties. Nor was a suitable organization established for their defence. - LIBERTY VS. GOVERNMENT & POWER OR AUTHORITY OR RULERS, STATES BUREAUCRATS, POLITICIANS, STATESMEN, HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, MILITIA, WAR AIMS.

LIBERTY: The demand for liberty is a demand for power, either for possession of powers of action not already possessed or for retention and expansion of powers already possessed.” – John Dewey, Freedom and Culture, Putnam, 1939, quoted in Seldes, The Great Quotations. – Leaving “power” undefined and unlimited is rather dangerous. Power only over the own actions or those of volunteers, should be one of the essential qualifications. – J.Z., 23.11.07. - POWER

LIBERTY: the doctrine of liberty. Let every man be happy in his own way.” - William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.104. – How many did so far include the choice of different panarchies in their notions of the free pursuit of one’s happiness? – Or full monetary and financial freedom? Or any sound self-management scheme in production and exchange? Or a comprehensive declaration of all individual rights and liberties and its protection through an ideal militia of volunteers? - J.Z., 24.12.10. - HAPPINESS

LIBERTY: The essence of liberty is to live just as you choose.” – Cicero, De Officiis, Book 1, chap. XX. – That does also require free choice between political, economic and social systems and their laws, for individuals and minorities, not only for majorities and territorially. – How could most people remain so blind to that truth for so long? - J.Z., 23.11.07. – CHOICE, Q.

LIBERTY: The extremism and the magic of liberty: Fancy, imagining society to be able to operate without the State’s military, police and justice machine. Imagine, having to pay for roads and libraries. - How otherwise could it work except by the “magic” of the market? – J.Z., 25.3.84, 3.2.09. – We need a free market for all political, economic and social systems, all only for volunteers and without any territorial monopoly, together with full consumer sovereignty towards membership and services so offered., That would also require personal rather than territorial laws, constitutions, jurisdiction and institutions. – How many of the present “political scientists” are aware of that and teach such free enterprise, free exchange, freedom of contract, freedom of association and disassociation? Even most historians have largely ignored that alternative, not to speak of the average run of reformers, revolutionaries and “freedom fighters”. – J.Z., 26.12.10. - MARKET, ITS “EXTREMISM” & ITS “MAGIC”

LIBERTY: The first principle of liberty, … is that there is no one who, of right, ought to rule.” – George H. Douglas, THE FREEMAN, 12/73. Also in the Sept.74 issue and a later one. - - All rule should be confined to rule over volunteers, which requires the abolition of territorial, exclusive, monopolistic, coercive and centralized rule. – J.Z., 23.11.07. - VS. RULE

LIBERTY: The great and direct end of government is liberty. Secure our liberties and privileges, and the end of government is answered. If this be not effectively done, government is an evil.” - Patrick Henry, speech against the U.S. Constitution, June 24, 1788. – Full liberty would, indeed, end the evil of imposed territorial government. If territorial governments would really have aimed at liberty then they would have abdicated. – J.Z., 2.2.09. – GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, POWER & ADDICTION TO IT, RULERS

LIBERTY: The great half truth, liberty.” – William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 1790. – I do not know what he referred to here but for me the full truth on liberty means that it includes also the liberty not to be free – by individual choice! – J.Z., 2.11.85, 15.11.07. – DIS., PANARCHISM, A DECLARATION OF ALL GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES IS STILL MISSING!

LIBERTY: The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.” – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Writings, Vol. VIII, p.3. - As if fast advances in the direction of liberty were quite impossible. – J.Z., 23.11.07. – One may have to cross a guarded border by inches – but once one is across … - J.Z., 18.1.08. - It needs much more than the classical liberties to advance liberty much faster than it has so far been. Especially full experimental freedom is needed for communities of volunteers. This requires exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. And these require, as first steps, individual and group secessionism. Even these fundamental insights are still very rare. - J.Z., 6.2.09. - DIS., PANARCHISM, and – Territorial gradualism was continued for centuries, in spite of persistent failures of it, while exterritorial and voluntary gradualist options remain largely ignored as aims and means. – Jefferson mentions “personal law” in his works – but has he thought it through and pointed out its rightful and desirable results? - J.Z., 26.12.10, 31.5.12. - DIS.

LIBERTY: The importance of our being free to do a particular thing has nothing to do with one question of whether we, or the majority, are ever likely to make use of that particular possibility.” - F. A. HAYEK, The Constitution of Liberty – But it has very much to do with the question of whether we, as individuals or as members of a minority group, are free to make use of that possibility on the basis of individual secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. – Where did H. consider that possibility, if he did? – J.Z., 28.11.07. - I demand panarchistic liberty for everyone - except aggressors - regardless of whether and how far they will make use of this option and in what direction. - J.Z., 8.4.89.

LIBERTY: The inalienable right to stick your nose in the government’s business.” – Harry Delmer, in Webster’s Unafraid Dictionary by L. L. Levinson. – Does any territorial government have any rightful business? – J.Z., 26.12.10. - DIS., Q., GOVERNMENTAL SECRETS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY ABOUT YOUR SUPPOSED SERVANTS & THEIR ACTIVITIES, TERRITORIALISM, PUBLICITY, COMPETITION

LIBERTY: The liberty of Man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any rule or restraint of the law, but what the legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it.” - John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Government. – As if this were only a minor restriction upon liberty or even a guarantee for it, especially under territorial governments! – How many laws have been passed, since John Locke wrote this, which more or less severely and wrongly restricted liberties and rights? – How much or how little do most legislators know or care about individual rights and liberty? - J.Z., 26.12.07. – Territorially consent is not achievable. Even among friends and family members there is often little agreement. More agreement can be found among those, who share a religious faith or who do have in common a supposedly ideal political, economic or social system, based upon a shared ideology. – J.Z., 26.12.10, 31.5.12. – LEGISLATION, CONSENT, UNANIMITY, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: The liberty the citizen enjoys is to be measured not by governmental machinery he lives under, whether representative or other, but by the paucity of restraints it imposes upon him.” – Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), Social Statics, 1850 – Under panarchism it is to be measured by however many or few rights and liberties people want to practise within their self-chosen communities of volunteers. – They do also retain the right and liberty to claim and practise them all – once they are ready for them. - J.Z., 3.2.09, 31.5.12. - VS. RESTRAINTS, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM TO CHOOSE LESS THAN FULL LIBERTY & ALL RIGHTS FOR ONESELF, AS LONG AS ONE CAN & WANTS TO STAND THIS CONDITION

LIBERTY: The more liberty you give away, the more you will have.” – R. G. Ingersoll, Speech in Boston, Sep. 20, 1880. – That applies also to a panarchistic defence and liberation effort, i.e., one with quite rightful war and peace aims, already allied with numerous governments in exile, all only for their kind of volunteers, none with any territorial ambitions. – J.Z., 10.7/86, 15.11.07, 26.12.10. – But one cannot “give away” liberties like e.g. biscuits and tea. One can only recognize and respect them in others, which is a pretty good foundation for a separate peace with others and for their liberation from a territorial despotism. – J.Z., 18.1.08. - PANARCHISM, WAR & PEACE AIMS & DEFENCE

LIBERTY: the most formidable obstacle to the establishment of civil liberty is the absence of the desire for it.” – J. B. Say, On Consumption, p.446. – Under panarchism even a few would be enough to establish it among themselves. – J.Z., 3.2.09. - STATISM

LIBERTY: The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to E. Carrington, 1788. - Only when unnatural territorialism is imposed, i.e., dissenting individuals and minorities are not free to secede and to do their own things for and to themselves under full exterritorial autonomy. Even Jefferson had, apparently, not yet sufficiently considered that alternative, although I believe the Red Indian tribes practised it already to a considerable extent, like most nomads do. - J.Z., 24.11.02. - Fully and consistently applied, liberty would force all territorial governments to give up all their unjust and harmful territorial powers. The incomplete liberties and rights granted by territorial governments won't achieve that. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06, 26.12.10. - That is the tendency only under unnatural conditions, namely those of territorialism. – Thus I would change this remark to: The natural progress of incomplete liberty is to yield and territorial government to gain ground. – Without individual sovereignty liberty is incomplete. It is also incomplete without economic liberty, especially monetary freedom. - J.Z., 2/11/85. - - For then it has already yielded on at least one if not several points. In the case of the US, there was still slavery, taxation, monetary despotism, all too much centralized decision-making, protectionism, and suppression of secessionism. - J.Z., 15.11.07. - PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power.” – General Douglas MacArthur. - The panarchistic point of view is rather: Liberty through the abolition of all territorial powers, as the only way to limit them sufficiently. As for the rest, exterritorially autonomous governments and societies, they will be formed and maintained e.g. by limited government advocates, anarchists for themselves, likewise by socialists and all kinds of other believers and ideologues, types and system-mongers. To each his own, with no one having then any right or occasion to complain, except about his own choices, actions or omissions. - Anarchists and libertarians have still to realize that for them, too, this is the fastest road to attain and maintain their systems or models - for themselves. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06., 26.12.10. - THROUGH THE LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson - As long as those among the people, who really appreciate liberties, remain quite free to practise them, at their own expense and risk. The remainder have the right to continue the traditions, customs, laws and constitutions that they prefer among themselves, as long as they can stand them, individually. - J.Z., 12.10.02. - Not "the" people but individuals and among these the dissenters, non-conformists and freedom lovers. - J.Z., 16.11.02. – Panarchism, tolerance, freedom to choose a condition of serfdom etc., as long as one is willing to put up with it. People are individuals or minority groups, not whole territorial populations, made up, as a rule, of very diverse individuals and groups. A uniform “people” or group with sufficient “consent” consists only of like-minded volunteers. Panarchism applied would clearly reveal what “the people” really means. – J.Z., 3.2.09, 26.12.10, 1.6.12. – VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN EVERY SPHERE. DIS.

LIBERTY: The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” – Edmund Burke, Speech at a meeting in Buckinghamshire, 1784. – People never had all their liberties! If they had, most of their delusions would, probably, have disappeared. But unenlightened people, under all kinds of prejudices, errors etc. do still have the right to live subject to their own ideas and ideals, even under mere delusions, at the own expense and risk. Full liberty should never be forced upon anyone. Only respect for the real and claimed rights of others, among themselves, can be rightfully enforced. And if their delusions induce them to surrender their rights, while these delusions persist, so be it. We are living among many people who almost never make full use of their freedom of expression and freedom of information, who consciously or unconsciously avoid many important topics, ideas and institutions as if they were dangerous and infectious diseases. Some even live almost as primitives or barbarians. As long as the harm or wrong only themselves they should be left alone. – J.Z., 15.11.07, 26.12.10. – Usually, their liberties are not given away by them but, rather, taken from them. – Or the right to practise them is suppressed, all too often quite legally. – J.Z, 25.12.11. - J.Z., PANARCHISM, TYRANNY, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, POWER, WELFARE STATE, STATE SOCIALISM, SECURITY, DEFENCE, PROTECTION, REVOLUTION, LIBERATION, WAR, PREJUDICES, ERRORS, MYTHS, DELUSIONS

LIBERTY: The people who make the revolution always seem to ask for liberty.” - - “But do they ever get it, Mr. Gumbril?” Mr. Bohanus cocked his head playfully and smiled. “Look at ‘istory, Mr. Gumbril, look at ‘istory. First it’s the French Revolution. They ask for political liberty. And they gets it. Then comes the Reform Bill, then Forty-Eight, then all the Franchise Acts and Votes for Women – always more and more political liberty. And what’s the result, Mr. Gumbril? Nothing at all. Who’s freer for political liberty? Not a soul, Mr. Grumbril There was never a greater swindle ‘atched in the ‘ole of ‘istory. And when you think ‘how those poor young men like Shelley talked about it – it’s pathetic”, said Mr. Bohanis, shaking his head, “really pathetic”. – Aldous Huxley, Antic Hay, quoted by Buckley in his Up from Liberalism, p.113. - - That is what I thought today, too, at the federal elections in Australia, when I put zeroes into all the squares of all the parties and candidates, which were to be numbered from 1 upwards in the desired sequence. - Voting is still compulsory in Australia. Failure to turn up leads to a stiff penalty. So one attends and votes, somehow, informally. I wonder how many or how few would have turned up if voting were not compulsory here. Most of the parties, movements etc. revealed their ignorance and prejudices already in their names. – Free markets, voluntarism and individual choices were ignored by all in this coercive collectivist process. To expect the solutions of our problems from a territorial political system is as absurd as to expect it from “heavenly forces”. – The results of all voting should only apply to the particular voters. Then every party or movement would win – exterritorial autonomy for itself and all its volunteers. None has a right to ask for any more. - J.Z., 24.11.07. - DEMOCRACY, POLITICAL LIBERTY, TERRITORIALISM, VOTING, PANARCHISM, PARTIES

LIBERTY: The progress of a people rising from a lower to a higher point in the scale of liberty is necessarily slow; and by attempting to precipitate, we either retard or permanently defeat it.” - John C. Calhoun, A Disquisition on Government, C. G. Post edition, p.43. - - What is true for the populations of whole territories is not true for all their individuals. All individuals and groups of volunteers should become free to advance faster or slower than the whole populations, but still only at their own and self-selected speed. – J.Z., 1.10.07. – Some people even like to go backwards. Let them, at their own expense and risk! – Unless their actions constitute a real danger to others. – Imagine e.g. people driving backwards, fast and on the wrong side of the road. - J.Z., 18.1.08. - PEOPLE, FREEDOM & PROGRESS, ENLIGHTENMENT

LIBERTY: The right of liberty means man’s right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.” - Ayn Rand, The Only Path to Tomorrow, in: “The Ayn Rand Column”, revised edition, 1998, p.115, Second Renaissance Books, New Milford, Connecticut, - - Alas, her comprehension of such terms excluded exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers under personal laws. She attacked this concept, under the term “competing governments” and tried to ridicule it, in a chapter of her book: The Virtue of Selfishness. She was so influential that the world would already be a much better place if only she had not upheld her territorialist limited government prejudice and had clearly seen and described the free market alternatives to it, all resulting from the free choices by sovereign individuals, even the statist ones, for themselves. – J.Z., 17.9.07. - INDIVIDUALISM, PROPERTY RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF ACTION; FREE CHOICE, INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE, VOLUNTARISM, FREE MARKET FOR GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, ALL WITHOUT A TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY: PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: The right to be in the wrong. (*) – Harry Delmar, in Webster’s Unafraid Dictionary by L. L. Levinson. - - (*) Here one should add: at the own risk and expense. – J.Z., 22.11.07. – It leads to less misunderstandings if one merely speaks of the right to make mistakes, at the own expense and risk and that not only in choosing one’s career, job, profession or investment, but even in one’s individual free choice of a whole political, economic and social system. – J.Z., 26.12.10. – It also means freedom to act within one’s rights. – J.Z., 25.12.11. - DIS.

LIBERTY: The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance.” – Karl Hess, in DANDELION, Spring 80. – Or as unfree as we wish to be. But only in the voluntary and exterritorial models, not in the territorial ones. Even Karl Hess was not sufficiently clear about that. – J.Z., 26.12.10.

LIBERTY: The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws.” - Walt Whitman, "Freedom," Notes Left Over (1881). – Even most of the supposedly wise have not yet recognized that only personal laws could realize their own ideals among themselves and the ideals of others among them. Territorial laws always tends to impose the laws of others, whether majorities or minorities, upon e.g. dissenting freedom lovers or other idealists. – J.Z., 29.11.07. - LAW

LIBERTY: The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is-not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.” - Judge Learned Hand, speech, New York City, May 21, 1944. – Partly quoted in: Leonard E. Read, The Free Man’s Almanac, for August 27. – Even if one is and could be quite sure, one should realized that others are not so sure about their freedom options and thus leave them alone with whatever freedom restrictions they still choose for themselves and other people like them, in their own communities, under their own personal laws. Tolerance even for enemies of liberty – as long as they do their things only to themselves. – J.Z., 20.11.07. – The least on Earth should not only be able to speak up in public but also to secede from the most powerful – to do their own things among themselves, without aid and hindrance by others. – J.Z., 29.11.07. – FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, TOLERANCE, DOGMATISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: The struggle for liberty must first take place in your own mind. Once winning it there, partly or fully, you will see at least some of the ways to practise some or even many or all liberties that will then be dear to you, to the extent that you want to embrace and utilize them, for your purposes, alone or in association with like-minded people. – J.Z., 8.9.93, 1.12.07. - MIND, STRUGGLE, ENLIGHTENMENT, CULTURAL REVOLUTION, EDUCATION

LIBERTY: The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts.” – Edmund Burke (1899) - It can be nibbled away in parts but it can also be restored in parts, in segments and wholly, for individuals and minorities - if only this is seriously tried. - J.Z., 26.11.02. – E.g. by exterritorial secessionism and various panarchies of volunteers. They might be started in a liberating revolution or military insurrection or by governments in exile, all only by and for volunteers, as allies of democratic governments. – Or as quite rightful and attractive war and peace aims against despotic or totalitarian regimes. - J.Z., 26.12.10. - NIBBLING AWAY OF LIBERTY, ENCROACHMENTS, EXPEDIENCY, UTILITARIANISM, RIGHTS, SALAMI TACTICS, GRADUALISM

LIBERTY: The true remedy for most evils is none other than liberty, unlimited and complete liberty, liberty in every field of human endeavour.” – Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), Belgian Economist and Philosopher. - However, for each individual and each group of volunteers only as much liberty as they want for themselves, for the time being. The appetite for liberty is still all too limited among most people. Forced into it they would tend to resist and spoil it for the liberty lovers. – J.Z., 3.1.08. - Alas, that thought is more frightening to most people than the present conditions are. Thus those, who already want some, many or all liberties and rights for themselves, should demand and realize them only for themselves, among themselves, via individual and group secessionism, personal laws for communities of volunteers that are exterritorially autonomous, leaving all others “unthreatened”, unchanged, with as little and few liberties as they want for themselves, maintaining that condition for themselves, as long as they want to, individually. – J.Z., 18.1.08, 1.6.12. - THE ULTIMATE REMEDY FOR MOST EVILS, PANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM

LIBERTY: There can be no patriotism without liberty, no liberty without virtue, no virtue without citizens; create citizens, and you have everything you need; without them, you will have nothing but debased slaves, from the rulers of the State downwards. To form citizens is not the work of a day; and in order to have men it is necessary to educate them when they are children.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse in Political Economy, 1755. – If they had free choice between various exterritorially autonomous communities - then their enlightenment might be easier and faster than when they are confined to the verbal explorations of freedom options only. Just compare how fast progress was in the arts, in literature, technology and science under freedom of experimentation and how slow enlightenment advanced under the territorial monopoly for political, economic and social systems, even when combined, to a large extent, with territorial statist “education”. – J.Z., 24.11.07. - CITIZENS VS. STATISTS, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, PATRIOTISM

LIBERTY: There is no "slippery slope" toward loss of liberty, only a long staircase where each step down must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders.” – Alan K. Simpson, U.S. Senator, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 26.9.82 – Through individual and group secessionism this trend could be effectively resisted, even finally reversed, step by step and individual by individual. Better to best alternatives could then be practically demonstrated by communities and societies of volunteers, without having to fight the other and different ones. – J.Z., 22.1.09. 26.12.10. - Let dissenting individuals and minorities undertake the kind of freedom steps that they like for themselves. Then they would gradually attain full liberty and would tend to pull the others after them – through their practical examples. They would act like genuine leaders without attempting to territorially lead or dominate the others. – J.Z., 2.2.09. - ITS GRADUAL, STEP BY STEP LOSS, THE PANARCHIST WAY TO STEP BY STEP REGAIN IT, VIA INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM, PRACTISING FULL EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN ALL SPHERES NOW MONOPOLIZED BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS. THE SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS, NEGATIVE & POSITIVE GRADUALISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM ETC.

LIBERTY: There is no better way to spend one’s time than in the vindication of liberty.” – John Milton. – The best, the most effective vindication of liberty lies in its tolerant practice, among volunteers only. – J.Z., 15.6.92, 30.11.07.  VINDICATION BY PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATION, FREE EXPERIMENTS WITH IT, PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: They acted on the principle, which was not new, which came down indeed from mediaeval divines, but which was newly invested with universal authority, that the law is not the will of the sovereign that commands, but of the nation (*) that obeys. It was the very marrow of the doctrine that obstruction of liberty is crime, that absolute authority is not a thing to be consulted, but a thing to be removed, and that resistance to it is no affair of interest or convenience, but of sacred obligation.” - Lord Aston, Lectures on the French Revolution, ed. by Figgis & Laurence, MacMillan, 1932, p.78. - - (*) Not of the fictitious or coerced territorial “nation” but the personal laws of communities of like-minded volunteers! – Underlining by me. - J.Z., 1.10.07. - VS. ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, OBSTRUCTION OF LIBERTY A CRIME

LIBERTY: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), HISTORICAL REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA (1759). – “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755. - The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p.242 (1963). This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Even these values can be best applied only under free competition and free enterprise as well as full consumer sovereignty for them. Let us apply laissez faire and laissez passer or free exchange or production and of exchange, or freedom of choice and freedom of contract and association, when it comes to the free individual choice of whole political, economic and social systems, no matter how ill informed and prejudiced the people are in their own choices for themselves. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 18.1.08, 1.6.12. - SECURITY, SAFETY, COMPROMISE, CONCESSIONS

LIBERTY: Those who cling to the tenets of liberty limit the action of the majority, as of the minority, strictly to persuasion. Those who dislike liberty, insist that earnestness of conviction justifies either a majority or a minority in using not persuasion only, but force.” - John Morley, On Compromise, p.214. - The actions of the majority, as of the minorities, towards dissenters in the same territories, should be limited to persuasion attempts, unless their own liberty, to act in accordance with their own beliefs, among themselves, is forcefully denied to them by people who are not members of their volunteer groups and who are acting aggressively or criminally towards them. Then rightful and forceful resistance and liberation efforts are justified and would be facilitated through the program of exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups. Internally, and towards consenting victims, all kinds of communities of volunteers might apply more than persuasion to uphold their systems among themselves, as long as their members remain free to secede from them. And both, majorities and minority groups, once they have obtained freedom of action and experimentation for their self-responsible actions, should try to persuade outsiders mainly only by their examples and demonstrations and by sufficiently recording and publishing their experiences, which under developed retrieval facilities and freedom of information would then be at the disposal of everybody upon demand or payment of the small costs involved. On the other hand, the continuing missionary attempts to persuade outsiders to adopt the lifestyles and social, political and economic system, which one prefers for oneself, should be largely given up as a waste of time and energy. Only when one is forced to live under territorially enforced systems does one have no better way than persuasion to attempt to change the opinions and actions of the ruling majority or minority.– Legislation by a majority or a minority is much more than mere “persuasion” attempts. - J. Z. 12.6.92, 7.1.93, 3.2.09, 1.6.12. – PERSUASION, PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: Those who contend for liberty must be prepared to endure privations.” – Admiral Ben Moreell, The Admirals’s Log I, p.115. – Have we as yet thoroughly examined all the tools, methods and references that would facilitate and accelerate this process? – J.Z., 3.2.09. - It is not just “blood, sweat and tears” that are required but much better ideas, arguments and references, made easily, cheaply and as completely available as needed. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – Those who would sensibly apply genuine individual rights and liberties among themselves, would rather make their jobs much easier, just as if they were operating with advanced tools and equipment. Their costs would tend to be lower and their profits higher. However, to first obtain that kind of freedom of action or experimental freedom, or the right to set attractive examples, under full exterritorial autonomy, this does today still require a prolonged enlightenment effort. At least we have better information storage and retrieval as well as publishing options now than existed ever before. Probably all pro-freedom information could become compiled on a single large external hard disc and its hardware is now already down to less than $ 100. Such texts on such discs could be cheaply and indefinitely duplicated, with the discs only book sized and thus fitting onto almost every desk! – It is senseless to continue to speak of needed privations while such technical opportunities are offered to freedom lovers. In the time of this admiral we had only photocopying machines, audio tapes and microfilms. But already with these much more could have been achieved than was achieved. - J.Z., 26.12.10. - STRUGGLE & PRIVATIONS? Q. GENUINELY CULTURAL REVOLUTION, ENLIGHTENMENT ACCELERATION, DIS., PANARCHISM

LIBERTY: Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine, 1776. – It becomes a terrible fatigue only if one does not mobilize all genuine individual rights and liberties as well as all technological means for it and full freedom to experiment with alternatives. This tolerant rather than territorial monopoly approach was long successful when it comes to religious differences and also in technology, natural sciences, sports, literature and the arts. Alas, we have still failed to apply it when it comes to political, economic and social systems. – Already J. G. Fichte, in his book on the French Revolution, 1793, advocated individual secessionism. Most political “scientists” have managed to ignore this idea or proposal and its possible consequences for over two centuries! But by now such ideas are taking off, at least on the Internet. – J.Z., 26.12.10. – DIS.

LIBERTY: Those who trade liberty for security have neither.” - Source? - Sufficient security comes only through liberty. Security does not provide sufficient liberty. Security is both the highest and the least, in different senses and meanings, in e.g. totalitarian regimes and tyrannies and in all authoritarian, because territorial, democracies as well. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. - SECURITY, SAFETY, PROTECTION, DEFENCE, SELF-HELP, AUTHORITARIANISM, MONOPOLISM, TOTALITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM

LIBERTY: Throughout history orators and poets have extolled liberty, but no one has told us why liberty is so important. Our attitude towards such matters should depend on whether we consider civilization as fixed or advancing. ... In an advancing society, any restriction on liberty reduces the number of things tried and so reduces the rate of progress. In such a society freedom of action is granted to the individual, not because it gives him greater satisfaction but because if allowed to go his own way he will on the average serve the rest of us better than under any orders we know how to give." - H. B. Phillips. He wrote as if under territorialism freedom of action and experimentation were already fully realized for all in all spheres. When it comes to different and freely as well as individually chosen political, economic and social systems then these are, obviously, still suppressed by the territorial governmental monopolies in such decision-making. – J.Z., 26.12.07. – INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, FREEDOM OF ACTION OR PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

LIBERTY: Thus, for the friend of liberty, today, yesterday, and tomorrow, the crucial questions and answers always must be - wherever on the ladder of state development he may find himself - "does this action increase the power of the state? If it does, I shall oppose it. Does this action increase the liberty of or even the opportunity for individuals and their volitional communities? If it does, I shall support it.” – Karl Hess, The Lawless State, p.22. – With the term “volitional communities”, underlined by me, he came close to panarchism. Did he come any closer to it in other remarks? – J.Z., 18.1.08. – See: PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM.

LIBERTY: Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson – Actually, government laws, controls, bureaucracies, and anti-economic interventionism cause many additional wrongful and man-made problems and crises, even wars, civil wars, violent revolutions, mass murders and terrorism than does full freedom. Full freedom, combined with tolerance for all tolerant actions and communities of volunteers, offers the best cure to such and many other problems. – J.Z., 22.1.09. - COURAGE & DESPOTISM

LIBERTY: To Cicero as to any Roman, the world Libertas in its political sense conveyed one very precise, if exclusively negative, meaning: ‘Public life without kings’.” – J. O. Y Gasset, Concord and Liberty, p.28. – Now we should stress the liberty, justice and peace that is possible without territorial parliamentarism and its avalanches of interventionist laws and taxes. – J.Z., 26.12.10. – TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

LIBERTY: To repeat, liberty is the ABILITY of any individual to think his own thoughts and to act on them.” – LEFEVRE’S JOURNALS, Fall 77. – Did he include personal law or exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities in this concept? At least he reproduced de Puydt’s essay on Panarchy once in his RAMPART JOURNAL. – But I found no discussion of this essay in his writings. - J.Z., 24.11.07. - THINKING & ACTION

LIBERTY: Today it is rarely understood that the limitation of all coercion to the enforcement of general rules of just conduct was the fundamental principles of classless liberalism, or I would almost say, its definition of liberty.” - F. A. Hayek, Economic and Representative Government. – Here, too, he considers only one ideal constitutional and limited society or state for all the diverse individual people in a territory, regardless of how different the ideas on e.g. justice are within a population. Just think of the difference of opinions on death penalties and abortion. – And if volunteers want to establish, like Plato, a society based on different classes, not only voters and “representatives”, who has the right to outlaw such a society for them, established at their risk and expense? - J.Z., 28.11.07.

LIBERTY: True liberty consists only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will.” - Attributed to Jonathan Edwards. - George Seldes, The Great Quotations, p.220 (1966). - Quoted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, June 29, 1950. - Unverified. - In the editor's introduction to Edwards's Freedom of the Will, ed. Paul Ramsey, p. 12 (1957), is a succinct summary of a portion of Edwards's definition of terms, part 1, section S (p. 164): "In other words, a man is free to do what he wills, but not to do what he does not will." - Rather, what, as a reasonable, moral, just, responsible and conscientious being, he could not wish to do. - J.Z., 26.11.02. - No liberty to experiment and to err or make mistakes at one’s own risk and expense? – J.Z., n.d. & 23.11.07.OUGHT, DUTY, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, RESTRAINT, ARBITRARINESS, WILL, REASON, MORALITY, ETHICS, RIGHTS, DIS.

LIBERTY: Under the idea of God as authority, Christians have burned fellow Christians at the stake and have otherwise brutalized the society, which they sought to improve. Over against the authoritarian concept is the libertarian idea in which individual liberty is considered the very highest social value by which all thought and action are to be judged. The libertarian view of necessity must abandon the control of thought and deed which Christian society exercised through the institutions of Church and State. For authority, “clad in the purple and scarlet of pomp and of power”, can only work where the individual is bound and fettered by controls and sanctions which are not his own and is thus antithetical to human liberty. The libertarian idea, on the other hand, “stands a glorious shining center in the white radiance of freedom”, trusting wholly in the autonomous individual as the motive force of orderly society. The libertarian totally distrusts all methods of formal control which interfere with the natural feelings of the individual considered as a social being. For the individual is a product of nature and possesses all the attributes of a moral agent.” – Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted in Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.343. - underlined by J.Z. - Alas, she still wrote in so general terms that one cannot clearly conclude from them upon individual sovereignty and voluntarism to the extent of individual secessionism, and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers under their own diverse personal law systems, freely competing with each other in the same territory or even world-wide. Perhaps somewhere else she has expressed herself more clearly in this direction? – J.Z., 24.11.07. – The totalitarian egalitarians have murdered even more people than the Christians have. Did they believe that their victims were superior or inferior or equal to them? They certainly did not concede to them equal rights and liberties. – J.Z., 2.2.09. - FREEDOM OF ACTION & EXPERIMENTATION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

LIBERTY: US Chief Justice Earl Warren once said that liberty, not communism, is the most contagious force in the world.” – C. Bingham, Men & Affairs, 190. – Not “is” but “can be”. – J.Z., 11.11.78. - - Alas, ignorant and prejudiced people are almost immune to this infection, when it is merely defended by words rather than demonstrated by free experiments among volunteers. – J.Z., 23.11.07. – CONTAGIOUS? Only if it clearly and completely expressed and also practically demonstrated. – J.Z., 3.2.09. – By now it could be fully expressed, a complete freedom reference library, on a cheap and merely book-sized external HD of 1 to 2 TBs. – Who is, finally, willing to work towards it? And towards the exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, which is also needed to tolerantly demonstrate all aspects of liberties and rights? – Only then will liberty finally become sufficiently “contagious”. - J.Z., 26.12.10.

LIBERTY: When anarchists speak of liberty as being fundamental to basic philosophy, they are not engaging in mere rhetoric. "Liberty," as one American anarchist wrote, "is not a declaration, or even an inspiration, it is a science.” (8) That is to say, liberty, in the anarchist frame of reference, is not so much a goal to be striven for, as it is the essential means by which the goal of human freedom itself must be realized. This, of course, is why the anarchist is the sworn opponent of all attempts to achieve freedom through the use of organized government, for government, as we have already insisted, is impossible without resort to force and compulsion at some point. As strange as the idea may at first appear, this rejection of force is fundamental to the thinking of all anarchists, and is the essential foundation of anarchism's entire philosophical structure.” – Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, 6. - - (8) William A. Wittick, Bombs. The Poetry and Philosophy of Anarchism, Philadelphia, 1894, p. 186. - - I wish that liberation knowledge had already achieved the status of a science. If it had, then we would already have achieved liberty. – Merely mouthing or writing general slogans, especially flawed ones, does not get us closer to it. – Compare, for instance, how most anarchists shun those parts of genuine economics, which are really scientific. - J.Z., 28.11.07. – Panarchism has at least a good chance to develop the “social sciences” into genuine sciences. – Just like natural sciences, they do need experimental freedom in the social sciences, so far suppressed by territorial States. – J.Z., 3.2.09, 1.6.12. – SCIENCES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LIBERTY: When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.” – Thomas Paine - Freedom cannot be based safely enough on fear but must, rather, be based on voluntarism combined with tolerance towards other volunteers and what they do for or to themselves. – Panarchies, different from territorial warfare States, would respect their different degrees of liberties rather than fear them. They would fear only the end of individual secessionism and of exterritorial autonomy. Who could then impose territorialism once again, against the will and interests of almost all of them? The degrees of liberties and rights, for the own members and the tolerant and peaceful coexistence between them would tend to be as self-maintaining as e.g. the different consumer choices are now on a free market and the freedom of private associations, from sports to supper clubs, that exist now between very different people with very varied preferences for their lives. – Compare also how peace tends to be preserved between very polite people. - J.Z., 3.2.09, 26.12.10. - FEAR, PEOPLE, TYRANNY & GOVERNMENT, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, WAR, PEACE, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, DOING THE OWN THINGS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, FREE ENTERPRISE, ANTI-MONOPOLISM, FREEDOM OF SPEECH & PRESS

LIBERTY: Will is wish and liberty is power.” – Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, Free Will, 1764. - - “Liberty, then, about which so many volumes have been written is, when accurately defined, only the power of acting.” – Voltaire, ibid. – While it is implied in this statement, is panarchism or voluntarism or exterritorial autonomy already sufficiently expressed in this statement? – J.Z., 26.12.10. - POWER, WILL, FREEDOM OF ACTION

LIBERTY: Would you know what to do with liberty one you gained it? – J.Z., 19.12.76. – E.g., not all would know very soon how to make the best use of full monetary freedom. – Nor have many pondered as yet which kind of panarchy they would choose for themselves. – J.Z., 23.11.07.

LIBERTY: You have forgotten the meaning of liberty”, declared Aleksander Solzhenitsyn in addressing the American people. “When you acquired liberty in the Eighteenth Century, it was a sacred mission. Time has eroded your notion of liberty. You kept the word but fabricated another notion: liberty without obligation and responsibility, which results in enjoying possessions. Nobody is ready to die for it.” – TROTN. – Quoted in NEWS DIGEST-INTERNATIONAL, June 1976. - Even S. has still retained some of the anti-capitalist and anti-property bias of the Soviet System under which he grew up. – However, he and his followers should be free to establish their kind of free society for themselves. - J.Z., 24.11.07. - POSSESSION, PROPERTY, DIS.

LICENSING, COMPULSORY: All compulsory licensing is intolerant. - J.Z., in pamphlet Tolerance. - And, morally indefensible. It is also intolerable,  except among the members of communities of volunteers. Their voluntary membership, combined with their continuing right to secede, assures that their licensing is not really compulsory. - J.Z., 4.2.09. Who or what does really authorize those, who grant or refuse licences? Laws cannot make them right nor can the special interest groups and lobbies behind these laws. Sovereign consumer should decide and, if required, should make use of reference bureaus and information services on the quality of suppliers. Much critical information on inferior suppliers could also be gathered by their competitors and by the mass media, in the absence of libel and defamation laws and governmental jurisdiction about such "offences". - This sphere would also be much better regulated by e.g. competing insurance companies and credit reference bureaus. - J.Z., 15.10.11. - COMPULSORY REGISTRATION, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LICENSING, COMPULSORY: A conspiracy of government and “professionals” (doctors, lawyers, unionists, corporate monopolists, etc.) restricts the performance of certain tasks to those who are, “properly licenced” and for a higher income.” – Diogenes of Panarchia, THE CONNECTION 131, p.21. - Licensing in panarchies or polyarchies would be voluntary, due to the voluntary membership in such communities. – J.Z., 20.11.07. – COMPULSORY LICENSING?

LICENSING, COMPULSORY: All compulsory licensing is to become confined to those volunteers and communities of volunteers that do favour it. – J.Z., Dec. 92.

LICENSING, COMPULSORY: Individuals should be free to grant licences or to refuse them, to political candidates for rule over or representation for them. Rulers, politicians and bureaucrats should not be given any authority to grant or refuse licences to individuals - except within the framework of so inclined exterritorial and autonomous volunteer communities and for their own members only. - J.Z. 8.9.87, 1.4.89. - POWER OF ATTORNEY, COMPULSORY LICENSING? PANARCHISTIC LICENSING

LICENSING, COMPULSORY: The state shall not make or impose any law which shall abridge the right of any citizen to follow any occupation or profession of his or her choice.” – Proposed by Rose and Milton Friedman. – Different panarchies are likely to take different stands on this – for their own members. – J.Z., 7.2.09.

LICENSING, COMPULSORY: Under panarchism or polyarchism there would be those with extensive and compulsory licensing and some without any such restrictions, but full responsibility for wrongs and harm done to others against their will. – This competitive practice would soon demonstrate which system is superior. – J.Z., 12/72, 24.11.07. - PANARCHISM

LICENSING, POWER OF ATTORNEY: Individuals should be free to grant licences or to refuse them, to political candidates for rule over or representation for them. Rulers, politicians and bureaucrats should not be given any authority to grant or refuse licences to individuals - except within the framework of so inclined exterritorial and autonomous volunteer communities and for their own members only. - J.Z. 8.9.87, 1.4.89.

LIEM, JONATHAN, The Voluntary Community. by Jonathan Liem - The difference between conservatism and libertinism lies in the dichotomy of the two camps’ philosophies. The conservative believes in a "virtuous" community in which the authority vested in the state plays a part in ensuring compliance with communal norms. In opposition, the libertine believes in unreserved freedom of the individual as the sole communal purpose, regardless of accepted communal behavior. Both philosophies have admirable attributes, but if practiced in isolation, leave us either with totalitarianism and or an atomistic-individualism. Neither of these options is very appealing. Libertarianism attempts to bridge the gap between these two polar opposite philosophies with a workable model that ensures "virtue" without an omnipotent state. - - In order to begin constructing a workable model, we must begin with the smallest sovereign entity, the individual human. Every individual is born of another and through this relationship forms a family, the smallest human community. It is the family, acting in its role as educator, that teaches religion, morality, tradition, culture, accumulated intellectual capital, etc. Furthermore, the family nurtures, monitors, and guides its offspring, thus becoming the first and most essential communal entity to act as a restraining force upon the degenerating forces of libertinism. Granted nobody voluntarily joins a family; however, in the vast majority of cases, one voluntarily decides to remain a member. - - Human beings are socials animal that require interaction with fellow humans in order to live beyond bare subsistence levels. This is only made possible through the division-of-labor, resulting in specialization as the general rule, thus forcing humans to interact with one another through trade in order to achieve beneficial progress for everybody. This system of human interaction, also known as capitalism, has made possible the sustainable explosion in both the quality-of-life and the population numbers over the last few hundred years. Before the advent of capitalism, there was little to distinguish human living conditions in 500 BC from that which existed in 1,500 AD. - - Capitalism does not just provide for the production and distribution of goods, but also for both the supportive and regulative institutions necessary for the system to flourish in, and the moral underpinnings of civil community. Capitalism, which places the consumer as supreme, regulates itself through incentives. If the consumer is unhappy with the product then the producer will fail. This provides the necessary incentive for the production of reliable products at the right price for the enjoyment of the consumer. Some of the supportive and regulative institutions capitalism devises in order to accomplish this are the establishment of financial organizations to facilitate trade, trade organizations to regulate best practices amongst members and the development of contract dispute organizations in order to settle disagreements. Again, we see voluntary communal entities forming in order to regulate its members. Moreover, though, is the promotion of the bourgeois virtues prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, in the individuals who practice capitalism, as without these personality traits one would face failure and or ostracism by fellow market participants. - - Once humans begin interacting with one another, there is an immediate realization that there are certain common bonds amongst like-minded people. Amongst themselves, these people invariably will establish religion, clubs, civil communities, etc. Each in turn regulating the conduct of their members; thus, acting as further restraints on libertinism. Furthermore, this sense of being part of a greater community instills in its members a sense of charity when faced with human suffering. - - It is important to note again that the smallest divisible sovereign entity is the individual human. The right to secession from the larger community is sacrosanct, both for the individual and for the entity to which it is a member. With this right also comes the responsibility to accept the consequences of secession such as the ostracism and outright boycott that entity might suffer from actions of the larger community. There should be no doubt on the influence suspension of both communal and trading bonds with a larger community can have on entities. These lawful non-invasive reactions by the larger community are acceptable; coercive activities backed by force are not acceptable. - - The state in contrast to the voluntary community tends to politicize and polarize the community. Therefore, leading to the aggrandizement of centralized power in dispute settlement, the destruction of subsidiarity in the regulation of community activities and its substitution with state coercion through the threat of force. If one were to extrapolate out this process over time, the logical and experiential conclusion of this model is the omnipotent state. - - Every removal of subsidiarity from the regulation of the community, by the ever-expanding state, displaces the human being from that which grounded them in wholesome relationships. This loss of wholesome relationships has unleashed the atomistic-individualism of libertinism. Thus, the state is responsible for the degeneracy of today’s community. The state has neutered the role that the voluntary community plays in the natural authority that regulates human action, and replaced it with the unnatural authority of the omnipotent state, its political shenanigans and relativistic moral center based upon pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth. The irony of the entire experience is that in working towards the virtuous community through the mechanism of the state, the conservatives have in actuality, ensured the supremacy of libertinism. - September 22, 2005. - Jonathan Liem [send him mail] resides in Singapore, is an avid investor and aspiring Classical Liberal. - Copyright © 2005 - - Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate - - John Zube on Facebook, after Gian Piero de Bellis recommended this article. Another conservative libertarian who is afraid of FULL liberty. While he favours some voluntarism and secessionism, he still imagines that a limited territorial government would be rightful and necessary and that must not be exposed to free competition from communities and societies that are exterritorially quite autonomous and thus able to try to realize their own ideals, whatever they are, among themselves, at their own expense and risk. He wants to fence in voluntarism to a limited sphere. Thus he is not even a complete secessionist and advocates freedom of association only a to a limited extent. Fromm called that: "The Fear of Freedom"! - J.Z., 3.9.11. - Gian Piero de Bellis : John, the author is not openly in favour of non-territorial communities, but neither he expresses ideas that are against it. So, I personally would be more lenient in my judgment of this article. I might be wrong. I don't know. 03 September 11. - - John Zube : He writes as if the subsidiarity principle would go far enough, still leaving a limited job for a territorial government. And he writes: "This loss of wholesome relationships has unleashed the atomistic individualism of libertinism." - - Gian Piero de Bellis : John, I think the author was carried away by his initial contraposition between conservatism and libertinism. As for subsidiarity, we could intend it as applying to the individual and his voluntary choices. A part from that, you are probably right that the author is not aware of the non-territorial option of social organization, one that finds room also for conservatives and libertines. 03 September at 18:31 - Dennis Vag : I agree with Gian Piero. After all he is writing: "The right to secession from the larger community is sacrosanct, both for the individual and for the entity to which it is a member. With this right also comes the responsibility to accept the consequences of secession such as the ostracism and outright boycott that entity might suffer from actions of the larger community." Which is correct by libertarian standards. The problem with the "conservative-libertine" analysis is that conservative and libertine mean nothing by themselves, since they describe "conventional and traditional" and "non-conventional and non-traditional", which in different contexts means different things. Take the example of Cato the Elder, the prime example of Roman Conservatism, who had praised a young man coming out of a brothel for not satisfying his needs by destroying a marriage, and by fulfilling his sexual desires more easily, he would spend more time on serious matters. While you can see the conservative angle (the sanctity of the family), Cato here certainly sounds more as a "social liberal" by our own standards, rather than a conservative. - My own theory is that radical revolutions as much in social mores as in politics bring a lot of problems and "anomie". However, the question is not a battle between old mores and new mores, or "good mores" and "bad mores". Everybody should be free to choose the morals he believes in and associate with other believers. The question that both libertine and conservative should ask is 1) if "true virtue" (in the sense of self-restraint) can be imposed by threat of violence 2) if cultural liberation or morality is served by immoral means (regulation, violence, bullying). If todays culture wars (social liberalism vs. conservatism) seem a funny distraction from the real issues, not so long ago culture war was Nazis vs. Jews, Catholics vs. Protestants, British vs. Germans. And the reasons for culture war back then, would seem ridiculous to our eyes (is anyone willing to kill today for Sola Scriptura?). Protestantism vs. Catholicism isn't that different from the "libertine vs. conservative". As destructive were the Protestants against the established church back then, as destructive is libertinism against tradition. But both Protestant and Catholic Societies have survived and flourished, and so traditional societies and libertine societies can survive and flourish, if they don't try to stick a knife in each other's throat... - - John Zube : I can only hope that Liem will tackle the same promising title later, once again, but much more comprehensively. So far he has only touched the conventional surface of it. I have often been misled by promising titles. All of us can know only a fraction of all knowledge. He should have entitled it: My Thoughts on Voluntary Communities. And asked for others, to provide their ideas on this. - - Gian Piero de Bellis : John. I agree with you. This is only a contribution to the theme and I suggest you, when you have time, to write a short text that I will put immediately on the web site. The title might be be: My Thoughts on Voluntary Communities. - - John Zube : If you make yourself a start with this and also invite others, then I might be tempted and the collection of such statements might become really interesting. - - Gian Piero de Bellis : John, I am organizing (with 10-12 people) a meeting on the theme of voluntary communities (5-6 November 2001). I might write something on that topic and we could make a collection of statements on voluntary communities as you suggest. I'll keep you informed about it. - - John Zube : I see from the date that you are a time traveller, too! Perhaps I will get around to submit something via email. However, completing my PAN A to Z, as far as I can, has priority for me. Any input from others, to this compilation, would also be welcomed by me. - I look forward to the result of that meeting. Electronically it could start NOW, with some submissions and it could be CONTINUED afterwards. Otherwise, conferences and meetings are all too fleeting. - - Gian Piero de Bellis Clearly I meant 2011. – J.Z.: Undoubtedly. That was only one of my all too weak "jokes". - Perhaps this meeting and some writings before and after will offer worthwhile clarifications on the subject. - J.Z., 7.9.11.

LIES: Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.” – I. F. Stone. – Every government is run by lies.” – Saying by an American, quoted on radio, 10.12.75.  - That is certainly largely true, for territorial governments. Lies are habitual for such governments. The greatest lie of all territorial governments: That they could and should represent us, all inhabitants of a whole territory. Their power addiction makes their lies often quite necessary and inevitable to them. By asserting that they could rightfully and effectively rule millions of people, who have not given them their consent, they do even lie to themselves. - Only the rulers or representatives of communities of volunteers can, mostly, afford to stick with what these volunteers hold to be their truths. If they aren’t truths, then the facts of peacefully and exterritorialy competing panarchies will soon expose flawed ideas, beliefs and convictions. – J.Z., 3.1.08, 11.1.08, 27.12.10. - HABITUAL FOR TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, LIARS, RULERS, POLITICIANS,

LIES: Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.” – Frederic Bastiat - FALSE PRETENCES OF GOVERNMENTS, MYTHS & FICTIONS OF GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, WELFARE STATE, TAXATION, HANDOUTS, SUBSIDIES, BUDGET

LIFE STYLE: Everyone is entitled to choose his own life style, without forcibly imposing it on others. – LIBERTARIAN ALTERNATIVE advertising in OUTLOOK, Oct. 72. - - Not only the private life style but also the public life-style, i.e., the political, economic and social system under which he wishes to live - or to establish it, together with like-minded people, in any country of the world. – J.Z., 25.11.07.

LIFE STYLE: Freedom for different lifestyles should be extended to the utmost, to cover all the basic choices, even in the political, economic and social sphere. One does not get physically crowded, threatened or harmed by them. Such threats are merely imaginary. And public actions by others, among themselves, which one strongly disapproves for oneself, do serve as deterrent examples. - J.Z. 8.5.91, 13.1.93, 27.12.10. – INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES, PANARCHISM, LIVING THE OWN LIFE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

LIFE, DEATH & TOLERANCE: Tolerant actions promote life, intolerant actions promote death. – J.Z., n.d.

LIFE: But they began to realize the truth of Thoreau's injunction: “Live your beliefs, and you can turn the world around." - M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.227. - If free enough to do so or to attempt to do so. The first aim must be to achieve that liberty in all spheres, not just in some private ones, where it does widely exist, already now. - J.Z., 3.7.89. - BELIEFS, ACTIONS, EXAMPLES, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY UNDER PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM

LIFE: Don’t forget until too late that the business of life is not business but living.” – B. C. Forbes, quoted in: Dr. Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Prescription, p.230. – Mere living is not good enough, unless we are also getting busy to make sure that it is a free and rightful living, as free as we want it for ourselves, at our own expense and risk. – J.Z., - LIFE & LIVING VS. BUSINESS, PANARCHISM

LIFE: Each of our cells contains dozens of mitochondria, tiny factories that combine our food with molecular oxygen in order to extract energy in convenient form. Recent evidence suggests that billions of years ago, the mitochondria were free-living organisms that have slowly evolved into a mutually dependent relation with the cell. In a very real sense, then, we are not a single organism but a collection of about 10 trillion beings.” – Carl Sagan, READERS DIGEST, Jan. 80. - - Should adult, rational and moral human beings be less able to collaborate harmoniously, nation- and world-wide, as well as voluntarily, to produce a peaceful, just, free, tolerant and progressive world society, consisting of uncounted free societies of volunteers, all doing their things, achieving a peaceful and progressive “globalism”? - Should be we really be less able to do so than these microscopic biological engines or robots? – J.Z., 24.11.07, 27.12.10. - MAN, CELLS, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, FREE EXCHANGE, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, MUTUAL TOLERANCE, COOPERATION, SYMBIOSIS, ORGANISMS, PEACE, JUSTICE, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, GLOBALISM, COLLABORATION, COOPERATION, MITOCHONDRIA

LIFE: Implicit in the arguments of Burke against the French Revolution and its English supporters, explicit in the words of Lippman and in the passage from Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago which we have included, is the belief that life, the whole of life, is too large a thing to come within the scope of the conscious and deliberate restructuring of society. ...” - Arblaster/Lukes, The Good Society, p.4. – I left out Pasternak’s passage. A panarchistic society would reshape it self, decentralistically, exterritorially, voluntarily, individual by individual, almost like life does via one mutation after the other. - Typically, the tolerant and experimental and individualistic approach to reforms and changes by dissenters, via personal laws, voluntary communities that are exterritorially autonomous, to all of the reform options, is not considered in the above observation. Naturally, those who attempt to directly and forcefully “improve” all of mankind, via the populations of whole territories or even worldwide laws or coercion, or imperialism, are on the wrong track. But those, who give life, in the shape of humans and their voluntary societies and communities, its chance to bring about something better, by their own ideas, principles and methods, only among practised among volunteers and only to be adopted, gradually, by other volunteers, are not, formally and obviously, “world reformers” as the former are and yet they are the ones likely to change the whole world for the better, sooner or later, by their own small or large contributions, even if they merely provide, with their experiences in their experiments, warnings against false tracks or paths. – Just like tens of thousands of innovative people were involved to produce, bit by bit, cars and planes of the modern kind. – Territorial governments prevent most of these very important and rightful changes or postpone them for all too long. - J.Z., 24.11.07. - RESHAPING LIFE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, CHANGE VIA SETTING BETTER EXAMPLES, DIS.

LIFE: It is largely territorialism which has turned our lives largely merely into a series of battles. – J.Z., 4.2.09. – PANARCHISM VS. THE TERRITORIAL WARFARE STATE

LIFE: It would be spectacularly amusing if it weren't so tragic. But the alternative to behavioral law is life itself. Life proceeding in all its ways. Seeking in all directions. Advancing through as many visions of living as there are people whose peaceable actions are unrestrained.” – Joan Marie Leonard, THE FREEMAN, 9/76. – One can be, in such general terms, for panarchism or polyarchism but without ever stating these options in unmistakable terms. As a result, people go on subscribing only to a single territorial “ideal”, which always requires for its realization its imposition upon dissenters, with numerous and high taxes, unreadable laws and large human sacrifices, especially when it comes to basic rights and liberties. Nevertheless, the territorialists still believe that they are tolerant, well enough informed and radical freedom-lovers! – J.Z., 28.11.07, 27.12.10. - BEHAVIORISM & LIBERTY, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS LIVES

LIFE: It’s my life.” – Alistair Mclean, The Dark Crusader, p.234. - Laissez-Faire Books button of 1974.  – Also by now a rather common saying and perhaps also before A. M. wrote this. – J.Z., 24.11.07. – Alas, our lives are actually still all too much in the hands of the territorial power addicts. Rights, liberty, freedom, individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, all suppressed by territorialism. – J.Z., 27.12.10. - SELF-OWNERSHIP, EGOISM, SELFISHNESS, MAN, DIS.

LIFE: Life is what we make it.” – 1977 Collins Desk Calendar. – As if we were already free enough, fully in charge of our own lives and all of our own activities. – J.Z., 30.11.07. – To reach that freedom of action should be our primary endeavour. - Make it free enough so that you can make it worthwhile. – J.Z., 4.2.09.

LIFE: Live life victoriously.” – Heard on TV, channel 4, 24.9.86. – Sometimes that’s a bit hard when you oppose territorial rulers and their laws and war machines. – J.Z., 14.11.07. - VICTORY

LIFE: Or is the planner to be elected? If the socialist believes that the people can choose this all-wise man or group, why doesn’t he think that these same people, individually, are capable of running their own lives? It is certainly simpler to run one’s own life than to attempt to run everyone else’s. This question has never been answered.” – Duncan Yuille, Freedom & Socialism. - Let each follow his own leader – as long as he can stand him, always at the own cost and risk! – J.Z., 24.11.07. - RUN THE OWN LIFE, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, REPRESENTATIVES, TERRITORIALISM, STATE SOCIALISM, CENTRAL PLANNING, VOLUNTARY  OR INDIVIDUAL PLANNING

LIFE: Our journey through life is largely a voyage of discovery, not of manufacture.” – Robert LeFevre, LEFEVRE’S JOURNAL, Spring 78, p.2. - Should it not be rather the other way around, provided we “manufacture” or create or establish something worthwhile, e.g. a free, enlightened, peaceful, just, tolerant life and various free societies to live it in, according to our own individual choices? – J.Z., 24.11.07.

LIFE: People ought to be in charge of their own life.” – Prof. Paul Johnson, 13.4.78. - SELF-OWNERSHIP, EGOISM INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS, MAN

LIFE: Rather than wholesale destruction of today's government, we advocate its replacement (preferably peaceful) with a natural system of order consistent with Life and Liberty for individuals.” - W. Robert Black, THE NEW BANNER, 1812172. - 18.12.1972? – However, all territorial governments have to become replaced – by governments and societies for volunteers only. Territorialism amounts to the worst monopoly of all and has no right to continue to exist. – J.Z., 4.2.09. - LIBERTY, ORDER, LIBERTARIANISM VS. GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

LIFE: Run your own life – and nothing else – except governments – out. – J.Z., 74. – Don’t let any territorial government run, or, rather, mismanage your own life. Run it yourself or join only a government or society of like-minded volunteers, and do reserve the right to secede from it as well, should you change your mind. – J.Z., 24.11.07. - PANARCHISM, RUNNING THE OWN LIFE

LIFE: The purpose of action … is not to replace life with politics.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.227. - … but, rather, to let tolerant and diverse forms of life, within communities of volunteers, replace conventional territorial politics. – J.Z., 1982, 23.9.07. - POLITICS & TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

LIFE: The right to life and the obligation to let live (as far as it goes!) are practised by secession and tolerance for the personal laws and exterritorial institutions of others. - J.Z., 2.6.84. - PANARCHISM

LIFE: Whose life is it, anyway?” – “I rather do it my way.” – “Leave me alone!” - Common sayings. – Alas, only very few have so far thought these general notions and others to their ultimate conclusion, the right to live as independently as possible and choose or establish one’s own panarchy or free society for oneself? – J.Z., 27.12.10. - SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

LIFE: World Library", volume "The Balkans", chapter: Obstacles to Harmony, p. 138, brings details on the Millet system, that offered a degree of autonomy.

LIFE: You may be wise or foolish in your actions, but any man who tries to run your life for you, whether he is your next door neighbour or the Prime Minister, is a criminal, pure and simple.” – Ducan Yuille: Human Rights, a Workers Party leaflet, of ca. 1975. – Unless he does so with your individual consent. – J.Z., 27.12.10. – VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, CRIME, GOVERNMENT, INTERFERENCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, RUNNING THE OWN LIFE, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, PUBLIC SERVANTS & CRIME

LIKE: Do what you like.” (Fais ce que voudras.) – Rabelais, Works, Bk. I, ch.57. The rule of the Thelemites. voudrais? And let others do the same! – J.Z., n.d. – TOLERANCE, NON-INTERVENTION, NON-AGGRESSIVENESS, PEACEFULNESS

LIKEMINDED ASSOCIATES: With truly like-minded people one cannot split in the long run, one always reconciles again, but with fundamental opponents one will always try in vain to stay together. Again and again there will be breaches.” - Goethe, “Sprueche in Prosa”, J.Z. tr. of: “Mit wahrhaft Gleichgesinnten kann man sich auf die Laenge nicht entzweihen, man findet sich immer wieder einmal zusammen; mit eigentlich Widergesinnten versucht man umsonst Einigkeit zu halten, es bricht immer wieder einmal auseinander.“ - Thus: Panarchism even for one’s opponents! – J.Z., 15.9.08. - VOLUNTEERS, OPPONENTS, UNITED FRONTS OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL?

LIMITATIONS: awareness of their limitations teaches them not to meddle or become bothersome “authorities” on every-thing. Such enlightened humility surely is an earmark of wisdom.” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.22. – Alas, many such general statements still did not lead Read to panarchism. – J.Z., 27.12.10. - TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT & PANARCHISM: Limited" government, territorially realized, is just another form of totalitarian government. It is a totalitarian imposition of a single governmental system, however "limited" it may be otherwise. - J.Z., 15.9.04.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT & PANARCHISM: Without individual and groups secessionism, voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy for dissenters no limited government is limited enough! -  Limited Governments only for Limited Government advocates! - J.Z., 1.8.04. - Limited Government, so limited that it is confined to volunteers and exterritorial autonomy only, would be acceptable to panarchists. In other words, they ought to be established within a panarchist framework. That would make their establishment and maintenance much easier. Their preferences could then no longer be voted out of existence by the numerous opponents to limited governments. Territorial limited governments lack the individual or minority group secessionist or withdrawal option. They still constitute "governments", although highly (not highly enough) limited and decentralized ones. They are neither sufficiently limited nor radically enough decentralized. They ought to be limited to their adherents. - J.Z., n.d. & 17.9.04.


LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.” – Barry Goldwater (1964) - No government should have more than voluntary victims - and even these only as long as they are prepared to remain victimized. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. - SIZE & POWER OF GOVERNMENTS, BIG GOVERNMENT

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A limited government also suppresses all those aspects of a truly free society that could and would replace a limited government. It does so by its exclusive territorial sovereignty claim and practice, by its compulsory membership or subordination in “its” territory, by centralization, exclusive constitution, legislation, jurisdiction, police and military forces and its supposedly ideal prison or other penal system. – J.Z., 7.4.91.  - It is still far removed from a truly free society – consisting of many peacefully coexisting societies, all free in their self-chosen differences, which might be statist ones but without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 14.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A limited government is a contradiction in terms.” – Robert LeFevre, The Fundamentals of Liberty. - True for territorial governments but not a judgment applicable to various forms of governments for volunteers only that are exterritorially autonomous under personal laws. - While LeFevre reprinted the classical article by de Puydt on panarchy, he had not sufficiently discussed it and integrated it into his otherwise excellent freedom philosophy. I saw no panarchistic writings in his library (*), either, apart from that article. – (*) After his death in the hands of other people. I never met him. - J.Z., 25. 11. 06, 1.6.12. - A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS, PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A limited government is no better than a limited slavery. It should not be mixed up with freedom It becomes also, inevitably, corrupted by power, especially the power involved in its territorial privilege and its compulsory territorial membership. – J.Z., 18.11.78, 25.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A limited or minimal government is only one of many free enterprise choices, which should be offered to potential citizens or members, all of which should be sovereign consumers or customers for all kinds of governmental, societal or community services offered under free market conditions and by all kinds of ideologies, practising their beliefs among volunteers only and at their own expense and risk. – When a government claims a monopoly for all of its services for all of a territory and all of its population, i.e., as its supposedly ideal defence, policing and justice system, then it is really not limited enough and still all too authoritarian. Only competitive defence, policing and justice services can provide good enough services in these and other very important spheres and prevent abuses. Only governments or communities without any territorial monopolies and confining their actions and programs to their own volunteers are tolerable by consistent freedom lovers. And they must also become tolerant towards those communities of statists, which, for their volunteers, want to provide larger package deals. The best of the limited but still territorial government concepts is still no better than a giant insurance company or protective agency, which claims a monopoly over a whole territory and all its people. Such a corporation would, inevitably, become abusive. See the history of the U.S.A. – Territorial governments have never been quite just and efficient in the provision of defence, police and justice services, precisely because they did not allow competitive alternative services in these spheres. – They are as wrongful, despotic and limiting for free exchanges as is any exclusive currency is, even if it consists only of gold coins and gold deposit slips. – To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!- J.Z., 7.11.83, 25.11.07, 27.12.10, 1.6.12. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot – because the first leads inevitably to the second.” – Harry Browne. - A little territorial government is like a little pregnancy. Only the pregnancy period tends to be much longer. And the child-birth of a territorial government all too often results in a moron. What else would you expect from such a territorialist father and a mother who lets herself be impregnated by such a guy? - J.Z., 26. 11. 06, 27.12.10. – TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A proper government is only a policeman acting as an agent of man’s self defence and as such may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.” – Ayn Rand. – - How much genuine self-defence would there be if we depended for it entirely upon a governmental police force arriving in time, provided we had time and opportunity to call for its help and it would arrive as fast as it could? For any territorial governmental police force is much called upon and limited in manpower and weapons and often outgunned by criminals who are illegally armed, in spite of thousands of anti-gun laws and penalties. – J.Z., 25.11.07. The village police station in Berrima has been closed for many years. – J.Z., 27.12.10. – Agents hired only by individuals and groups of volunteers should be distinguished from agents hired or appointed by the majorities of whole territorial populations. Especially when these territorial majorities do not permit the minorities to appoint their own agents and do not allow them to secede or to arm, organize and train themselves for genuine self-defence. – J.Z., 5.2.09, 27.12.10, 1.6.12. – ELECTIONS, MINORITIES, VOTING, MAJORITIES, SECESSIONISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, MILITIA

 LIMITED GOVERNMENT: A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.” – Thomas Jefferson (1801) - A wise and frugal territorial government is almost a contradiction in terms, nevertheless, it remains a utopian faith for many freedom lovers. - J.Z., 23.8.02. - A beautiful dream, or not even that, because it overlooks that power does corrupt, even if it is, temporarily, still somewhat limited. As a territorial power it is already, largely, unlimited and it will seek more, as especially the case of the USA showed. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – To each and everyone his own utopia, at his own risk and expense! – J.Z., 18.1.08. – A MERE UTOPIA, BUT FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT FOR ITS ADHERENTS! PANARCHISM, UTOPIA, POWER, CORRUPTION

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: An agency of society to invoke a common justice and to keep the peace is a social necessity. Its role is to codify the taboos – injustices - and punish any trespass on individual rights. Bear in mind that coercive force is implicit in such an agency. Ideally, it is our protector. But to expect that coercive force so delegated will be or even can be self-limiting is utterly absurd.” – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 9/76. – Why only one such an agency in a whole territory or, at most, some subordinated State and local government territorial agencies to assist it or to compete with it to some extent? Why should such an important service not be quite competitively supplied – and thus in a self-limiting way, with the agencies only hired by individuals or groups of volunteers and provided by free enterprises or other forms of volunteers organizing their services? – Why introduce territorial monopolies in this sphere and expect that this could work well in the long run? – J.Z., 21.11.82, 28.11.07. – PANARCHISM, Q.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: And so-called “limited” governments somehow never stay “limited” at all. The government of the United States is a fine example of a government, which once operated on a much lower scale but which, in a process greatly resembling maturation, “grew up” from its “limited” infancy into an “unlimited” monstrous adulthood. What good were its limits, when they are finally outgrown?” – Fred Woodworth, Anarchism, p.9. –The U.S.A. was certainly not enough limited by its bill of rights amendments, which it largely legislated away and never tried to replace by an individual rights declaration which included all individual rights and liberties. Least of all has it recognized individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy, monetary freedom, voluntary taxation and decision on war and peace by the people of communities of volunteers rather than by the territorial government. – J.Z., 25.11.07, 27.12.10.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: As Murray Rothbard is supposed to have said, the idea of a limited government that stays limited is truly utopian.” – David Friedman, Why Anarchy? Page 104 of Pournelle/Carr: The Survival of Freedom. – If it starts out already with territorialism it will sooner or later arrive at the consequences of this basic wrong, its coercion, intolerance and monopoly, its numerous opportunities for the abuse of power. – J.Z., 18.11.07. – TOTALITARIANISM THE ULTIMATE CONSEQUENCE OF TERRITORIALISM. – J.Z., 1.6.12.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Calhoun goes on to point out that a Constitution will not be able to keep the government limited; for given a monopoly Supreme Court selected by the self-same government and granted the power of ultimate decision-making, the political "ins" will always favor a "broad" or loose interpretation of the wording of the Constitution serving to expand the powers of government over the citizenry; and, over time, the "ins" will inexorably tend to win out over the minority of "outs" who will argue vainly for a "strict" interpretation limiting State power. (2)” - Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p.178. - - “(2) Calhoun, Disquisition on Government, N.Y., Liberal Arts Press, 1953, pp.16-18.” - - Territorialism, i.e., the outlawry of individual and group secessionism, the imposition of territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdiction upon others than volunteers, is much more important, even disastrous, than the monopoly powers of a Supreme Court. – Even Rothbard has not or not sufficiently discussed exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers but only individual enterprises competing with the State by offering one or the other “public” service to individual sovereign consumers on a free market. – But most people, so far, like to think of themselves as members of a community and wish to act as such. Territorially that is not possible for people in all their differences, but exterritorially it is. – The market for such communities has not yet been opened up in our times, although historically and prehistorically, it was quite common. But then came the various conquerors. … - A defence policy based on the ultimate respect for and tolerance for diversity was then and is even now not yet developed or not yet sufficiently discussed and publicized. - J.Z., 28.11.07, 1.6.12. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Defence, police and justice are not safe in government hands, either. A monopoly in these spheres is a major intervention with individual rights and liberties and disqualifies such governments as “limited” governments. So does any territorial monopoly. It makes e.g. aggressive wars possible and even nominally defensive wars are, actually, aggressive in most cases. Worst incidence: nuclear strength and other indiscriminate bombing, internment of civilians, treating captured enemy conscripts as POWs rather than as liberated allies or neutrals. – J.Z., 3.10.88, 1.6.12.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Even the most limited territorial governments are still not limited enough as long as they retain their territorial monopoly. – 25.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny.” – Jefferson, quoted by Leslie Snyder, Justice or Revolution, p.20. – No territorial form of government can be the best form of government or of self-government or of self-management. - At most it can be the best form of territorial government. – J.Z., 27.12.10. – TYRANNY, TOTALITARIANISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Finally, and comparable to the ultra-violet lying just beyond the visible spectrum – were such an ideal situation ever to exist – we would find the arms of government so short that they could not reach into and have control over a single creative activity. This ideal can only be imagined for it has never existed and probably never will. It is nebulous as a dream and lacks the quality of specificity. The question is,should we try to label this ideal? Or, more particularly, its seekers or votaries?” – Leonard E. Read, The Miracle of the Market, p.57, in Champions of Freedom. - - Did Read ever discuss specifics like voluntary taxation vs. compulsory taxation, territorial monopoly vs. exterritorial autonomy, voluntary State membership and subordination vs. involuntary status, individual and group secessionism without a territorial monopoly claim, personal laws vs. territorial laws, voluntary statism side by side with voluntary libertarianism and anarchism? An ideal militia force instead of a standing army? Did he ever attempt to draft a better declaration of individual rights and liberties? Did he ever discuss the better forms of self-management in production (I remember only one article, in THE FREEMAN, not by him, on this subject: “Production Unlimited”.) and exchange. – Regarding monetary freedom he favoured it but also only in all too general wordings. - J.Z., 25.11.07, 1.6.12.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: government limited to inhibiting destructive actions, invoking a common justice, keeping the peace!” – Leonard E. Read, THE FREEMAN, 11/74. – A beautiful dream! Is it more than that? Let free experimentation try to prove it. In practice even limited governments allowed slavery, conducted wars, raised taxes, caused inflations, committed mass murders of natives etc. – J.Z., 25.11.07. - As territorial States they are mostly Warfare States, at least beyond a minimum size. As territorial war-lords, the size of their turf can be rather small and their “fighting” atrocious, as was well demonstrated by the prolonged civil war in Beirut. I just read a description of it in novel form: Oriana Fallaci, Inshallah, Chatto & Windus, London, 1992, which amounts to a parody of territorialism – but does not reveal its rightful opposite. – J.Z., 1.6.12.) How, without individual and group secessionism and competition from exterritorially autonomous governments, societies and communities, and without voluntary taxation are they to be kept “limited” according to the ideals of their founding fathers and their current advocates? – J.Z., 5.2.09, 27.12.10. – PANARCHISM, Q., TERRITORIALISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Government should only do what people can’t do for themselves.” – Robert LeFevre. - What in particular can’t they do for themselves? Be as specific as you can! – After all, governments are merely forms of organizing human beings and there are many different forms for organizing them. Why assume that the territorial monopoly form for certain public services is really the optimal one? - J.Z., 25.11.07. – Why exclude free choice for individuals and competitive enterprises here? – J.Z., 5.2.09. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, Q., SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.” – Ron Paul - I would largely agree with him if he advocated his ideal only as one among many other competing panarchies of volunteers, all exterritorially autonomous under personal laws and all based upon individual secessionism or free choice of governments and societies or communities for all individuals. Alas, even this great libertarian advocate has not yet advanced in this direction, to my knowledge. A single such spokesman for panarchism could achieve much. - Do you know how to persuade him in this direction? - I don't. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – In the meantime he has at least once spoken up for panarchism. See under PAUL, RON. – J.Z., 1.6.12. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs.” - Walter Lippman, An Enquiry into the Principles of a Good Society. – Even if it did, ideally, much contrary to all too much experience, must it have a territorial monopoly for doing this? Could such a State not get enough voluntary subscribers? – J.Z., 30.11.82, 19.11.07. – After all, there are already competing protection companies and arbitration services and even some prisons have been privatized. The USA government has also used some private security services in its foreign wars. It has also learned to put some prizes on the heads of some of the major rogues, like Saddam Hussein et al, reviving to some extent the ancient tyrannicide tradition. – J.Z., 1.6.12. - Can we presume that all people have the same notions on the kind, means and aims of justice that ought to be applied among them, among like-minded people? One kind of justice imposed upon all kinds of people can amount to a high degree of injustice for at least some of them. For instance, neither the polygamist nor the monogamist, neither the abortionist nor the anti-abortionist, the death penalty advocate and the opponent of the death penalty, should have the right to impose their ideas upon all dissenters. Let all dissenters practise their kind of justice system among themselves - as long as they do not interfere with the rights and liberties of members of other kinds of communities, with other notions on and practices of justice. - J.Z., 8.4.89. – The “justice” of territorial States is based on all too flawed and incomplete bills of rights and upon all too many laws, most of them unjust! It does not permit quite free competition in the sphere of legislation, police services and jurisdiction. The result of monopolies are usually bad. A society that lives under territorial monopoly rule, constitutionally, legally and juridically enforced, is thereby not a free society. It is an abuse of the term “free society” to use it in this connection.– At least today most people have other ideas on “ideal” governments, societies and communities in their heads. Let all of them be tried out – among volunteers only! – J.Z., 26.12.07, 7.2.09, 1.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM, ONLY ONE GOVERNMENT FOR A WHOLE POPULATION? PANARCHISM, FREE SOCIETY, JUSTICE, SELF-GOVERNMENT DIS.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Is not limitation of government, except for relatively short periods, impossible? Will not the predatory instincts of some men, which government is designed to suppress, eventually appear in the agents selected to do the suppressing? These instincts, perhaps, are inseparable companions of power … If there be criminals among us, what is to keep them from gaining and using the power of government?" - Leonard E. Read, Students of Liberty, FEE, 1950, p.14. – One thing is certain: Any territorial government which, as a result of this form of organization or monopoly, possesses many involuntary subjects, and has thus already too much power, not only, as in the USA, e.g. over Red Indians and Negroes. And when its victims are not organized, e.g. in volunteer militias for the protection of their individual rights and liberties, or do not even know all their rights and liberties, then they will be more and more suppressed. Add to this the already implied prohibition of individual and group secessionism, not only for slaves, and the outlawry of competing governments or communities of volunteers under personal laws, existing in the same territory – and you have a recipe for man-made disasters. – J.Z., 28.11.07. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: It is another case of “You can’t get there from here!” – J.Z., 5.2.88. – Limited government is most easily reached via panarchism for all, not only the freedom lovers but also the statists. It and societies and communities that are more free than limited governments are, will then gradually, become more popular. If one tries to realize and maintain a limited government among all too many statists one might merely end up with another territorial and imperialistic empire, like the population of the USA did. – J.Z., 21.11.07, 1.6.12. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limit Government, Not People.” – Efficacy quoted in SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 4/79. - Also sticker used in Santa Barbara. - Limited territorial government would, inevitably, limit their subjects to their limited territorial services even when, their politicians, as statists and possibly even as State Socialists, wanted their government to do much more for them or prohibit many other actions. Limited governments should apply only to the advocates of limited governments who organize themselves for this purpose. But even they should never be granted a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 30.11.07,27.12.10. – TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited defence, limited police protection, limited taxation and limited justice, all territorially monopolized! – J.Z., 25.11.07. – Why should not anything different and potentially better be permitted under experimental freedom for volunteers, on a personal law or exterritorial autonomy basis? – Even now we do have some private arbitration systems and some private protection agencies. – J.Z., 5.2.09. – Q., TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited government advocates are all too incomplete and limited anarchists or a special breed of inconsistent and prejudiced anarchists, who have not yet realized the anarchistic and voluntaristic alternatives to the monopolies still claimed by the territorial limited government advocates. – J.Z., 1.6.82, 25.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited government is a contradiction in terms.” – Dangerous Buttons, No. 285. – Yes, as far as territorial governments are concerned. But not true for limited governments that are so limited that they are practised only exterritorially, among their volunteers. – J.Z., 14.11.07, 27.12.10.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited government means merely limited territorial coercion, compulsion or crime, monopoly, suppression and exploitation. All territorial governments are always and inherently difficult to limit. To the extent that they are territorial they are inherently authoritarian ones, even if they do have the best of intentions and only limited aims. – J.Z., 11.8.94, 14.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited government still means limited freedom – as if there could be too much of it! – J.Z., 78. – The freedom most limited by it is free choice among governments and non-governmental societies and communities for individuals and for groups of volunteers. Without their present exclusive territorial powers, truly limited governments would only be the choice of advocates of such limited government for themselves. Without a territorial monopoly they would have to confine their activities to their own volunteers, dependent upon them as a businessman is, as their voluntary and sovereign customers. – J.Z., 25.11.07, 29.12.10, 1.6.12.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited government, territorially realized, is just another form of totalitarian government. It is a totalitarian imposition of a single governmental system, however "limited" or moderately monopolistic and authoritarian it may be otherwise. - J.Z., 15.9.04, 1.6.12. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM & TOTALITARIANISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited Governments should primarily limit themselves, i.e. their offered or promised or hoped for services, to the advocates of limited governments. - J.Z., 6.7.91, 13.1.93. - They should leave all other societies and communities of volunteers quite alone, e.g. those of anarchists and those of statists, which all kinds of anarchists and all kinds of statists should also be free to establish for themselves as well as all other types of libertarians. Naturally, one should insist – and this possibly by force of arms of an ideal militia for the protection of individual rights and liberties, all groups, e.g. those of the statists, will also leave the non-statists alone. Nonviolence practised against armed and organized statists is not always efficient enough. But however far we can go with non-violent defensive means or methods, e.g. with tax strikes, combined with the refusals to accept the State’s paper money and individual and group secessions from all territorial states, supported by complete monetary and financial freedom practices, among ourselves, we should try to undertake. An as complete declaration of individual rights and liberties would also be an effective non-violent weapon. So would the declarations of quite rightful war and peace aims towards outside enemies, which, apparently, territorial governments are unable or unwilling to provide. – I for one do not know of a single instance. - J.Z., 6.7.91, 30.11.07, 1.6.12.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Limited tyrannies are worth defending against unlimited ones. – Free after Chuck Brooks, 21.1.73. – But only as long as unlimited liberties are still territorially outlawed. – Exterritorial autonomy for volunteers could and would offer much better defence and liberation options against tyrannies. – J.Z., 25.11.07, 27.12.10.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Moderate territorial statism like moderate drug use and moderate crime tends to lead to more irrationality and crime. – J.Z., 23.12.93. – Especially when still supported by e.g. compulsory taxation, and monetary despotism as well as a legislation, police, military and juridical monopoly. – J.Z., 27.12.10.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: My point is that if the State were limited to purely negative interventions, which I enumerated, and had no oversize power beyond that, then it wouldn’t be the State any more. It would then be government only. the point is only that when Society deprives the State of power to make positive interventions on the individual – power to make positive coercions on him at any point in his economic and social live – then at once the State goes out of existence, and what remains is government.” – A. J. Nock, 1944, quoted by Edmund Opitz in INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Winter 75. – “positive coercions?” Even A. J. Nock was not always a supreme stylist. I hold that all too many intervention of both, territorial States and territorial governments, whether they are or are called negative or positive interventions, do have negative and wrongful results at least for the peaceful dissenters. Towards them they are criminal and even aggressive actions, those of a legalized civil war or despotism. As for the State protecting against criminals and aggressors: crime and wars have gone on and on under this protection and defence and have even got worse. None of the governments has even managed to proclaim quite rightful war and peace aims or a flawless and complete declaration of individual rights and liberties! - However, the Nockians of limited government or mini-government advocates should be free to establish their kind of panarchy or polyarchy among themselves. – J.Z., 5.2.09. – PANARCHISM, DEFENCE, PROTECTION, WAR AIMS, BILLS OF RIGHTS

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Once upon a time, government budgets were balanced, our money was sound, the streets were safe, and taxes imposed by all levels of government took less than 10% of our income.” – Harry Browne. - Another "golden age" myth? A paradise it wasn't, either! - But in all too many ways we went from bad to worse. One of the main causes of this was that full experimental freedom for dissenters was and remains suppressed. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Or we can turn back from collectivism, excessive state intervention and impoverishment to restore national pride, personal responsibility, sound money, minimum government and maximum freedom – thereby leaping to a new vision of 1985.” – Rhodes Boyson, May 1975, “1985”, p.IX. – By their very nature, as territorial monopolists, even limited governments cannot maximize freedom and rights for all their subjects. Their advocates haven’t even managed to at least declare all of them. – J.Z., 27.12.10.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Pare government back to size.” – Leonard E. Read, Meditations on Freedom, p.25. - -What kind of knife should we use for this? – What is the right shape and size for government, if any? – Let volunteers decide, after using the “knife” of individual secessionism and releasing their creative energies for the creation of all kinds of communities, societies and “governments”, all without any territorial monopoly and compulsory membership. – Then even some limited and relatively effective “governments” of chieftainships or councils of elders etc. will be developed, as occurred even in primitive tribes. - J.Z., 25.11.07, 27.12.10. – PANARCHISM, DIS., OPTIMAL SIZE

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: REASON: You've said you consider the word libertarian and the word anarchist to be interchangeable, yet there are people who call themselves "limited-government libertarians." How does that idea strike you? (Murray) - BOOKCHIN: I think they probably have not followed the logic of their premises through to their conclusions. The real problem is that "limited government" invariably leads to unlimited government. If history is to be any guide and current experience is to be any guide, we in the United States 200 years ago started out with the notion of limited government - virtually no government interference - and we now have a massive quasi-totalitarian government. I think that people who believe in limited government would benefit greatly by studying the logic in government itself and the role of power as a corruptive mechanism in leading finally to unlimited government. I feel that if people investigate the emergence of government, of State power - if they examine the logic of State power historically, and more specifically in the United States - they will find that the concept of limited government is not tenable once they adopt some type of libertarian principle.” – “reason, 10/79. – Territorial power is already a kind of unlimited or even totalitarian power, even if established with the best intentions. In the US e.g. the “fate” of  slaves and Red Indians demonstrated that. – Kant, in his “Eternal Peace”, 1795, stated that every government that has still the power to decide upon war or peace, is essentially still a despotism. These and other powers, even the postal monopoly, were not questioned or eliminated by the Founders, in their Constitution, not even with its Bill of Rights Amendments to it. - J.Z., 28.11.79, 27.12.10, 1.6.12.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Roll up the State (which has spread too widely) and which now covers almost everything, into a small and manageable package. – J.Z., 22.7.80, in an attempt to describe but not to advocate this idea. - Much easier said than done, especially when you still demand that it is unlimited with regard to its territorial monopoly claim. Without such a monopoly claim any number of limited government notions could be freely experimented with among their volunteers. Perhaps almost all of them would turn out failures, just like most of the communist utopias were, that were not maintained by a religious faith. When you consider further, the vested interest and power of the defence, police and justice system, then “wrapping them up” against their will, into a small package, will prove to be even more difficult than attempting to disarm all nuclear mass murder devices. The military-industrial complex alone is already very powerful, as many authors have stated. – As a territorial State the State tend to be a warfare State, at least when it goes beyond a certain size. – J.Z., 25.11.07. – Especially when it makes use of its legalized financial and monetary despotism for this purpose and does not recognize all genuine individual rights and liberties and a militia of volunteers for their protection. – J.Z., 27.12.10. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Sir, if a government is to “do equal and exact justice to all men”, it must do simply that, and nothing more. If it does more than that to any, - that is, if it gives monopolies, privileges, exceptions, bounties, or favors to any, - it can do so only by doing injustice to more or less others. It can give to one only what it takes from others; for it has nothing of its own to give to anyone. The best that it can do for all, and the only honest thing it can do for any, is simply to ensure to each and every one his own rights, the rights that nature gave him, his rights of person, and his rights or property; leaving him, then, to pursue his own interests, and secure his own welfare, by the free and full exercise of his own powers of body and mind; so long as he trespasses upon the equal rights o no other person.” – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, 15, in Works I, Section IX. - But is even a limited but still territorial and monopolistic government the best option for achieving this important aim? – If it cannot even run a postal service efficiently, should we entrust it with defence, police and court services, likewise, under territorial monopolies? - J.Z., 25.11.07. – DIS.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: That government is best which governs least.” – Henry David Thoreau. - The most limited or least government is: No territorial government at all. Only free societies and communities, chosen for themselves by free individuals. Full consumer sovereignty in that sphere as well! - How many people have recognized that, so far? - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - OR LEAST GOVERNMENT OR MINI-GOVERNMENT? TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS: PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. - Thomas Jefferson. - Government "discipline" is best exemplified by conscript or professional armies fighting for it instead of for their own rights and liberties. - The discipline and at the same time the rights of the voluntary soldiers of Cromwell's "Ironsides" may be still unequaled today. - However, they were sufficiently intolerant Protestant Puritans, who practised atrocities in Ireland against Catholics. - To what extent was this merely a reaction to the prolonged suppression they had experienced by Catholics? Naturally, both side practised then, as is widely done now, the "principle" of collective responsibility. - J.Z., 24.11.02. – Has any supposedly limited government ever declared quite rightful war and peace aims and a complete code of all genuine individual rights and liberties? – J.Z., 27.12.10. - SELF-DISCIPLINE, MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The best a miniarchist can do is to pick a compromise position: democracy only in the affairs of the government and individualism outside this sphere.” – THE CHARLES CURLEY LETTER, May 77. – But this does already assume that there are affairs, which can or should be rightly assigned only to territorial governments, however limited they may be. – It upholds territorial monopolism and from this it might grow into an empire. – J.Z., 19.11.07. – Just look at the way in which the USA acquired more and more territories and spheres of influence, how slow it was to end slavery, how bloodily it suppressed geographical secession and how slow it was to grant equal rights to women. Its taxation, money system and conscription as well as its legislative monopoly system are also, essentially, totalitarian features. Not to speak of its stockpile of mass extermination devices and its military bases all over the world. – However, to each limited government advocate the limited government of his choice – but one without any territorial monopoly! - J.Z., 27.12.10. - PANARCHISM, MINI-ARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: the best governed are the least governed.” – Thomas Jefferson, quoted by Ralph Bradford, THE FREEMAN, 5/75, p.262. – If we went further into the “least” governing, towards zero government, then we should, according to this “principle” be still better off and best of all under zero-government, which does not mean zero-self-help and zero-self-help organizations and institutions, none of them with a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 25.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The best government is the one that charges you the least blackmail for leaving you alone.” – Thomas Rudmose-Brown (1996.) - It is not the best government but the least evil government. The best government is a merely exterritorially autonomous government, i.e. one only over volunteers, who still need their lessons on politics and its policies, programs and burdens. - Even the best of the territorial governments is still only a territorial government, i.e. one without sufficient internal competition from other competing governments and societies and their still satisfied customers. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The doctrine of minimum government is not an overreaching principle, but it is a sound principle.” – Anthony Lejeune, Freedom and the Politicians. – Is it sound enough? Are Panarchism or Polyarchism – over-reaching or just more minimized, decentralized, limited,  tolerant, peaceful, consistent, voluntary and just? – J.Z., 19.11.07, 1.6.12.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The downright anarchist was for abolishing all government, on the premise that people would improve morally by its absence; the majority allowed that a traffic cop is a social need.” – Frank Chodorov, One Is a Crowed, p.2. – By now traffic lights and roundabouts do usually do a better job and do this more cheaply. Why not any kind of government for any kind of governmentalists and any kind of free society for the various kinds of free society advocates? That would promote individual responsibility most, in the long run, for everybody. By insisting that everybody ought to become an anarchist or member of a limited government only false alternatives are offered and the realization of both of these two ideals, each only for its supporters, is unnecessarily delayed. – Under genuinely free individual choices any degree of self-government or self-management should be possible for every being that is already rational enough, not e.g. for infants or violent madmen. - J.Z., 14.11.07, 27.12.10, 1.6.12. – PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The freest form of government is only the least objectionable form.” – Herbert Spencer. – In other words, it is still objectionable, it is still a government, with a territorial power and some, i.e., too many, monopolized services. – J.Z., 25.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. (*) If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist (**), the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.” - Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, p.308, revised edition, p.304, Collier Books, 1978, ISBN 0-02-074690-3. - (*) The most favourable circumstances are those under panarchism. And under territorialism full-scale panarchism could not be freely tried and demonstrated. – (**) It denies “laissez-faire to non-territorial community, society & governmenance experiments! - J.Z., 16.9.08. - CONSTITUTIONALISM, CONSERVATIVES, LAISSEZ-FAIRISTS, TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING & MILITARY MONOPOLY

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The ideal of most of them is still all too unlimited in most important spheres, like those of legislation, defence, administration of justice and policing. All that I know of, do still claim a territorial monopoly for themselves. The long-term records of attempts to establish “limited” territorial governments does also speak very strongly against them. And why should statists and state socialists be forced to live under limited governments, which they suspect, fear or even hate, rather than in States or societies of their own free choice? A political, economic and social system monopoly for a whole territory should not be granted to any party or movement, no more so than to any religion, form of art, philosophy, kind of architecture or particular party, ideology or movement. They should all have to compete as much or even more so than computer hardware and software providers have now to compete world-wide for willing customers. – J.Z., 11.11.98. 20.11.07, 27.12.10, 1.6.12. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: the power of government must be limited by putting all governments on a strict financial diet; …” - Workers Party paper, Government Is a Health Hazard, 1975. – Who or what is to enforce that diet? That can only be achieved by their subjects all becoming volunteers and as a result, also by voluntary taxation. – J.Z., 5.2.09. - PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The proposal to limit the power of government and to strike from its hands the absolute power to tax and to alter the value of money will fix the purpose of government and impart a stability to the social order which nothing else can. Without absolute economic power, there can be no absolute political power. – there can be no absolute political power.” – H. S. Ferns, The Disease of Government, p.124. - - Individual and group secessionism, combined with personal laws for exterritorially autonomous communities, freely competing and not confined to any territory, would further limit, exterritorially, the remaining excess powers of any limited but still territorial government. Voluntary forces, trained, organized and armed merely for the protection of individual rights and liberties, with the latter fully declared and published, would be two other guaranties that remaining governments of volunteers, would remain limited. – To each existing territorial monopoly government as many exterritorially autonomous communities and governments in exile should be formed as volunteers (refugees and deserters in the host countries) can agree on a common program for themselves. - J.Z., 30.11.07. – PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENTS-IN-EXILE

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: the second law of anarchy: A Government Can’t Be Limited.” – George Kysor, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, 23.5.76. – Territorial government can’t be. But they would already be destroyed as territorial governments by the first effective secessions of individuals and minorities, being thus reduced themselves to a community of the remaining volunteers. All such are limited by the right of individuals and groups to secede from them and to compete with them as communities and societies of volunteers, all without a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 27.12.10. DIS.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: The work of reducing the size of government cannot be accomplished in the course of one administration.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.63. – Not if one leaves this kind of decision-making up to the territorial government itself. But it can be accomplished rightfully and even fast by allowing individuals and dissenting whole minority groups to secede from it and to compete with it via exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, just like entrepreneurs and sovereign consumers making their decisions in a free market for other goods and services. The business of the secessionists would be restricted only by voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy but could become multi-national and world-wide always only for its volunteers. Protectionist governments would become confined to their remaining protectionist followers and subscribers. They would lose only the Free Traders and involuntary tax- and tariff-payers. Those continuing with patent and copyrights restrictions would only lose those, who do no longer believe in them and practise better alternatives for innovators. Subsidies could then only be paid to the extent that voluntary taxpayers could be found for them. No more compulsory taxes and no more governmental “benefits” for the seceded. No more compulsory subordination for them. Instead, for them only the personal laws, jurisdictions, institutions of their dreams and free individual choices. The remaining State members would have to adapt themselves to the limits of their own resources. – J.Z., 6.10.04, 2.10.07, 1.6.12. – PANARCHISM, LIMITING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, SECESSIONISM, FULL CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FULL FREE ENTERPRISE IN ALL SPHERES!

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle (*) enjoys a monopoly of power...” - Joseph Sobran. – (*) And in territorial practice? Or: “by definition”? –– Governments do also somewhat suffer from the consequences of their territorial monopoly. –– They experience resistance, opposition, unpopularity, even hatred and the threat of assassination. - The next election or revolution or war might depose them. - J.Z., 18.1.08.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: There is a role for each type of action. How draw the line? Government should use its compulsive (*) action to inhibit, prohibit, penalize all violence, fraud, misrepresentation, theft; its role is to invoke a common justice and keep the peace. When then should be left to voluntary associations, to the exercise of free will? All else without exception.” – Leonard E. Read, ABC’s of Freedom. – Why should such important services only be provided by a territorial monopoly and why should they be financed by compulsory taxation? - Its exclusive territorial power and monopolies are in strict contradiction to its supposed limitation! – Why should people, especially the statists, not be free to secede from such supposedly ideal governments, as individuals or in whole groups and why should they not be free to set up alternative and competitive societies and communities to provide such services under personal laws und exterritorial autonomy? Even if they are not as good or fully limited as conventionally limited but still territorial governments are supposed to be! – (*) coercive? compulsory? – J.Z., 30.11.07, 1.6.12. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: To confine the activities of the State, to keep it under control, was in the past also an aim of the liberals. For this they operated with the formula: “as little state as possible” and “as much state as necessary”, simply because the state was to protect for certain groups their privileges and take care of special interests. In other words, it was to act furthermore as a monopolist and as an instrument of domination and was to remain available for this.” – LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr. 3. – Even if that had not been its declared intention, those involved in its territorial monopolies for defence, police and court protection, would have formed very powerful vested interest groups in it, concerned to uphold their territorial monopoly and the over-all “limited” government would have been very jealous of its territorial monopoly, too, and would have tolerated no competition in its “exclusive” turf from another limited government or and statist government or any anarchist society. – J.Z., 25.11.07.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: We are convinced that the term unlimited government is a redundancy. It is enough to say “government”. In point of fact, all governments are unlimited. They have to be. For them to be otherwise is for them to stop being governments.” – Robert LeFevre, quoted in Carl Watner, Lefevre, chapter 19, motto. – This ignores the possibility of voluntary, competing and exterritorially autonomous governments and societies, which existed in the past and will have to be established now or soon, if there is to be a future for us. – The platform point: “No government for all!” -  including the majority, all remaining statists of one kind or the other - does postpone full liberty for the radical liberty lovers to the far and perhaps quite unattainable future. Territorial statism might wipe us out before libertarianism becomes the general belief of all the populations or at least the majority of it. – We should not put out fate into the faith in an incomplete and also authoritarian or biased libertarian definition of “government”, as if it constituted, quite inevitably, the essence of all wrong and evil, as if it were the “devil” itself. - J.Z., 5.8.92, 30.11.07, 27.12.10, 25.12.11, 1.6.12. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: We Republicans believe in limited government, but also in effective and humane government. We believe in keeping government as close to the people as possible - in letting each citizen do for himself what he can do for himself, then making any call for government assistance first on the local government, then on the state government, and only in the final resort on the Federal Government. But we do not shrink from a recognition that there are national problems that require national solutions.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, Article, NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, 25 May, 1964. – Most of the national problems are created by territorial nationalism and national territorial legislation, especially in the monetary and financial sphere. They have turned territorial governments into warfare States and crises producers. – Did Eisenhower have any idea of genuine solutions? - J.Z., 27.12.10. –– DIS.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: What Is the Proper Function of Government? – The proper function of government is to protect the individual rights of man; this means – to protect man against brute force.” - Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism, in: “The Ayn Rand Column”, revised edition, 1998, p.85/86, Second Renaissance Books, New Milford, Connecticut, – By that definition no government ever existed. Nor can any territorial government achieve this supposed ideal. No government has ever even proclaimed a complete and correct declaration of individual rights and liberties and recognized them in its constitution, its laws and courts. – What made A. R. believe that in future any territorial government wished to achieve this and would be able to do so? – J.Z., 8.2.03 & 16.9.07. - MINI-GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: What then are we to do? Reduce government to the point where no creative activity – not one – comes under its control. Let government – federal, state, and local – confine itself to codifying the taboos – destructive activities – and enforcing such laws. In a word, let government invoke a common justice and keep the peace. That’s a whale of a job in itself!” – Leonard E. Read, Castles in the Air, p.97. - And already too much of a job, even for a “limited” but still territorial government. Why should such important activities be monopolized, over a whole territory and all its population? What about those, who try to create “ideal governments” for their own volunteers only? – I would rather trust any government or other community or society, that has no territorial powers at all, whose membership is quite voluntary and that can pass only personal laws for it voluntary members, who remain free to secede from it and free to join or establish competing communities of volunteers in the same territory or even world-wide, all without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 25.11.07. – PANARCHISM, TRUST

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Without individual and groups secessionism, voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy for dissenters no limited government is limited enough! - Limited Governments only for Limited Government advocates! - J.Z., 1.8.04. - Limited Government so limited that it is confined to volunteers and exterritorial autonomy only, would be acceptable to panarchists. In other words, they ought to be established within a panarchist framework. That would make their establishment and maintenance much easier, cheaper and safer for all. Their preferences could then no longer be voted out of existence by the numerous opponents to limited governments. Territorial limited governments lack the individual or minority group secessionist or withdrawal option. They still constitute "governments", although highly (not highly enough!) limited and decentralized ones. They are neither sufficiently limited nor radically enough decentralized. They ought to be limited or confined to their adherents. - J.Z., n.d. & 17.9.04, 27.12.10, 1.6.12. - PANARCHISM

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Woe to the people that cannot limit the sphere of action of the State! Freedom, private enterprise, wealth, happiness, independence, personal dignity, all vanish.” – Bastiat, Economic Sophism, p.141. – They also vanish under “limited” territorial governments, only more slowly. – J.Z., 25.11.07.

LIMITED WAR: However, in a war where major powers participate with only a fraction of their mobilizable resources, the relevance of estimates regarding the global balance of forces is much less clear. To decide how and when a war should be ended one must try to estimate the military situation up to the final round of fighting. But how can one tell at the beginning of a limited war what the final round will be? How wide should the circle be drawn to estimate the line-up of forces? How many steps in possible escalations and expansions should one calculate to determine one's strategy for fighting and to guide one's bargaining to end it?” – Fred Ikle, Every War Must End, p.27. – Not many would be conducted any more, if they had to depend on voluntary soldiers and voluntary taxpayers and if the latter had also to decide on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties and alliance, instead of leaving such decisions to the leaders of territorial governments. Moreover, the territorial warfare States do not allow their subjects to opt out from under them and do not recognize alternative societies that are exterritorially autonomous. Once all individual rights and liberties are recognized only few military clashes will still occur and they will, inevitably, be limited ones, against the real warmongers only. – J.Z., 27.11.7.

LIMITS OF TOLERANCE: Nobody is wholly tolerant. The more you believe in tolerance, the less you can tolerate the intolerant." - R. Q. in READERS' DIGEST, 7/66.

LIMITS OR OPPORTUNITIES: leave behind the "era of limits" and grasp the limitless opportunities available.” - Jerry Pournelle, Preface, XIII, to Newt Gingrich, Window of Opportunity, A Blueprint for the Future. - Alas, most other "space-nuts" have not yet seen the almost limitless opportunities of freedom and thus, in their SF, they still do e.g. fear computers and "over-population" and consider only planet-wide imposed systems that may differ from other such systems, instead of exterritorial options, individually chosen. Perhaps we need a black list of SF that offer mainly only basic fallacies or a recommended list of SF that is free of basic errors and even offers some libertarian ideas. - J.Z., 23.1.02. – SCIENCE FICTION, TERRITORIALISM

LIMITS TO GROWTH: the famous “limits to growth” was nothing more than a gigantic intellectual fraud perpetrated for the primary purpose of permitting politicians to gain power over your private lives.” – G. Harry Stine, ANALOG, Jan. 84, p. 124. – The main and real limits to sound growth are politicians and their territorial governments. – If they could, they would keep us in poverty and, seemingly unbreakable dependence upon them, forever. – J.Z., 14.11.07. – See especially the writings of Julian L. Simon on this. – J.Z., 28.12.10.

LIMITS: There’s no limit to what we can achieve, if we work together.” - Arthur C. Clarke & Stephen Baxter: The Light of Other Days, p.463. – All people do not have to work together but groups of volunteers should be quite free to tackle, competitively, all tasks now monopolized by territorial governments and to experiment, tolerantly, among themselves, running their own shows, minding their own business. That is the only kind of unity and team-work required, in all spheres, to achieve rapid progress. – J.Z., 16.9.07, 28.12.10. - FREEDOM CAN LEAD US TO THE QUITE UNEXPECTED. PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, PERSONAL LAWS VS. TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAWS. COMPETITION BETWEEN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS, ALL WITHOUT A TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY.

LINCOLN, ABRAHAM, ON INDIVIDUAL CONSENT: No man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent." So why did he become a president of a large territorial regime? – J.Z., 25.12.11.

LINDENFIELD, FRANK: Voluntarism and politics, p. 344-350, esp. 348 of ANARCHY, No. 69, Nov. 66, Freedom Press. Page 348: "Voluntarism implies a diversity of social forms. Different groups of people would be free to choose between alternative forms of social organization and ways of life. The voluntarist does not want all men living the way he would like to live, with everybody forced into the same strait-jacket of utopia. The voluntarist wants to live as he likes with his friends, and let others live as they like, with their friends. Voluntarism means the freedom to choose a life of creativity and pleasure, or one of ignominy, wretchedness, and boredom." - He does not say at whose expense and does not know how to achieve full employment and would most likely ideologically oppose the only ways of achieving it, via full laissez faire capitalism, including full monetary freedom. But at least he favors some form of cooperative production. - J.Z., 26.1.99.

LINDSAAR, PEETER: Estonian Cultural Autonomy", 1918 - 1940, article in NEWS DIGEST INTERNATIONAL, Australia, June 1969, describes on p.62 the Estonian cultural autonomy: "Under the Estonian Constitution every citizen had the right to choose the national group to which he or she wished to belong." - He brings some details. It was the most advanced minority legislation in the world. Now they are only offered "autonomy" of the Soviet-style. - Since I jotted this down, at least some of this minority autonomy tradition has been revived. I do hope that it was also done in favor of the Russians etc., now living there. - J.Z., 16.1.97. - 2pp, 207, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051.

LIPMANN, K.: Die Konsularjurisdiktion Im Orient, Leipzig, 1898. – Quoted by LIU, ibid, page 36.

LIPPARD: 90, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879.

LITERATURE LIST: See Bibliography. - My bibliography has been integrated in this compilation. - J.Z., 1.9.04.

LITIGATION & ADMINISTRATATIVE PRACTICE COURSE HANDBOOK SERIES: Vol. 248, Extraterritorial Discovery in International Litigation, 578p, 1984, $ 35, P.L.I.

LIU, SHIH-SHUN: Exterritoriality, its Rise and Decline, New York, Columbia University Press, 1925, 237 pages, 24x, in PEACE PLANS 383. A scholarly study, full of facts and thoughts. Best title of its type that I know. One day it will be considered a classic. Minority autonomy ought to be everyone's concern. - Excellent historical survey on the extent and importance of this concept, ruling until about 300 years ago, when territorial nationalism became the new religion. - J.Z., 18.8.04. - 11, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. Reprinted by AMS Pr., $20. . (Or SHIH-SHUN LIU. See there.) - Reviewed by Richard C. B. Johnsson. The full text is online at - A suggestion for a summary of LIU’s Book: Certainly, other, better and shorter ones should be supplied. (RCBJ did.) - Exterritorial or personal law organizations, full minority autonomy, their voluntary communities or experimental, utopian or intentional community group efforts, even in the spheres of political, economic and social systems (that are presently largely, constitutionally, legally and juridically monopolized by territorial governments, with compulsory membership and subordination), have had a very long, diverse, wide-spread and tolerant history, one that has lasted much longer than that of completely territorialist States (which are a relatively recent invention and practice). - Exterritorialism, with its personal laws, voluntary membership and individualistic options for almost all, once it is fully understood and applied, which was never as yet the case, has the potential to achieve and preserve peace, maximize tolerance for tolerant actions, spread freedom, peace, security, progress and the production and retention of wealth and enlightenment. - Thus its numerous traces of the past ought to be studied and explained. Then the best of them ought to be revived, always only among volunteers and there and quite rightfully, reasonably and consistently expanded - towards their optimum, rather than remaining suppressed, ignored or unappreciated. - Fully developed, it amounts to the rightful and reasonable alternative to imposed territorial statism and is, I hold, the solution to all the problems caused by territorial statism. - Its theory and practice recognizes individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, or voluntary State or society membership or complete consumer sovereignty, including free individual choice among governments and non-governmental but, nevertheless, exterritorially autonomous societies. - It combines this consumer sovereignty with completely free enterprise (or competing governmental and societal service offers) for all single or combined public services, for all peaceful and tolerant individuals (not for aggressive criminals with victims). - This choice and competition is to be extended to all of the present territorially monopolistic organizations, including the present constitutions, legislation, jurisdiction and administration. - As free choices for individuals and their voluntary groups could provide us with a better, safer, more free, just and peacefully progressive future. - To introduce such free choices for peaceful individuals is not only rightful but dutiful. - Personal law and aterritorial autonomy are moral imperatives. They constitute what might be termed the “aterritorial imperative”. - (Some might prefer “exterritorial”, “non-territorial” or “non-geographical” or other equivalent terms. I for one will not quibble about them.) - At least for human beings and their societies Robert Ardrey’s generalizations in his book: “The Territorial Imperative” are misleading. With this particular generalization Ardrey even ignored evidence that he himself mentioned in this book, not only the numerous facts reported in books like that of Liu - if there are really any other books as good on this subject as it is. - J.Z., 10.1.05.  – A long and excellent review by R.C.B.J. and other related articles by him are now available on

LIVE & LET LIVE: Live and let live - is the essence of tolerance and has already become proverbial wisdom. So many people have heard or used this expression – but without comprehending all its applications. Only panarchists apply this advice as widely as possible. - J.Z., 6. 9. 04. - “Live and let live!” A popular saying, which is, alas, not often enough and consistently applied, except in some private matters. – J.Z., 25.11.07. – All public matters and institutions should become subject to individual private choices. – J.Z., 5.2.09. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, COMPETITION, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, TOLERANCE

LIVE & LET LIVE: Unlike Leonard Read, I wouldn’t bet on the plant having perception. But, in a world of mysteries, Read could be right. The main point is the live-and-let-live quality of Read’s “freedom philosophy”, which, if it could be universalized, would create a world not only of happy plants but of men and women without envy.” – John Chamberlain, THE FREEMAN, 6/75.

LIVE & LET LIVE: With “live- and-let-live” frameworks in every sphere and personal choices, genuine self-government, self-management and self-responsibility will come within the reach of every adult, rational and non-criminal person, i.e. all those prepared to subscribe the minimum moral and ethical self-restraints and self-control required towards the genuine and equal rights and liberties of all other persons, who do not agree with him and do not belong to his own association (while his own community might not respect and realize, internally, all these rights and liberties). In others, who do, quite rightfully and self-responsibly, claim them for themselves, in full, they ought to be fully respected by all others. E.g.: The monogamists, in their communities, should respect the rights of polygamists in their communities – and vice versa. - If that respect is not granted to basic rights and liberties of others, then the full liberties and rights, understood and appreciated at least by some, a sufficient number of people, will also provide them with the maximum incentives and opportunities to defend them effectively, even against remaining major territorial powers. The single protestor against infringements of his basic rights might still be hanged, short, imprisoned for life etc. But a few determined and consistent adherents could become almost irresistible. Compare the story of Cromwell’s “Ironsides”, as reported by Thomas Babington Macaulay and, somewhat, by the Swiss “Eidgenossen”. - This I firmly believe and also that, point by point, I could show some practical steps towards realizing the defensive and liberating potentials of genuine panarchists or people who are tolerant even in the political, economic and social sphere. - J.Z., Dec. 04.

LIVE & LET LIVE: You might say our whole culture is founded on a principle of live and let live." - Poul Anderson, Conquests, p.116. - If only that were already true! - J.Z., 6.10.01. – Legalized intolerance is still all too much the rule. – J.Z., 5.2.09. – TERRITORIALISM, LAWS, GOVERNMENTS

LIVE FREE OR DIE: Live free or die.” – New Hampshire State Motto. - Why not allow people to live as slaves if they want to and as long as they like it? - Anyhow, trying to execute all statists would be a big job and many of them would effectively fight back. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – PANARCHIES FOR ALL WHO ARE PREPARED TO LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE OF OTHER PANARCHIES ALONE! DIS., TOLERANCE

LIVE YOUR BELIEFS: Live your beliefs, and you can turn the world around.” – Thoreau. –– Quoted in: M. Ferguson, The Acquarian Conspiracy, p.227. - Indeed, if you are free enough to do so. We are still far from having realized experimental freedom for all political, social and economic system, starting with the individual secessionist option. – J.Z., 15.11.07. - EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

LIVE YOUR BELIEFS: Live your beliefs, and you can turn the world around.” – Thoreau. –– Quoted in: M. Ferguson, The Acquarian Conspiracy, p.227. - Indeed, if you are free enough to do so. We are still far from having realized experimental freedom for all political, social and economic system, starting with the individual secessionist option. – J.Z., 15.11.07. - EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

LIVE: Don’t you want to master your own life? Do you want others to largely live it for you – at least by living at your expense and by controlling many of your actions? – J.Z., 10/72. - LIFE, MASTERING THE OWN, Q., SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-MANAGEMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, EGOISM, SELFISHNESS, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

LIVE: It is easy to live for others; everybody does. I call on you to live for yourselves.” – Emerson, Journals, 1845. - EGOISM, LIVE FOR YOURSELF, SELFISHNESS VS. ALTRUISM, SELF-LIBERATION, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

LIVE: Life is diverse, not uniform.” – Phillip Mann, Master of Paxwax, p.25. – - Our “public” or state or societal institutions should likewise be different, corresponding to the diversity among men, via individual choice and decision-making, voluntary association and secession. – J.Z., 19.9.07, 28.12.10. – LIFE, DIVERSITY, STATES, SOCIETIES & UNIFORMITY, UNITY, TERRITORIAL FEDERATION & SOVEREIGNTY, GOVERNMENTS

LIVE: Live for yourself – and not the pigs!” – Ed Randell Jr., PROTOS, Nov. 70. – Surprising as it may sound to many, there are even some decent and incorruptible people among soldiers, officers, policemen, bureaucrats, politicians and judges, although, certainly, not too many or enough of them. To label all of them quite indiscriminately as “pigs” goes too far. Do not forget, either, that they still have many, very many, voluntary supporters among the statists. – J.Z., 25.11.07. – All forms of statism for statists and all forms of liberty for freedom lovers: Panarchism! Tolerance for all tolerant people! – J.Z., 5.2.09. – DIS. , STATISM, TOLERANCE

LIVE: We don’t need democracy or a government to be able to run our own lives.” – A libertarian from Uppsala, in Freedom Network News, Aug.-Sep., 89. , RUNNING OUR LIVES, GOVERNMENTS, DEMOCRACY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-MANAGEMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

LIVING FREELY: He is free who lives as he wishes to live; who is neither subject to compulsion nor to hindrance, nor to force; whose movements to action are not impeded, whose desires attain their purpose, and who does not fall into that which he would avoid.” – Epictetus (ca 55-135 A.D.), Discourses, ca 100 A.D. - Have we made sufficient progress in this direction since then? - J.Z., 23. 11. 06.

LIVING IN A WORLD WE DID NOT MAKE & ARE NOT FREE TO CHANGE: Living in a world we didn't make and are not free to change, not even for ourselves, in our own sphere and at our own cost and risk. - J.Z.,  15.9.88. Is that truly living, in adult responsibility? Or do we find ourselves in a nation-wide kindergarten or nursery, under more or less benevolent supervisors? J.Z. 14.1.93. - Panarchism demands for all non-aggressive individuals the right to make and change their own environment in the way they like, but only to the extent that they can do so at the own expense and risk. So far that right is widely recognized only for the private life, one's house, garden and business, not for "public affairs" and "public relations". Panarchism extends individual life choices into these spheres as well, as far as this is humanly possible, as a means to maximize freedom, justice, peace and progress, limiting none of them to the views of popular "experts" or majorities. - J.Z., 17.9.04.

LIVING THE OWN LIFE: // Finally live your own life // And make your own decisions // Since now the time is rife // For freedom from politicians. ////             Bureaucracy only for bureaucrats // Not for people who would rather // Live their lives without these rats // In one free society or the other. //// Under panarchy I would like to live // Since territorialism has nothing to give. // It can only fake or take, // Mostly the major part of the cake. //// Making my individualist choices, // Ignoring all other voices. // Leaving all others free, // Even to climb back into the tree, // Under the isms of their hell or paradise // If they know nothing better otherwise. //// - That’s about all you can expect from me in form of “poetry”. - J.Z., 31.1.05.

LIVING: He is free who lives as he wishes to live; who is neither subject to compulsion nor to hindrance, nor to force; whose movements to action are not impeded, whose desires attain their purpose, and who does not fall into that which he would avoid.” – Epictetus (ca 55-135 A.D.), Discourses, ca.100 A.D. - Have we made sufficient progress in this direction since then? - FREELY - J.Z., 23. 11. 06.

LIVING: Lives under territorial governments cannot possibly be the best lives that people could have and would have under their own individual free choices. Under at least some such regimes lives are often “cheap”, little valued, not only by their rulers but also by the people so ruled. – Territorial governments are, largely, Warfare States. They are mass-producing death. That is perhaps best be exemplified by their acquisition of mass murder devices and by keeping them in readiness and by training many people in their use. – How many soldiers have become soldiers only because otherwise they would remain unemployed? Almost all involuntary unemployment is due to government interventionism. - J.Z., 20.11.07. - UNDER TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS

LOAN, ALBERT: Institutional Bases of the Spontaneous Order: Surety and Assurance, 9pp, from HUMANE STUDIES REVIEW, 7/1, Winter 1991/92: 310, in PP 1689-1693. (Tradition of voluntary mutual guaranty and self-help & mutual aid associations. - J.Z.) - - On the tradition of voluntary mutual guaranty and self-help & mutual aid associations. - J.Z. - Referred to in - INSTITUTIONS & SPONTANEOUS ORDER

LOBBIES: Territorially unrepresentative and politically unrepresented minority groups should strive to become exterritorially autonomous communities, doing their own things for or to themselves, rather than attempting to stand over the rest of the minorities and over the majority, as influential pressure groups, “selling” the bundle of votes they can influence, or outright buying the votes of legislators, thus trying to achieve privileges for themselves at the expense of all the others. They should all be able to become independent of the opinions and laws of the majority and of the privileges granted to other minority groups, this at the own risk and expense, for their own volunteers, and the majority of consumers and producers should become independent of them, except for free trade relationships with them. – J.Z., 20.12.83, 26.11.07. - MINORITIES, PRESSURE GROUPS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, AUTONOMY, SELF-GOVERNMENT

LOBBIES: The politicians have set every one of us against each other in special interest groups which have sought to be among the rulers (or on good terms with them), instead of amongst the ruled.” – From a Workers Party leaflet: Something’s Wrong in Australia. – Quite in accordance with the ancient Roman principle: “Divide and conquer!” – J.Z., 26.11.07. – Every individual should only be subjected to self-selected rulers or administrators, if any at all. – J.Z., 28.12.10. - PRESSURE GROUPS, SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM

LOBBIES: The principal power in Washington is no longer the government of the people it represents. It is the Money Power. Under the deceptive cloak of campaign contributions, access and influence, votes and amendments are bought and sold. Money established priorities of action, holds down federal revenues, revises federal legislation, shifts income from the middle class to the very rich. Money restrains the enforcement of laws written to protect the country from abuses of wealth - laws that mandate environmental protection, antitrust laws, laws to protect the consumer against fraud, laws that safeguard the securities markets, and many more.” - Richard N. Goodwin - Speechwriter for John F. Kennedy. – Sent by CB. - To make this possible, a powerful territorial government must first exist, so that pigs can assembly at its trough, filled by involuntary tribute-payers. Only then can it sell its favours to special interests. Such an institution, essentially a coercive territorial monopoly, to advantage one group and the expense of all other groups should not be allowed at all. On the other hand, any degree of statism should also be allowed – but only among its volunteers, its voluntary victims. – J.Z., 27.12.07, 1.6.12. – The worst money power is that of the monetary despotism of the central banks! – J.Z., 22.1.09. - PRESSURE GROUPS, VESTED INTERESTS HAVING ACCESS TO THE POWER LEVERS IN PARLIAMENTS, DIS.

LOBINGIER, JUDGE, Editor: Exterritorial Cases, a volume of cases from various sources but mostly American, compiled and edited by Judge Lobingier and published in Manila, Bureau of Printing, in 1920.

LOCAL ACTION: Think globally, act locally.” – Quoted on radio, 3.5.88. – As if we were already quite free to do so. – We are not even free as yet to secede at least from the local government, not to speak of the States and the federal governments, although all of them are supposed to be based upon consent, which at most is only that of a manipulated and misinformed majority. – J.Z., 28.12.10. – DEMOCRACY, CONSENT, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN ALL SPHERES, SECESSIONISM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: According to some people, the more remote a government is from you and the more centralized power it has over you, the more democratic “self-government” you have. Should such people have the right to vote over the affairs of others or should they rather be “certified”? If you want to know the liberties which local self-government once represented in England, read J. Toulmin-Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization – and prepare at least for local secessionism from any territorially imposed, local, amalgamated, regional, State and Federal politicized and bureaucratic rule. – J.Z., 27.6.80. (I have micro-fiched but not yet digitized that title. – J.Z., 26.11.07, 28.12.10.) – RULERS, CENTRALIZATION, TERRITORIAISM VS. INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: And never was there greater justification than in local government for boldly applying the maxim that ‘less will mean better’.” – Alfred Sherman in in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.137. – And nothing of a territorialist monopoly nature will be the best of all. Then each of the diverse groups is free to mind its own business in its own ways. – Laissez faire, laissez passer! – J.Z., 5.2.09. – LESS GOVERNMENT, LEAST GOVERNMENT, NO GOVERNMENT – OF THE TERRITORIALIST TYPE! PANARCHISM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Certainly, “public” services have to be paid for by “the public”. But why have local services (*) to be public services? I get a very good local service from my butcher. There is no magic formula (except the Government), which decrees that some services must be public. The argument is certainly how to avoid public costs, rather than share them, as far as yours truly is concerned.” – Terry Arthur, “95 % Is Crap”, p.84. – “Sharing of costs” should take place only among volunteers. - (*) Or State or Federal ones! – J.Z., 2.11.07. - PUBLIC SERVICES, PANARCHISM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Even a local government is a territorial government, already centralized, despotic corrupt and corrupting. – J.Z., 9.3.97, 21.11.07. – And not always only on a small scale, either! – J.Z., 5.2.09. - CENTRALIZATION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: he imagines a State so small that every individual within it would be able to watch and criticize the government. He probably had something like the Greek city-state in mind as the ideal unit.” – Herbert Read, Anarchism and Order, p.130, on Rousseau’s Social Contract. – Even the Greek city States had their civil and international wars, their tyrants, their slaves. Personal law associations of volunteers are likely to offer their members more liberties and less taxes and laws, more peace and justice. – J.Z., 30.11.07. – It is hard enough to run the own life, family, friendships and business relations successfully. Successfully dealing with all other individuals, families, enterprises and associations in a local government territory is almost as difficult to impossible as trying to do so at the territorial State or Federal Government level. – At best each can only run his own life, family-, friendship, business and other private association relationships successfully. – The same applies to all others living in a local area or territory. – Even there no one should have territorial powers over others! - J.Z., 5.2.09, 28.12.10. - DECENTRALIZATION, DOWNSIZING, BIGNESS, OVERSIZE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: In government, as in all other human activities, the law of diminishing returns or diseconomies of scale asserts itself inexorably. At present, both central and local governments are fumbling or failing in performing many of the major tasks.” – Alfred Sherman, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.119. - They are by their very territorial and monopolistic nature incapable of optimally performing the tasks that they have usurped. – Competition in providing real services should never be restricted. Nor should any powers be granted to anyone to provide any disservices and coercively charge for them. - J.Z., 26.11.07. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: It is a truth of which the mere statement carries its own demonstration, that his own affairs must always be best known to every man himself; that his own interest in their good management is the strongest; and that he must himself the soonest learn those lessons of good management which success and failure alone can teach. It is necessarily the same, by an ascending step, as to every special district, and the affairs which concern, in common, all who dwell within it. And the step is but a further ascending one as to the whole nation, and the affairs which concern, in common, the whole people. - - Free institutions do not, then, exist, and national independence can never be ensured, nor individual independence and forethought ever characterize a people, unless true local self-government is fully and freely exercised in every district throughout the land; unshackled alike by local clique-ism and central intermeddling. The exercise of that local self-government must be entirely in the hands of the district as to all matters of general management, police, public works, taxation, and every class of administrative arrangement whereon the common welfare of a local community depends. No interference by any central authority can be permitted without a necessarily consequent sacrifice of independence, self-reliance and efficiency.” - J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization, p.31. - - The assumption of a general and common territorial interest for people under a local government is almost as wrong as that for people living under a territorial state-government or under a territorial federal government. No one has as yet been able to prove that certain services can only or best be supplied territorially and this only by governmental institutions. – Faith in such governments - in the face of numerous and endless disappointments with them, - is no more rational than faith in a loving father in heaven. Those really believing in their common interests should associate exterritorially - under full autonomy and their own personal laws and act only at their own expense and risk. – J.Z., 28.11.07.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: It is time for local government to seek private enterprise alternatives (*) to provide traditional government services.” – Jim Clarkson of CANT (Citizens Against New Taxes), SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, Winter 75/76. - (*) Also cooperative, open cooperative and mutual aid or other partnership and self-management alternatives! – J.Z., 26.11.07. – Nor should we leave it to local, State or Federal governments to take the initiative in this or any other respect – although, naturally, all of them should be free to resign, dissolve themselves, abdicate or confine themselves to their remaining volunteers. The main thing is that all of them get out of our way, as obstacles to the free practice of all of our genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 28.12.10.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: It would be hopeful to expect local government devotees or ‘experts’ to ask whether local government as a whole might not be doing too much, whether some of its ills may not stem from overweight caused by excessive appetite for powers and functions. (*) All for size? – The whole history of local government in general, and of local government associations in particular, is one of fighting to maintain and expand area, population, income, expenditure and power, vis-à-vis central government, rival local authorities and the private sector. Party affiliation makes little difference ...” – Alfred Sherman, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.117. - (*) Down to the smallest details of e.g. an advertising sign, drive-ways and the location of a firewood stack! – At least the State and the Federal Governments don’t bother us about such details! - J.Z., 26.11.07, 5.2.09. – SMALL SCALE TERRITORIALISM & ITS POWER URGE & ADDICTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: It would be utterly impracticable (*) to delegate to any individual or group of individuals the power to draw freely on public funds. It is necessary to curb the power of managers of nationalized or municipalized systems … if they are not to be made irresponsible spenders of public money and if their management is not to disorganize the whole budget.” – Ludwig von Mises, in THE FREEMAN, 8/75, p.503. – Should there be any territorially and coercively gathered public funds and territorial government budget spending programs at all - or only those of communities of volunteers, under their own personal laws? - (*) Rather wrong and un-economic! – This kind of territorial wrong and nonsense is all too widely practised. – J.Z., 26.11.07, 28.12.10.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local government is still not self-government – unless it is entirely voluntary. – J.Z., 14.11.92. – SELF-GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: local government spending must be radically reduced as part of a general contraction in the functions performed or financed from public revenues.” - Alfred Sherman, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.123. – Should there be any public territorial functions and any territorial public revenues or tributes? – J.Z., 26.11.07. – TAXATION, RATES

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local governments, likewise, do not represent nations or communities of free individual choices, consent and sound pricing for competitively supplied services. They are not genuine self-government institutions but, rather, despotic impositions, formally sanctioned by majority votes, exacting tributes from all land holders, in form of rates and monopoly prices from the recipients of their services, including various permits. They benefit only a few privileged persons and their favourites. – J.Z., 17.11.93. – Altogether they act largely like the feudal lords of old times. – J.Z., 28.12.10. – TERRITORIALISM, FEUDALISM, LANDLORDISM AT ITS WORST, UNDER A DEMOCRATIC CAMOUFLAGE.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local governments, too, by their rate levies and regulations, continue the tradition of the robber barons, but they do this camouflaged or under false pretences, rather than openly. – J.Z., 23.11.93.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local territorial governments are parasites, too. – J.Z., 12.12.92.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: of the powers, which remain in government, let us decentralize as many as possible by returning them to state and local government. For on the local level the people will be better able to safeguard their freedom by critical scrutiny of the acts of their government officials.” – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.22. – Also in THE FREEMAN, 4/75. - Even most local governments, through growth in population or through amalgamations, have already become too large for sufficient controls through their subjects. Moreover, they are largely financed through State and federal governments, i.e., through the general taxpayers. – Allowing individuals and dissenting groups to secede from all levels of territorial governments and to act as exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers would be much more effective. - J.Z., 26.11.07, 28.12.10. – Free enterprise and consumer sovereignty in the sphere of governments and communities! – J.Z., 5.2.09. - PANARCHISM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Territorial local governments are largely despotic, too and should be dismantled, and replaced only by local service associations of volunteers, charging subscriptions for competitively supplied services. Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the term “self-government”. – J.Z., 23.11.93, 1.12.07.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: The best government is self-government by consumers paying for what they choose to buy in competitive markets.” – Boyson, Goodbye to Nationalization, p.103. – To that should belong the free-enterprise and free trade option of offering consumers or subscribers whole package deals of diverse “public” services, including insurance, protection, welfare etc., to any degrees desired by them, at agreed upon prices or fees or subscriptions, with many such service societies competing in the same territory, just like insurance companies or religions and xyz different other services do, that are daily required by many. No more territorial monopolies and powers to any one or to any group, no matter how many voters it has behind it. – J.Z. 26.11.07. – Goodbye to Territorialism! And may we never meet again! – Welcome individualism, voluntarism, individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, personal laws, exterritorial autonomy, full consumer sovereignty, free enterprise, laissez faire, freedom of contract and freedom of association! - J.Z., 5.2.09. - PANARCHISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, DECENTRALIZATION, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, THE MARKET, FREE ENTERPRISE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: The question is not whether local government should be recognized and supported by State and Federal Governments but whether local governments should recognize State and Federal Governments and whether local people should be forced to contribute directly or indirectly to State and Federal Governments, instead of being free to buy, through local taxes, local services only or only as many or as few of the services offered by States and Federal Governments as they want for themselves. – J.Z. 23.8.88. – Individuals should also be free to opt out from under their local governments. Government and taxation is to be by consent, remember? And consent, to be genuine, must be individual by individual and each consent is only valid for the consenting individual. Anything else is a rather expensive farce. – J.Z., 15.11.07.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: The real and only test must always be, whichever of those external forms is acknowledged, - is Local Self-Government, or is Centralization, the fundamental practical idea of the Constitution of the country? - - As clearness of ideas is important, it should be stated thus early that the term Centralization is properly to be applied, not only, though it will be most frequently, to dictation from a Metropolitan centre; nor, on the other hand, is the term Local Self-Government ever to be applied to the mere management of affairs by some or a few, practically irresponsible, in particular Local Districts. But Local Self-Government is that system of Government under which the greatest number of minds, knowing the most, and having the fullest opportunities of knowing it, about the special matter in hand, and having the greatest interest in its well-working, have the management of it, or control over it. (*) - Centralization is that system of Government under which the smallest number of minds, and those knowing the least, and having the fewest opportunities of knowing it, about the special matter in hand, and having the smallest interest in its well-working, have the management of it, or control over it.” - J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization, p.12. – (*) That could very well be a local free enterprise or coop or mutual aid society or an open cooperative as proposed by Theodor Hertzka. – A monopolistic and territorial governmental organization is usually merely the first and primitive notion that people have of organizing themselves. And also a way to burden others with the costs of their pet projects, under the pretence that it would be in the common interest. – J.Z., 28.11.07. - CENTRALIZATION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: The times of genuine, small, wanted, self-sufficient and influential local self-governments are long past. They can only be hoped for - for our future and then they should be re-established only on a voluntary basis, without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 5.11.93, 1.12.07.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: The world government must leave national governments free in everything not involved in the prevention of war; national governments, in their turn, must leave as much scope as possible to local authorities.” – Bertrand Russell, Authority and the Individual, p.81. - Even local governments are still all too much exclusive territorial powers to be able to fully realize the ideals of self-government, self-determination, self-liberation and individual sovereignty, choice, secessionism, consumer-sovereignty, freedom of contract, free enterprise, free exchange and freedom of action and experimentation. – Thus even local governments must leave all individual and liberties to individuals untouched, apart e.g. from quarantine requirements and decisions like driving either on the left or on the right side of roads. - J.Z., 26.11.07. – Why any territorial authorities at all? – J.Z., 5.2.09. - TERRITORIALISM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: They tend to be corrupt, crooks, thieves, authoritarians and despots, too, merely on a smaller scale, in a smaller area. – J.Z., 1.8.95. – They, too, tend to be far from a genuine local self-government and show all the evils of mere “representation” or majoritarianism, and are ignoring individual rights and liberties. But then most of their victims do not show much interest in these rights and liberties, either. – J.Z., 14.11.07. – TERRITORIALISM, POWER ABUSE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Through their taxes, legalized privileges and regulations they are landlords imposed upon us, interfering with out lives and properties. Gradually, through taxation or rates they do take our property away. – J.Z., 29.10.97. - All this under the pretence of serving us. But how many of the services they do offer would we buy on a competitive market and how much less would they cost us then? – J.Z., 21.11.07. - RATES & MONOPOLIES

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: To say that local government is too important to be left to be decided by council members and officials, is not to advocate that central government impose a solution.” – Alfred Sherman, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.135. - - Genuine self-government or self-determination is too important to be left to any territorial government! – J.Z., 26.11.07, 28.12.10.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS & PANARCHIES: All decentralist arguments for local governments apply, even more so, to panarchies that do not exceed their optimum size. – Even in private societies bureaucracy tends to creep in when their optimum size is exceeded. Then at least suitable internal decentralization steps, if not complete schisms, are advisable. – J.Z., 9.11.04 & 23.11.04.

LOCAL RATES: They are mainly extorted tributes rather than competitive prices for wanted services. They are wrongful charges of monopolistic because territorial extortion rackets and examples for inefficiency. The latter is often well exemplified by road-side signs saying: “Men at Work”. – J.Z., 16.4.98, 28.12.10. - OTHER CHARGES

LOCAL SPENDING: Keep your money in your town!" Free consumer choice and bargain hunting, "imports from foreigners", other localities or even streets or businesses, are to be sacrificed, supposedly in the "public" interest, out of local patriotism, for the benefit of local businessmen and manufacturers. It amounts to protectionism vs. free trade on the smallest scales. "Keeping the money in the family" is a similar effort, on a still smaller scale. The resolution by an individual not to earn and spend any money at all, if he can help it, and, rather, laboriously to try to become entirely self-sufficient, and self-supporting, would be the smallest effort of this kind. (It would, logically, go to the ridiculous length of digging and processing one's ores oneself and forging the own tools with them, although Leonard E. Read effectively pointed out that no one can make a pencil or produce a can of beans quite on his own. - J.Z., 16.9.02.) On the national and economic "theory" level it has been "graced" by the term "autarchy". Historically, it was a large feature in mercantilism, which tried to accumulate money (made of rare metal) in a country and outlaw spending outside of it. (Many to most economists of the Austrian School of Economics, still in denial of the possibility and facts of deflation, ignore that this effort indicated an at least subjectively perceived shortage of money. The prices had not sufficiently adapted to the available coins to make sales of goods, services and labour quite easy. If they had been, the efforts of the Mercantilists would never have become popular. - J.Z., 16.9.02. ) - The nature of money and the mutually beneficial effects of all free exchanges are never sufficiently considered by all such superficial views. If local spenders really wanted "their" money to come back to them, then they should consider and use their monetary freedom options: No money is "their" money, in a true sense, unless it is issued by them. Further, the only basis upon which many people could issue money of their own are their ready-for-sale consumer goods and services. Obviously, to the extent that they mobilized or liquidified these of their assets, in convenient goods warrants and service vouchers, i.e., in standardized and typified forms, in money denominations and used a good enough value standard, all their local and even foreign spending would be returned to them, rather soon, to be redeemed by them in their goods in services. - If they only welcome government legal tender or gold coins or gold certificates, then they will mostly try patriotic appeals, largely in vain, to induce currency holders of this kind from not taking up better bargains offered to them outside of their local communities. Such monies, with a much wider circulation sphere, when spent by them, will not always, completely or fast enough return to them. Only when the local community would, by outside spending, become so depleted of exchange media, that a local deflation would force its prices down, to emergency sales levels, would a strong incentive arise for outsiders to purchase there. Such fluctuations could be avoided by the competitive issue of sound local currencies. - J.Z., 8.3.93. - The exclusive and forced currency system does not even work well enough when confined to a rare metal currency like gold coins and their certificates, not even under the "law of fluctuating gold quantities". For they not only fluctuate in different countries at different times, but the time required, for its "natural" adaptations, may be considerable and, in the meantime, corresponding local currency famines can and do result. Dynamic and negative feed-back factors are involved. Among them and still largely overlooked is the effect of falling prices, as opposed to fallen prices. - The former discourages buyers or induces them to delay purchases. The latter encourages immediate spending. - J.Z., 16.9.02, 28.12.10. - LOCAL SPENDING BY LOCAL PEOPLE FOR LOCAL GOODS & SERVICES? – DIS., PROTECTIONISM, AUTARCHY, VS. CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, MONETARY FREEDOM, BUY AUSTRALIAN, MADE IN GERMANY, AUSTRALIAN MADE.

LOCKE, POLITICS, NATURAL RIGHTS & MORALITY: Locke's radical commitment to universal natural rights and the 'view that politics was indeed but a branch of moral philosophy' accounts for the relatively indifferent response to the "Two Treatises" in the years after their publication ..." - Source unknown. - I would rather have said: "ought to be: than "was" or "is". And if one considers only territorial "solutions" to be possible, then a lot of immoral actions follow from that, all considered as the only possible and realistic "solutions" by those who commit them. Imagine the strife that would result if everyone were compulsorily married to or put into a parental or child position to everyone else. Or, alternatively, if everyone had to eat the meals and wear the clothing and take the consumer goods chosen by someone else. Or, alternatively, if everyone had his private life, his gardening and his interior decoration for his home determined by others. Territorial politics creates similar messes in all too many and all too important spheres. - J.Z. 8.1.93. - TERRITORIALISM

LOG ROLLING: Under no circumstances can we afford to depart from the great principle that we must never abandon our own personality, that we must only strive for the ends in which we ourselves believe, and never consent to enter into combinations, in which we are either used against our convictions, or use others against their convictions. Whenever we descend to “log rolling” – your services to pay for my services (*) – we are lost in a sea of intrigue and corruption, and all true guidance disappears. There is no true guidance of any of us, except in our own best and highest selves (**), in our own personal sense of what is true and right. When that goes, there is little, if anything, worth the saving.” – Auberon Herbert, Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, p.65. - While territorial politics and its compulsory associations do inevitably lead to such compromises. Only exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, under their personal laws, allows them to do their own things, quite independently, for or to themselves and thus lets them learn as fast and effectively as they can, without endless arguments or compromises. – (*) However, there is nothing wrong with free and competitive private clearing. - (**) And in our best and quite voluntary associations with somewhat like-minded people. J.Z., 26.11.07, 28.12.10. - COMPROMISES, POWER POLITICS, PARTY POLITICS, POLITICAL INFLUENCE & ALLIANCES

LOGEMAN, JOHN KORD: How Much Space Does a Man Need?" READERS DIGEST, 9/67, reviews the research of anthropologist Dr. Edward T. Hall on "proxemics" - the study of living in close quarters. This appears to be a rational approach towards the concept of a territorial imperative and shows its close limits. It does not appear to go very much beyond the nesting instinct. - I am reminded of the proverb that says that even the best friends should not try to live together - except when they are separated by a big wall. - Think e.g. of someone snoring close-by. - J.Z. - Within the limits of the nesting and privacy instincts men are "territorial", too. But it over-extends the concept of territorialism to apply it to as limited private locations. Territories usually embrace numerous private living areas. - J.Z., 17.9.04. - TERRITORIALISM

LOGIC: Logic and mathematics are both perfect (more perfect than any other arts) because they are entirely abstract. They have no content whatsoever; they refer to nothing. This has been demonstrated very rigorously a variety of times, in a variety of ways. Godel's Proof shows that no system of symbology, mathematical or logical, is ever complete. Russell and Whitehead in their great Principia Mathematica demonstrated that all mathematical-logical systems must rest upon undefined terms. G. Spencer Brown, in Laws of Form, showed us that the content of abstractions is the abstractions themselves and nothing else. Korzybski, in a sense a popularizer of Russell, Whitehead and Godel, proved that there is not one logic but many logics, by simply producing a second logic different from Aristotle's and showing how an indefinite number of similar logics could be manufactured.” – Robert Anton Wilson, NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, August 21, 1977. – MATHEMATICS\ LOGIC: Logic is in trouble, too. Brouwer denied the universality of the Law of the Excluded Middle (which holds that the universe is either A or not-A, with no maybe). Tarski produced a multi-valued logic, including a maybe. Anatole Rapoport has proposed a four-valued logic, including the true, the false, the indeterminate, and the meaningless. G. Spencer Brown has a three-valued logic (true, false and imaginary) which has been successfully applied to computers and biological systems.” – Robert Anton Wilson, Right Where You Are Sitting Now, p.192/193.

LOMBARDS: 1 In the first half of the eighth century, the Lombards in France were tried according to Lombard law and at least partly by judges who were Alamanns, the latter having once been Lombards and lived under Lombard law.2   - Liu, Exterritoriality, page 29. -  2 Saviguy, op. cit., vol.i, p. 124.

LONG TERM VIEW: For what do you hunger, …? … For a humankind which can make truly long-term decisions. – Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune, p. 69/70. – And correct ones at that. But this must start with individuals and minorities being free to make their kind of decisions, for their own affairs. Among them will be the ones that will be fit even for the whole of mankind and mankind will gradually become fit, one by one, to adopt them. – J.Z., 5..09. - MAN, MANKIND, PANARCHISM, LONGEVITY

LONG, RODERICK T., Anarchy, State, and Mixture, Part I: Six Possibilities. -

LONG, RODERICK T., Defending a Free Nation. -

LONG, RODERICK T., Funding Public Goods: Six Solutions. -

LONG, RODERICK T., Liberty: The Other Equality. - Liberty: The Other Equality - (2005)

LONG, RODERICK T., The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland." FORMULATIONS (1994), (Spring issue), Free Nation Foundation. - - RCBJ.

LONG, RODERICK T., The Solution for Iraq: Toss the State Out the Window. - December 2006. - - Panarchy (i.e. political freedom) or how to get out of the current mess in Iraq. - GPdB, reference in - IRAQ

LONG, RODERICK T., Virtual Cantons: A New Path to Freedom?", 4pp, from FORMULATIONS, FNF, Free Nation Foundation, Autumn 93: 332, in PP 1689-1693. - Roderick T. Long, Virtual Cantons (1993) [English] - Roderick T. Long, Cantoni Virtuali (1993) [Italiano] - Also at: - RCBJ. - in PP 1689-1693.

LONGRIGG, STEPHEN H.: The Middle East, A Social Geography, Gerald Duckworth & Co, London, 1963, 1964, bibl., index, 291pp, JZL. It mentions the millet system on pp 68, 104, 109. – ISRAEL, PALESTINE

LOOPHOLES: Leave liberty at least one loophole. – J.Z. 3.7.73. – If possible, all the loopholes in the world. – The best loophole for individuals would be individual secessionism. The second-best one would be freedom for individuals to associate in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, all representing one or the other supposed ideal. – J.Z., 21.11.07.

LOOPHOLES: Loopholes – mean liberty! – J.Z., 3.2.73. Not all liberties but at least some. The loopholes to all liberties seem to me to be individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. – J.Z., n.d.

LORA, MANUEL, Would You Like Fries With Your Arbitration? -

LOSS OF FREEDOM: the best way to appreciate freedom is to lose it.” - Michael Ivens, Pressure for Conformity. – It may suffice to see next door or nearby some members of a community that does not practise all liberties among its members. It is much more easy and comfortable to learn from the mistakes of others. Thus full freedom for everybody to make mistakes at the own risk and expense, alone or in association with like-minded fanatics, believers or fools. – J.Z., 26.12.07. – FREEDOM OF ACTION FOR ALL, AS A MEANS TO LEARN TO APPRECIATE IT

LOSS OF LIBERTY: It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” - David Hume. – Slice by slice, law by law – liberty gets lost. – J.Z., 26.12.07. – Individual secessionism combined with exterritorially autonomous associationism for volunteers, would apply “salami tactics” to territorial statism, confining it more and more to its remaining and deluded volunteers. – J.Z., 28.12.10. - GRADUALISM, SALAMI TACTICS. GAIN OF LIBERTY, STEP BY STEP, INDIVIDUAL BY INDIVDIUAL.

LOUWE, LEON & KENDALL, FRANCES: South Africa, The Solution, Amagi Publications, Bisho, Ciskei, 1986, 237pp, JZL. - In the main it advocates territorial decentralization on the model of the Swiss cantonal system, combined with economic freedom. But when I heard Kerry Welsh, its US promoter, talk about it to L.A. libertarians, he conceded the possibility of "one man cantons", whereupon many of those present cheered. - Page 212: "There is also official recognition of customary Hindu and Muslim law for those who prefer it." Page 220: "In the black townships each person could choose whether to fall under the tribal system or the European system. In white areas there would be no 'Africanisation' policy. Whites who wanted separate private facilities would not be discouraged, nor would blacks be deprived of their blacks-only football league." Page 223: "... UN Secretary-General Artofon Glalkis... made this statement: "The mistake we all made was to believe that a single political system would solve South Africa's problems. But the solution proved to be many different systems working simultaneously. We thought there should b