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 - P1 (P - People)

(1973 - 2012)



P POTENCIES: P x 6 = PEACE, PROGRESS & PLENTY = PANARCHY, POLYARCHY & PERSONARCHY or: P³ = P³ or 3 P = 3 P = PEACE, PROGRESS & PLENTY = Panarchy, Polyarchy & Personarchy. or: 3 P = 3 P: PANARCHY, POLYARCHY & PERSONARCHY = PEACE, PROGRESS & PLENTY. (Which makes much more sense to me than e.g. Ayn Rand’s A = A.) - Add further P’s, like pluralism, patriotism, practice, private power, popularity?

P. or "CNAIDES", to ZUBE, JOHN: 22.8.1985, 113, 15.10.85, 117, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PEACE PLANS 585, which was digitized like the whole ON PANARCHY sub-series but is not yet online, as far as I know.

P.S. OR STIMULATING QUESTIONS ON PANARCHISM, FREEDOM, PEACE, JUSTICE, PROSPERITY & PROGRESS: Could panarchism or polyarchy or full experimental freedom or exterritorial minority autonomy really lead towards peace, freedom, justice, prosperity & progress for everybody, in our time, and towards all the diverse societies that individuals wish for themselves? Could they release all creative energies? - Check out e.g.: and .- If this is really the case, then this could be the most important message you ever passed on. Please save it and insert it in all your e-mails, to all your contacts, at least once. But first do also check it out yourself and submit your pro and con to at least these sites! You might thus become one of the new "Founding Fathers"! For now you are not committing yourself to more than putting this question to others. - - Optional extras: E.g.: 1.) I checked it out and found the material interesting, 2.) appealing, 3.) challenging, 4.) excellent - or 5.) doubtful but worth checking out more closely. 6.) It did not yet convince me. But what do you think about it? 7.) Add whatever comments you want to add. - - Do your bit for freedom and peace etc., as easily! - John Zube - 18.1.2005. - You may leave out this contact address or add your own, as you please! - See also the file QUESTIONS, and other entries, usually only indicated by Q., ADVERTISING OPTIONS USING EMAIL ADDITIONS, PUBLICITY, SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, JOKES

PACIFICATION, PEACE, DISSENT, RESISTANCE, TERRORISM, CIVIL WAR, WAR, ENEMIES, ALLIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM: Exterritorial autonomy for all dissenters will tend to pacify even your worst enemies and provide you with the benefits of experimental freedom in every sphere in which it has so far remained suppressed by territorial States. – J.Z., n.d.

PACIFISM, WAR, PEACE, WARFARE STATE, A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pacifism - For episodes of pacifism and anti-militarism during the course of the First World War see: The Christmas truce of 1914, at - The "live and let live system" in the trench warfare of 1914-1918, at - - A satirical poem against war (in Roman dialect) is: Trilussa (1914) La ninna nanna de la Guerra - Touching and powerful verses about the insanity of war are in Wilfred Owen (1917-1918) Dulce et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori. - - For other poets and poems on the First World War see: - A poignant novel against the horror of war is: Eric Maria Remarque (1929) All quiet on the Western Front. - From which came the film with the same title by Lewis Milestone (1930) - - Another superb film against war and the criminality of the military elite is: Stanley Kubrick (1957) Paths of Glory - - Needless to say, the circulation of this film was forbidden by the state in France for many years. This is another proof that the state rulers, if they can, will block any frank depiction of the criminal nature of war. - Stanley Kubrick took aim again at the military establishment with his (1964) Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, where criminality and madness are fused in an extraordinary satire on the armed forces and state power. - - About the bomb as a phenomenon of daily life to be accepted as an artefact of popular culture see: Gregory Corso (1958) Bomb. - - Gian Piero de Bellis in: "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - Probably the major problem with all peace writings, films, plays, poems, organizations, protests, demonstrations and actions of pacifists and peace lovers is their lack of sound alternative ideas. - They do see the problem, the horrors, the absurdities, the wrongs, the harm, but not the effective ways out. - J.Z., 26.8.11. – Mostly their minds remain blocked against the real solutions by a great variety of fixed ideas, which are not yet sufficiently refuted in public opinion. Territorialism is one of them. – JZ., 20.1.12. - TERRITORIALISM, WARS ITS CONSEQUENCE, THE MAJOR CAUSE OF WARS, BALANCE OF POWER, ARMS RACE, ENEMIES, FEAR OF OTHER TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS & WHAT THEY MIGHT DO IN THEIR POWER ADDICTION, NATIONALISM, IMPERIALISM, AGGRESSION, DEFENCE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, SEPARATE PEACE, FRATERNIZATION, NEGOTIATIONS & TREATIES BETWEEN SOLDIERS & OFFICER RATHER THAN GOVERNMENTS, MUTINIES, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, REVOLUTIONS, LIBERATION, RESISTANCE.

PACKAGE DEALS FOR GOVERNMENTAL & SOCIETAL SERVICES & PANARCHISM: Constitutions, social contracts and insurance contracts are mostly package deals as opposed to contracts between suppliers and sellers, arranging only for the supply of a single product or service, or a batch of them from self-service store shelves or batches of alternative insurance or protection contracts. Men have long been habituated to getting and paying for package deals with territorial governments and with some insurance companies. The best that could be said for any territorial government is that it is an attempt to provide protection and insurance or the pretence of providing genuine protection, insurance and defence. But territorial governments are least able to fulfill such contracts and do tend to become the worst kinds of exploiters and aggressors. Once individuals, minorities and majorities become free to chose diverse governmental or societal services for themselves, then they will still tend to continue the custom of package deal contracts - but they will make sure that these come much closer to the kinds of deals they really do want for themselves and are able and willing to pay for. These will be supplied by the panarchies (exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers) of their choice. It is conceivable that some will try to live without any such package deal, negotiating for each separate product and service separately with any of many competing suppliers. But that might increase their transaction costs too much. Even ordinary shopping is already a chore. But people might, e.g. negotiate separate package deals e.g. for health, insurance, transport, protection and communication purposes. In which direction development will go in the future is hard to say for sovereign consumers of public services, precisely because their freedom, their choice, is involved. - J.Z., 17.9.04, 20.1.12, 25.6.12.

PAEDOPHILES, HOMOSEXUALS, SADISM, MASOCHISM, DISCRIMINATION, NON-DISCRIMINATION, LIBERTARIANISM & PANARCHISM: This is, obviously, a very controversial subject still and the following is only my present and quite personal viewpoint: Voluntary communities opposed to either sexual activities would not accept or retain such people as members. They would also warn their own members and those of other communities of aggressive homosexuals and pedophiles in their neighborhood, by publicizing black lists and hold them responsible for their victimizing actions. They might even systematically warn all potential victims or their guardians of the risk of association with people whose religion prohibits sexual relations but whose sexual nature does, nevertheless become often expressed in wrongful and secret sexual activities, especially those involving minors. For several years now the mass media have been full of reports on numerous such crimes with victims, often going back for decades, if not for many generations, as "customary" as e.g. on Pitcairn Island, among a very small population. But adult homosexuals, only doing their things for or to themselves would not be their concern - unless they happen to be AIDS carriers and are also engaged in hetero-sexual activities with people who are not members of the homosexual communities. Then, depending upon how high or low they estimate the risk of non-sexual transmission of AIDS to be, they might engage in quarantine measures against members of homosexual communities. Or they might merely shun them or keep them under close observation, warning their potential victims. Class action suits against them would be considered and might be engaged in. When they consider, that they have suffered too much victimization from such groups then they might consider denying them work and residences in their neighbourhood, as they might for e.g. habitual criminals. Even collective responsibility might be considered against those, who appear to be incurable offenders against involuntary victims, under all kinds of excuses or self-rationalizations. They might then consider imprisoning or deporting them. They would certainly not try to keep silent on their presence in a local community or on the remaining other than sexual infection risk from them, however low it might be or might be considered to be and will not concede to all homosexuals equal rights or non-discrimination among the own members. They would not consider such activities as merely a private affair, subject to secrecy of such involvement for members of other communities. The membership lists of all communities would be open to public scrutiny. The various panarchies would have different rules on the age or degree of maturity required for their children to make their own sexual choices and would not simply accept the opinions and preferences of adult pedophiles and homosexuals and the immature preferences of their minor children in this respect as valid. The natural or adoptive parents, not pedophiles and homosexuals, are the guardians of the rights and interests of their children, no matter how much the pedophiles and homosexuals assert that they would really and truly love particular children. In cases of incest, too, the rights of the victims come before the rights of the victimizers. The pedophiles and homosexuals would have their own rules among themselves. But they would also have to allow their children or victims to secede from them and to join other communities, which frown upon both activities. Victim liberation and the victim's choice in every sphere! No immunity, equal rights or recognition for victimizers. Masochism and sado-masochism in such voluntary communities would be tolerated - while in other voluntary communities such practices might be outlawed or simply ignored. Some to most libertarian communities would simply ignore homosexual activities that are not aggressive as private affairs, regardless of the non-sexual infection risks involved until these risks, too, do become intolerably large in the eyes of the beholders. Some would do the same even for pedophile activities, at least after the first puberty signs have appeared. Others would tolerate sexual activities among minors, if they are of a non-coercive type. Antagonism between such groups becomes maximized as long as they are forced to live together under the same territorial system, laws and jurisdictions. People with different attitudes, beliefs, convictions, systems and approaches, in this sphere too, must become free to separate themselves out, according to the preferences of the voluntary participants, allowing, ignoring or shunning those they disagree with and defending themselves against any aggressive actions. If, for instance, the AIDS virus changed and became much more infective, then at least public toilets might have to become separate for AIDS carriers and the others. Or other and more comprehensive hygiene or quarantine measures might then be adopted. By now and in many countries territorial laws and administrations have rather privileged than restrained AIDS carriers, regardless of the wishes of those they might somehow endanger, even non-sexually (e.g. via toilet seats, spittle, breath, mosquitoes) all under the excuse of "non-discrimination" or that the otherwise involved costs would be too large, e.g. for different prisons, schools or hospital sections and ignoring the right of individuals, especially of parents, to discriminate in favr of the rights of their children. Maximum tolerance for rightful and harmless actions. Minimum tolerance for wrongful and harmful actions! - Will the padophiles, homosexuals, AIDS victims or fundamentalist Christian or Islamic homophobes now put out a contract on me, as being either too intolerant or not tolerant enough? - J.Z., 15.10.04.

PAK, H. M., Effective Competition, Institutional Choice, and Economic Development of Imperial China. 1995. KYKLOS 48: 87-103. - Mentioned as reference by Bruno S. Frey.


PALMER, TOM G., Liberalism: Cosmopolitan or Nationalist? 3pp, from: HUMANE STUDIES REVIEW, 10/2, Spring 1996: 324, in PP 1689-1693. (False alternatives! Both - and much more - but only for those who like them! - J.Z.)

PAN-ANARCHISM: Pan-anarchism proclaims universal statelessness, cosmic anarchy, anarchy everywhere. - Pan-Anarchist Manifesto, in Paul Avrich, The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, p.50. - That is exactly what is wrong with most anarchist credos. Such an aim would be rightful only if all people, everywhere and at all times were anarchists. Towards the vast majority of people, who are archists (statists), it is merely a provocation, if not a declaration of war. An aim like: Any form of anarchism for anarchists and any form of statism for archists, would not similarly provoke those who disagree with the anarchists or the statists. On the contrary, it could appeal to many dissenting minority groups among them and could lead to common liberation efforts with them, even, lastly, to the liberation of establishment people from all their dissenters. -Traditionalist governments would usually only be all too glad to lose all their "trouble-makers" or those whom they consider to be fools, utopians, quacks or extremists. - J.Z. 19.6.92, 6.1.93, 17.9.04, 25.6.12. J.Z.,

PAN-COMMUNITIES: Voluntary communities under personal laws, not confined by territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and institutions, covering all countries, continents and the world, intermixed, overlapping and yet separate from each other, like the various churches and sects are. - J.Z., 19.9.04.

PANARCHIES & A WORLD OF YOUR OWN: You are lucky. You are in the best place. A world of your own.” – from the TV series: The Bill. – Like many dreams of ideals, the popular and all too general one of “a world of one’s own”, does not contain the steps towards its full realization. Individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy and voluntary State and community membership and the resulting "personal law" are among the most necessary steps towards this popular ideal – but are still very far from being recognized as such. – J.Z., 9.1.99.

PANARCHIES & CHANGE: Panarchies, to achieve non-disruptive change - change unaccompanied by wrenching social disruption and widespread human misery." - Willis W. Harman, "TRANSNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES", No. 3, 1988, p. 16. - ONE MAN REVOLUTIONS.

PANARCHIES & FREE ENTERPRISES: Panarchies are the free enterprises or various cooperatives, partnerships or self-management enterprises of various idealists regarding public affairs and panarchism constitutes the free market of politics, even for ideological opponents of free enterprises and free markets. - J.Z., 20.6.92, 7.9.04, 17.9.04.

PANARCHIES & GOVERNMENTS: Neither all governments nor all Panarchies are alike. Both can have all forms for their voluntary members. But with the significant difference, that only territorial governments do impose all their forms wrongfully also upon all of their involuntary members and subjects. - J. Z., 24.2.1999, 7.9.04.

PANARCHIES & ONE-PARTY STATES: One-party-states, too, - but ONLY for one-party-statists! - J.Z., 28.5.95, 7.9.04.

PANARCHIES & ORDER: For in fact we are able to bring about an ordering of the unknown only by causing it to order itself". – (Hayek?) Territorial States are, by definition, imposed systems, at least as far as their numerous and diverse dissenters are concerned, who live in the same territories and are subjected to the same constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. Thus they are the roads to chaos, to oppression, exploitation, monopolies, wars, civil wars, revolutions, terrorism and poverty. - In natural science, too, progress is obtained not by imposed but freely chosen and conducted experiments. No one can rightfully and effectively control and release the creative energies of any other adult and rational individual than himself. – J.Z., 7.1.99. Rev. 8.12.03. – Again a too general statement. A deck of playing cards, arranged in an unknown order, if dropped, will not automatically arrange itself in what we would call an orderly system. Did he have only somewhat rational beings in minds or those which are largely instinct driven? – J.Z., 27.11.11, 25.6.12. - SELF-ORDERING SYSTEMS, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDEPENDENCE, UTOPISM, FREE SOCIETIES, IDEALS, DEVELOPMENT, VS. CENTRALIZED & IMPOSED PLANNING & DIRECTION OR DICTOCRACIES

PANARCHIES & POLITICS: Panarchies would reduce all politics to that of voluntary institutions and actions. That would automatically abolish the present victimization of millions of involuntary subjects. – Considering that even most of the temporary majorities (coalitions) are made up of minorities, the total number of the members of all minority groups, who would greatly benefit from exterritorial and full minority autonomy, could well amount to the majority of all the subjects of the present territorial States. – J.Z., 20.5.98, 9.1.99.

PANARCHIES & QUICK & EASY FIXES: While panarchism, once widely realized, would be a quick fix for many major remaining evils, everywhere, there appears to be no quick fix for making most people aware of and appreciative of the potential of panarchism to help them in their rightful aspirations and to quickly spread the theory and practice of panarchism. Maybe the publication of many to all panarchistic texts, their abstracts, a bibliography, their reviews and an index to all of them, on the Internet and or on CDs, DVDs and an external HD containing ALL freedom texts, would help, together with FAQs and discussion and newsgroups on this subject. A comprehensive libertarian library, abstracts and review collection, encyclopedia, directory, ideas archive, collection of “argument maps” and a listing of all libertarian projects on a website would help. That remains to be seen. My own collection of panarchistic texts, correspondence and notes, on microfiche and in my PEACE PLANS series ON PANARCHY, has not yet proven to be “the better mousetrap” and  “the path” to it. – Perhaps a questionnaire could help?  It might put up a dozen or several dozen questions like the following:  Do you know a territorial solution to the problem of involuntary mass unemployment, inflation, poverty, war, civil war and terrorism? Have you considered the exterritorial alternative options for solutions?  - J.Z., 25.11.93, 9.1.99. Are you opposed to others experimenting with possible solutions, if they would so at their own risk and expense? - J.Z., 8.12.03. - An ideas archive would, naturally, be a great help, so would the wide-spread practise of  flow chart discussions and the establishment of an encyclopaedia of the best refutations, a complete abstracts and review collection and a directory of libertarians indicating their special intersts. – J.Z., 9.1.99, 20.1.12. - START-UPS, QUESTIONNAIRE, QUESTIONS (Q.), IDEAS ARCHIVE, LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY, FREEDOM LIBRARY, NEW DRAFT (My 2010 digitized book.)

PANARCHIES & RELIGIOUS HIERARCHIES: Why should we tolerate our domination by any economic system or any political or social system by any territorial political hierarchy - any more than our domination by any religious hierarchy or exclusive State church? Freedom for dissenters and non-conformists in every respect. But freedom also for those who do not want to conform with the systems of dissenters and non-conformists. – J.Z., 25.11.93. – Another and shorter version: Why should we tolerate political hierarchies any more than religious ones? Why should we allow any government, which has not our individual consent for this, to impose any economic, political or social system upon us? – J.Z., 25.11.93, 9.1.99.Q.

PANARCHIES & SEPARATION OF POWERS: Panarchies mean the maximum separation of powers, via individual sovereignty, expressed in individual and group secessionism, towards all territorial States and their territorial powers. Territorial sovereignty and powers do imply compulsory membership and subjugation, compulsory taxes and exclusive rule, unlimited sovereignty, including the power to wage aggressive wars and a monopoly for negotiating alliances and peace treaties. They have led to monetary and financial despotism, with mass unemployment, inflations and stagflations and corresponding impoverishment as a result. They have been massive obstacles to rapid growth and development. They have confined us to their own and all too limited and inefficient, also all too costly and slow (because they are territorial) political self-correction means, misnamed "democratic" or "republican". We would laugh about them if we attempted to apply such territorial, political and monopolistic methods in technology, science, the arts and in our private lifestyles. However, so far we were conditioned to believe that in politics, war and revolutions, government-made and government-maintained crises,  anything goes, no matter how absurd, abusive, wrong and costly. Territorial politics and its consequences can be humanized and abolished only by taking the territorialist coercion and monopoly out of it: by introducing individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and minority autonomy and by a kind of international law that is based on individual sovereignty, individual rights and liberties, to the extent that free individuals want to claim them for themselves. - J.Z., 11.11.91, 13.1.93, 7.9.04. - TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHIES & SPORTS CLUBS: Different political, economic and social systems can peacefully coexist for their voluntary supporters in the same way as can e.g. the diverse sports clubs, hobby and craft groups, all peacefully doing their own things. – J.Z., 12.1.99.

PANARCHIES & STATES: A government from which all dissenters, who are peaceful, i.e., non-invasive and non-criminal citizens, can freely secede (to do their own things for or to themselves, at their own expense and risk), is by definition not a monopolistic, territorial and coercive government (one imposing a constitution, laws, jurisdiction and police and penal system). Then it is reduced to being a voluntary association, one that is only exterritorially autonomous rather than territorially sovereign. Such a competing government's flaws should not be mixed up with those of most of the existing governments, that is, with all but e.g. the Vatican and the Order of the Maltese. In other words, not all the numerous flaws inherent in territorial governments, whether these are dictatorial, republican or democratic, should be automatically ascribed to Panarchies.  Panarchies would greatly differ from all those territorial States aptly described as Warfare States and this merely by their voluntary nature and confinement to exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. - J. Z., 1.1.1999. – COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, STATES OF VOLUNTEERS ONLY, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHIES & THE MARKET: the conception of a self-organizing structure began to dawn upon mankind, and has since become the basis for our understanding of all those complex orders which had, until then, appeared as miracles that could be brought about only by some super-human version of what man knew as his own mind.” – Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, 47, in discussing the market. -  Alas, free contracts, consumer sovereignty, free exchange, voluntary associationism, exterritorial autonomy and individual secessionism, the bundle of very basic liberties here called “panarchism”, was NOT favored by Hayek in the sphere which he wanted to be retained as the exclusive hunting preserve for what he called constitutional governments. He remained an advocate of "limited" government, although their application to a whole territory was to be unlimited. In that respect his limited governments were also totalitarian, without constitutional authority from each and everyone of their subjects. Panarchistic governments or societies, which are only exterritorially autonomous and subject to non-territorial individual and group secessionism and competition, within the same territory and also world-wide, are similar to private business enterprises, from the smallest to the largest international corporations. They grow, stagnate or decline subject to individual free choices.  Their laws are individually accepted rules or personal laws. They have no involuntary subjects, apart from criminals, who had infringed the rights and liberties of the the own communities of of voluntary members of other communities of volunteers.  They are the main kinds of organizations for our times upon which just, free, peaceful, prosperous, progressive and secure societies can be founded. They are bound to advance, for the benefit of their members, like competing free enterprises – unless they make too many mistakes and thus lose members and customers and finally disappear or shrink to harmless proportions. - J.Z., n.d. - The need for some deterrent examples will, probably, always remain - for "each new generation is like a new invasion of barbarians". - J.Z., 7.9.04, 18.9.04, 20.1.12.

PANARCHIES & THE SEPARATION OF POWERS: The former territorial State powers would not merely be separated into the usual three branches, all of them still all too powerful and insufficiently separated. Instead, the present exclusive territorial powers would be abolished. What would remain would become divided many competitors, all only with voluntary support and exterritorial autonomy or under personal law. Whether the former division of powers or any other or none would be practised within each of the resulting and freely competing panarchies, that would be up to their voluntary members and the constitution they agree upon. Already with the first freely seceding panarchist the former territorial government would be transformed into a panarchy itself, for the remaining members, as long as they remain, while free to secede. They must then be considered as volunteers, too and the powers of the former territorial government are then confined to these, its voluntary victims, as long as they prefer not also secede from the remaining non-territorial rump of the former territorial government. - J.Z., 11.12.03, 7.9.04, 25.6.12.

PANARCHIES & THEIR PACKAGE DEALS: Panarchies would, as a rule, offer wanted package deals of political, economic and social services to their voluntary members and taxpayers, their sovereign consumers. However, some panarchies might only offer a single insurance or protection service to their members, because they do not want any other, e.g. only a militia service or an ideal jury system or an ideal arbitration system. In these cases the difference between a free enterprise or voluntary and competitive corporation service and a government service would disappear. While most people are still statists and accustomed to package deals embracing quite a number of "public services", offered by the same monopolistic dealer, a kind of territorial State Socialism always results, even when most of their subjects are anti-communists. I imagine that most individuals, once freed from their ties to this monopolistic and territorial dealer, will still make package deals for themselves, with their preferred provider. Only gradually will they opt out of more and more of these service deals from single suppliers and adopt more and more market relationships, i.e. free trades for various services from more specialized and competitive suppliers. In other words, their remaining and more or less limited governments will become more and more limited. - Compare the prolonged existence of the Catholic Church, even in the face of competition from atheists, agnostics, rationalists, free thinkers and humanists. It does not persecute and exterminate heretics any more und stands up as defender even of the unborn. - Are quite individualistic and enlightened world-views, philosophies and their radical practices to be expected immediately or very soon? The speed of individual enlightenment will probably be maximized by panarchistic membership and experimentation, as it was by religious liberty. -J.Z., 13.1.93. - But among the masses it might still proceed only rather slowly. However, package deals do have their economic attractions, like special discounts for good customers. They would appeal to gurus, prophets and other "great leaders" and their followers. - J.Z., 10.12.03, 7.9.04, 18.9.04.

PANARCHIES AS SCHOOLS OF LIVING: The capacity of man for misunderstanding man appears to be almost unlimited. All the greater is the importance of personal political and economic independence, including full exterritorial autonomy, for the individual and for the volunteer communities of free individuals. Or consumer sovereignty, free enterprise, free markets, free competition, free pricing, freedom of contract, freedom of association and disassociation, or freedom to experiment, even when it comes to whole governance, society and community services. One learns better from the own mistakes, suffered only by oneself, than from the mistakes made by others. When one was free to act autonomously and among like-minded people only, then one will be much less inclined to lay blame for the own mistakes upon non-members or outsiders, strangers, aliens or foreigners and more inclined to accept the responsibility for them oneself. - J.Z., Feb. 88, 3.4.89, 7.9.04. – A Nazi community would not contain any Jews and a Soviet community would not contain any private capitalists. Thus they could hardly blame Jews and Capitalists for their the results of their remaining own errors, mistakes and prejudices and the consequences of of them through their own corresponding “policies”, programs, platforms, plans and actions, except, perhaps, blaming the weather for bad harvests, like the Soviets often did. Then they would have to find “scape-goats” within their own ranks and in the flaws of their own beliefs, their own false assumptions and conclusions. Facts are hard to argue with. – J.Z., 20.1.12, 26.6.12. -  SELF-RESPONSIBILITY RATHER THAN BLAMING OTHERS

PANARCHIES EVEN FOR NAZIS & SOVIETS? Among their small numbers of volunteers, all “true believers” or followers and exterritorially and autonomously organized, acting only among themselves, i.e. without victimizing any dissenters, who are not their members, i.e. acting undisturbed (without providing them with any "martyrs"), even Nazis could get finally act out of their systems e.g., their leadership and followership urges, their racist and conspiracy spleens, their myth of being chosen people, their power and strength notions, their discipline and subordination and obedience prejudices, their command economy notions and, thereby and gradually, almost everything that so far made them aggressive against outsiders - and also their ways of "thinking" or, rather, merely irrationally reacting, in many if not in most cases, sooner or later. However, I would not trust them far enough to allow them to own and bear arms, train and organize themselves in their use - until they have rehabilitated themselves by acting self-responsibly only, at their own risk and expense. I.e., I would put them, at most, “on parole”. In fully free competition, practised all around them, by other panarchists, they would soon and obviously be outdone in almost every sphere by others and would thus tend to develop rather an inferiority complex than a superiority complex. (They would tend to reveal themselves as “Untermenschen” or below the average people, rather than as “Herrenmenschen”, leadership types, pioneers, innovators, genuine revolutionaries. Their ideologies would be revealed as being, mostly, only “crap”. Mere persuasion attempts will not convert these true believers. But let THEM suffer, them exclusively, under their own beliefs, that might do the trick for them and other totalitarians or "fundamentalists". - J.Z., 25.5.89, 10.10.89. - How could they go on, e.g., blaming "the Jews", "the Gypsies", the "international plutocratic conspirators" etc., when there would not be a single one left among them, all having defected to free societies, and all the internal actions of the Nazis or Soviets were quite free regarding their own affairs and the consequences of their own actions could only be blamed on their own decisions? - J.Z., 19.9.04, 20.1.12, 26.6.12. – Q., TOTALITARIANS, TRUE BELIEVERS, COMMUNISTS, ANTI-CAPITALISTS, LEADERSHIP, FOLLOWERS

PANARCHIES OR POLYARCHIES VS. STATES & STATISM: Replacing territorial States with compulsory membership, i.e., domination by a few and subordination for the many, a collective and territorial sovereignty of abstracts like "the nation", "the people", "the country" or "the government" - by communities of volunteers, with local to country-wide or even world-wide membership, all fully autonomous and under personal laws, all as free or as unfree as they want to be, but all only exterritorially (an-territorially, a-territorially, panarchistically, polyarchically etc.) autonomous, i.e. without any territorial monopoly (apart from their privately or cooperatively owned real estate). - J.Z., 15.10.04, 20.1.12, 26.6.12.

PANARCHIES VS. BUREAUCRACIES: Bureaucracies are beautiful mechanisms for the evasion of responsibility and guilt." - Warren Bennis, quoted my M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.211. - Panarchies are beautiful mechanisms for the assumption of individual and voluntary group responsibility. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 20.1.12. -  Why? They would have only voluntary subjects and their systems would be confined to exterritorial autonomy and quite exposed to free competition from many other panarchies. All would thus be given their best chance to succeed or to fail, purely on their own merits or because of their own flaws or mistakes in their thinking, ideas, opinions, corresponding actions and institutions, freely operating in their own affairs. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 20.1.12, 26.6.12.

PANARCHIES VS. CONVENTIONAL DEMOCRACIES:  Democracies decide and act also for or against involuntary members, while  panarchies act only for or against the genuine rights and liberties as well as the interests of their own volunteers. - J.Z., 28.3.89, 31.3.89. - Thus only panarchies do fully apply the self-government, self-determination, self-responsibility and independence for all people, which was intended to be established by territorial democracies and republics but never sufficiently achieved by them. – Not to speak of all the other and even worse territorial regimes. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 26.6.12. – PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY, REPUBLICS, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT OR SELF-DETERMINATION

PANARCHIES VS. CONVENTIONAL POLITICS: Why play negative sum games when positive sum games are available?" - J. Neil Shulman, "Alongside Night", p. 221. - Why play the negative sum games of conventional territorial politics when positive sum games exterritorially autonomous panarchies are possible all - only for their volunteers? - J.Z., 4.7.89, 26.6.12. – TERRITORIALISM, POWER GAMES, MONOPOLISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHIES VS. STATES: An Extract from PEACE PLANS 870: File: pantcl05.mor - FURTHER PANARCHIST NOTES FROM AND TO THE CONNECTION, No. 105, of 24 July 1982. - It is not really worth taking any criticism of panarchism serious when it does not even see the fundamental differences between States and Panarchies, i.e. when it ignores the differences between: a) compulsory membership and subordination on the one side and and voluntary membership and subordination or voluntary membership in non-hierarchical organizations on the other side, - b) territorial organizations and exterritorial ones, - c) imposed territorial constitutions, laws, courts and their voluntarily chosen alternatives, - d) States that outlaw individual secession and Panarchies that are based on it and encourage it, - e) organizations that concentrate, in practice, in spite of all talk of "national" sovereignty, all their sovereignty in one or a few persons and organizations based on territorially collective instead of individual sovereignty, voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy or personal law, - f) organizations that permit a minority or a majority to dominate all others and organizations that organize full autonomy for all, even the smallest minorities, as well as for majorities and for any other kind of governmental or free society arrangements that find voluntary supporters, - g) organizations that more or less establish a command economy, based on numerous monopolies, especially those of monetary and financial despotism and those that are inherently based on Free Trade, including e.g. monetary and financial freedom or as many internal economic liberties and rights as their voluntary members already do understand and want to apply among themselves, - h) organizations that establish and perpetuate central banking and those that would permit any kind of free banking alternative among their supporters, - i) organizations which impose taxes on unwilling taxpayers and organizations that would charge or collect levies only from their volunteers, - j) organizations that more or less centralize power territorially, in federations, member States and local governments and those which maximize decentralization by extending it to exterritoriality for sovereign individuals and their voluntary minority groupings, - k) organizations that monopolize arms and military organization and training and those that try to encourage all decent citizens to arm, train and organize themselves for the protection of their individual rights and liberties, - l) organizations that produce, keep in readiness and target mass extermination devices and those which have no need for such weapons because they have no targets, motives, means, or protection for them against their destruction by the targeted victims on all sides, - m) organizations that put the fate of millions into the hands of a few powerful decision-makers and supposed experts instead of allowing each and everyone - possessing a minimum of rationality - to make all the fundamental choices of their own life either directly themselves or get them made exclusively by those whom they do personally trust and as long as they do, - n) organizations that merely offer hierarchical and more or less centralized governments and organizational frameworks that would even permit e.g. all kinds of anarchic or libertarian communities to be realized as well – but only among those who prefer them. - - These are just some of many aspects and differences that critics ought to pay attention to if they want to be able to say something worthwhile on the subject. [Many others are shortly mentioned in this alphabetized compilation.] Beyond that, they must also be able to extrapolate from the consequences of such differences. They must be able to recognize historical precedents for such fundamental organizational changes and have to become aware of at least some of the steps and plans for the transition period, which have been so far suggested or advanced. - - If they do not pay any attention to such details then they are like the many literary critics, who judge a book by its cover, and a play or film by its name. - Although I penned this critical note of critics of panarchism while having in mind the criticism of Diogenes "of Panarchia" in TC 92 p 44, I am convinced that it applies to most of the other criticism of panarchism that I have seen in THE CONNECTION or heard or seen otherwise. - J.Z. – However, all the questions, doubts, objections and refutation attempts should still be systematically collected, ordered or simply alphabetized and then confronted with their best refutations. Then one will no longer have to answer each newly arising doubt or objection individually but could simply refer to that reference work or its particular section. The own memory or recall capacity is, usually all to limited, also one’s own reading. – J.Z., 12.1.12, 26.6.12.

PANARCHIES VS. TERRITORIAL STATES: Panarchies can be changed, established, improved and gradually destroyed or deserted by individual action, simply by individuals making use of their individual sovereignty through founding, joining or leaving them, or threatening to leave them until their reform proposals are given a fair hearing or trial. In territorial States the influence of most individual members or subjects, unless they manage to get hold of powerful positions, is, usually, reduced to close to zero. For panarchies gradualist changes are quite natural. For territorial States landslide changes in the voting pattern or even wars, civil wars and revolutions are required to achieve changes. Their parliaments, as mere talk-shops or centers for central planning and direction, have largely failed and have been productive only of a superfluity of wrongful laws, regulations and offices. Thus even democracies have bred terrorists and violent revolutionaries. - J.Z., 11.12.03, 26.6.12. – TERRITORIALISM, PARLIAMENTARISM, DEMOCRACY

PANARCHIES VS. TERRITORIAL STATES: Voluntary vs. compulsory membership. Exterritorialism vs. territorialism. Autonomy of individuals and groups, based upon individual sovereignty, vs. geographical sovereignty, in practice that of a few. Individual secessionism vs. geographical secessionism or compulsory territorial unity. Voluntary, i.e., individualistic federalism vs. geographical and collectivist federalism. - J.Z., n.d.

PANARCHIES WOULD RELEASE THE REMAINING CREATIVE ENERGIES THAT TERRITORIALISM HAS KEPT SUPPRESSED FOR MOST PEOPLE:  Its experimental freedom, based upon unanimous consent to every experiment, would tend to explore, between all such experiments and as rapidly as possible, all solutions offered to the remaining political, economic and social problems, trying all of them out but always only among their voluntary supporters. Thousands of such experiments would take place at the same time in the world and at least some of them would be successful and nothing would then obstruct the adoption of their successes by other panarchies. In each country and in the world, there would be as many different experimental, freely competing experiments in governance, societies and commmunities as volunteers want to set up and conduct among themselves. – I doubt that fans of nuclear weapons and reactors could prove to others that their experiments would not endanger others. - All genuine individual rights and liberties for all willing to claim them for their lives and communities, instead of only those which territorial governments, in their “bills of rights”  are prepared to grant their subjects. – J.Z., n.d., 12.1.99, 20.1.12, 26.6.12. - EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREE ENTERPRISE, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, CONTRACT & SELF-DETERMINATION OR SELF-RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERY SPHERE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & SECESSIONISM

PANARCHIES, CHARACTERISTICS: INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SECESSION & PANARCHISM: From individual sovereignty follow, at least to me, quite logically and inseparately: 1. individual secessionism, 2. voluntary associationism, 3. minority autonomy, 4. exterritoriality or non-territoriality for voluntary associations, 5. a free competition between a great variety of different governmental and non-governmental societies, 6. freedom of action and experimental freedom in all spheres - at the expense and risk of the voluntary participants, 7. the possibility of peaceful coexistence of the most diverse forms of human association in the same territory, 8. the abolition of all coercive and artificial monopolies, 9. ultimate decentralization and centralization options, by individual choice, 10. the abolition of all compulsory membership rules, even for States, armed forces and trade and professional unions, 11. the abolition of (the ??) (public debt, conscription and of compulsory taxation?), 12. the settlement of "international" disputes between exterritorial, autonomous protective associations of volunteers on the basis of natural law, individual rights and international law rules and institutions based upon them, 13. the confinement of all protection efforts to those rights and liberties only that are actually claimed by the voluntary members of an exterritorial and autonomous protective community (or Panarchy, or Competing Government, or Polyarchy or  Multi-Government, etc.), with the option to claim more or all of them always remaining, 14. the realization there is no single and uniform kind of society that is suitable for all human beings, 15. that the greatest possible variety and autonomy of human societies and actions, in all creative spheres, is not only rightful but necessary for the full development of individuals and societies to their maximum potential, 16. that the release of all creative energies and the reduction of all destructive human activities requires this reorganization. (At point 11 a break occurred and the parts got separated, with some words being lost. - J.Z., 7.9.04.) - -  What is still a riddle to me is: Why do not most others, especially anarchists and libertarians, who should be, essentially, individualists and voluntarists and thorough enough anti-statists, see these and related connections? Why do they get side-tracked by notions of small, decentralized, independent territories, in which territorial coercion and monopolies are not challenged, or of a single and supposedly ideal form of society for all people, in all their varieties, by notions of imposed equality, rather than self-chosen inequality, or “equality” only through individual consent or voluntarism? Why do some remain  dominated by their antagonism to private property, even if practised only among volunteers (capitalism among consenting adults), while other volunteers could make other arrangements among themselves? Why do they remain subject to their delusions of the territorial State as protector of property or of persons - in spite of taxation and other thefts of property? Why do they remain stuck on vague to absolutist notions of still territorial and thus exclusive and domineering sovereignty, centralized or federally decentralized, under coercively financed governments, that would have compulsory citizenship-subjugation and exclusive legislation, administration, jurisdiction, policing and defence powers in "their" territories, but which are, nevertheless, supposed to be so limited that they would be ideal and acceptable to all? What would it take to defeat such remaining statist notions of territorial uniformity, equality, law, order? - When will the advocates of spontaneous order, a superior and perhaps the only kind of true order that is possible, from Adam Smith's "invisible hand", over Proudhon's "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order", to Hayek's notions of spontaneous order in essential human relationships, which cannot be successfully replaced by a planned or designed order systems, finally extend their limited government notions to the worst threat to mankind, the organization of territorial, exclusive and coercive governments, however limited they may be otherwise? In this respect they are still unlimited, authoritarian, despotic and even totalitarian governments. Adma Smith favored at least much laissez faire in economics. Proudhon was at least in general terms in favor of dissolving States by contracts. But Hayekians are still addicted to the exclusive and territorial State model for politics, defence, courts and police and merely want to reform its constitution. And most of the anarchists and libertarians just want more of the same territorialism or absolutism - but on a smaller scale and under other labels, notions and “ideals”. – J.Z., 10.10.89, 18. 9.04, 26.6.12. – Q., TERRITORIALISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENTS, DECENTRALIZATION

PANARCHIES, ENTERTAINMENT & EDUCATIONAL VALUE: The personal law and panarchies of others around us would be like a free-of-charge, almost omnipresent and greatly varied street theatre entertainment - while certain utopian antics of one's own would provide free entertainment and instruction to others. One could expect that in such a situation at least some would even practice or be instructed by model performances. - J.Z., 27.2.89, 3.4.89, 20.1.12.

PANARCHIES, LIBERTARIANISM, DISINTEREST IN LIBERTARIAN IDEAS & TEXTS: Like in friendships and loves, as well as in professional and hobby associations, people commit themselves only to a few ideas, even to a few freedom ideas only, never minding either their remaining flaws nor all the other freedom ideas which they have not yet chosen for themselves and may continue to ignore for the rest of their lives. They busy themselves with their present associations, activities and relations and their present (usually all too small) stock of reform or freedom ideas and texts - and ignore the armies (alas, unorganized, untrained, under-equipped and all too much out of touch) of other libertarian talents and the avalanches of libertarian ideas and writings. (Even the Internet and personal libertarian websites have not yet sufficiently broken down the isolation of all too many libertarians.) They do not even systematically collect all freedom ideas and texts and try to publish them cheaply and permanently in alternative media, but ignore many of their alternative media options, although basic rights and freedom opportunities like freedom of information and expression are involved. They would be much less likely to continue this incomplete involvement with liberty - if the adherents of alternative ideas were free to demonstrate them in their own panarchies. Then we might get more or less objective surveys of all existing panarchistic experiments, like we do get now reports for e.g. sporting and cinema events and daily reports on the movement of the great variety of securities and business enterprises. Libertarian newsletters would not be largely filled with trivial or minor happenings and attempts. - - Full liberty would be, at least initially, and perhaps for a long time, the choice of a small minority only. More people would adopt for themselves, in their own panarchies, selected batches of liberty, gradually adding to them. Full liberty is still so unpopular that it should perhaps be advocated as a fool's liberty, which it would be, in the opinions of the majority of statists. Moreover, in this form full liberty would be felt as much less threatening to those who doubt it. - J.Z., 14.8.98, 26.6.01, 26.6.12.

PANARCHIES, MILITIAS, ARBITRATION: To the extent that the territorial State has developed, it has done so as a parasitic growth upon society, a growth which has almost suffocated the free society which is based upon voluntary cooperation and exchange. The same applies to the State's military forces. A society based upon exterritorial and autonomous Panarchies (formed by volunteers and supported by free local militias for the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties, and their international federations), can be expected to form symbiotic relationships that do not depend upon compulsory membership and financial support. They can also be sufficiently self-policing via individual secessionism, associationism and voluntary contributions, combined with arbitration arrangements and recognition for individual rights (at least to the extent that these are claimed by others). - J.Z., 17.9.87, 1.4.89. – Alas, even all the genuine individual rights and liberties have still to be systematically collected and optimally worded and published as a precondition for an ideal militia and the peaceful coexistence of diverse societies and communities of volunteers. In all too many spheres governments and their subjects are still as ignorant, prejudiced and intolerant as they once were and in some countries still are, in the sphere of religion and the relationship between the sexes. The potential leverage of such a declaration remains still to be produced. – Anarchists and libertarians have still left many enlightenment and preparatory jobs undone and have not even published online a common projects list to achieve all the international cooperation and information exchange that would be required to promote each of these projects as fast as possible. The free marketeers have omitted the establishment of many special “free markets” that are still urgently needed for the success of their movement, namely the achievement of libertarianism for libertarians, anarchism for anarchists and any form of statism also only for these statists, always, for all of them, without a territorial monopoly. - J.Z., 20.1.12. – HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, MILITIA FOR THEIR PROTECTION, NEW DRAFT (my digitized 2010 manuscript.)

PANARCHIES, REACTION & PROGRESS: Although panarchies are voluntary and exterritorial experiments and their members and outside observers will tend to learn more from these self-responsible experiments than rulers and subjects of territorial States tend to learn from their territorial monopoly experiments, there will continue to exist, for a long time, many panarchies, which will practice under-informed and prejudiced programs among their voluntary members,  which will do them more harm than good and that infringe many of the genuine individual rights and liberties that remain unknown or unappreciated and thus unclaimed and unrealized among them. Only time will gradually tend to heal these flaws by disappointed individuals separating themselves from them. - J.Z. 18.12.92. 4.1.93. - Compare e.g., how long price-, wage- and rent-controls persisted, although they always had the predictable bad results. - J.Z., 18.9.04.

PANARCHIES: Geographisch miteinander verschachtelt und doch individuell und in Freiwilligengruppen ganz getrennte Regierungen, ihre Buerger und freie Gesellschaften, eingefuehrt und erhalten durch den freiwilligen und individuellen Austritt und Eintritt, verbunden mit der exterritorialen Autonomie fuer Gemeinschaften von Freiwilligen. - J.Z., 24.9.90, 10.1.93. (Geographically completely mingled and yet individually and in volunteer groups completely separated governments, their citizens and free societies, introduced and maintained through voluntary and individual secession and free entry.)

PANARCHIES: Panarchies are no impositions upon anyone but just extremely liberal and at the same time moral and utilitarian frameworks for everyone's favorite options. They allow everyone's options to be tolerantly and freely practised, among volunteers, on the basis of exterritorial autonomy, i.e. without interference by dissenters, who would anyhow tend to be busy with doing their own things to and for themselves. - J.Z., 20.6.92, 5.1.93.

PANARCHIES: Panarchies are to supply, in a competitive way, the kind of services or disservices that most people now expect from exclusive, coercive and territorial governments, with the difference, that panarchies would supply them only to and at the expense of volunteers, their own voluntary members. Naturally, panarchies are not meant to replace all other voluntary associations but to supplement them, especially in the political, economic and social sphere. They are to do away only with the exclusive, coercive and territorial characteristics of State organizations. - J.Z. 17.2.88.

PANARCHIES: Panarchies maximize minority autonomy and guaranty autonomy for majorities as well. - J.Z., 2 June 89, 4 July 89.

PANARCHIES: Panarchies may go from single function panarchies, providing e.g. competitive police agencies, to multi-function package-deal panarchies or private welfare and insurance establishments, with limited government services somewhere in-between. For all of them their autonomous and exterritorial status and their voluntary membership, ensured not only by freedom to join or establish them, but also individual liberty to secede from them, are the basic characteristic, not the number of and the kind of functions they may want to practise among their members and for some of their outside voluntary customers and clients. - J.Z., 31.10.91., 13.1.93.

PANARCHIES: Panarchies, as defined by P. E. de Puydt, in "Panarchie", REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE, Bruxelles, July 1860, are communities of volunteers that are exterritorially autonomous and live under personal laws rather than territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. - J.Z., n.d. - DEFINITIONS

PANARCHIES: They apply the principle of religious liberty or religious tolerance, as well as the principle of scientific and technological experimentation and of private independent actions - in the political, economic and social spheres, rightfully and consistently and with the same peace-, freedom-, justice-, progress- and prosperity-promoting effects. - J.Z., n.d. & 20.1.12.,

PANARCHIES: They make it possible for each sufficiently rational being to achieve or join the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams, i.e., free individual choice, but always only at the own expense and risk, i.e., without suppressing or exploiting peaceful dissenters, who will also be free to do their own things. - J.Z., n.d. & 26.6.12.

PANARCHIES: What is not meant here under this term, is e.g. the definition of Ralph Borsodi. – He misinterpreted the term as an all-embracing governmentalism, ultimately covering the whole world population.  – All the correct definitions of the term, all the misunderstandings and abuses of it, have still to be systematically combined and  published, as well as amended, corrected or refuted, to the extent that this is necessary. The same applies to all the many related terms. – J.Z., 20.1.12. – NAMES, TERMS, DIS., DEFINITIONS, EXPLANATIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS & ABUSES OF THE TERM

PANARCHISM & ADDICTION TO FREEDOM: Freedom can be turned into an addictive "drug", or an infective enthusiasm, but, probably, only once it has been freely practised among volunteers, at their expense and risk, in free competition with all other systems. - J.Z., 19.11.95, 24.6.01, 18.9.04.

PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM IN OUR PRIVATE LIVES, FREE CHOICE IN ALL SPHERES: We already have, to a large extent, panarchism in our private lives, in arts, sports, crafts, hobbies, religions, philosophies, literature, music, daily consumer sovereignty choices, large degrees of free enterprise and free trading. All that we need, in order to overcome the remaining political, economic and social problems, is full freedom of choice for each individual regarding his political, economic and social system affiliations. It works well enough in our private lives, the more fully it is realized there. It would work well also in our public lives, choices and groups. You want a better system for yourself, or one that you believe to be better? Opt out of your present one and subscribe to the one that you do now prefer and as long as you do or establish one that you think to be ideal and invite others to join you. - J.Z., 30.7.98 & 26.6.01. – That means “laissez faire” even for the multitudes of diverse statists do to their own things – but ONLY TO THEMSELVES. – J.Z., 26.6.12. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS TO REPLACE ALL INVOLUNTARY TERRITORIAL DOMINATION OF DISSENTERS.

PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COERCION & MONOPOLY: Not the aim pursued is decisive here but the means used. If any system is forced upon non-criminal dissenters, then it is a territorial government system. If no system is forced upon non-criminal dissenters to it, then it is, for these dissenters, anarchistic, even while they practise one or the other form of statism among themselves – at their own risk and expense only. All kinds of statism for all kinds of statists. As the expression of their own individual choice, it is anarchistic for its voluntary members, no matter how absolutistic or totalitarian it appears to outsiders. For the time being, they do not deserve anything better. The measuring stick is consent and it is tested and kept in check by individual secessions. As long as they are as free, any system is tolerable for those who like it and should be all the more tolerable for those who dislike it and thus are not associated with or subjected to it. The only exception that I can see would consist in a new prophet or "Fuehrer" arising under these conditions, however unlikely that would be, and preparing mass murder devices for the conquest of the world. But already the first signs of such an attempt would tend to become widely noticed and to arouse strong and, probably, sufficient, resistance against it among all those who feel threatened by it. - J.Z., 6.1.97 & 26.6.01, 18.9.04, 26.6.12. - MEANS & ENDS, CONSENT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, FUEHRERS, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, MINORITY AUTONOMY, LAISSEZ FAIRE OR FREE COMPETITION IN EVERY SPHERE, FOR THE FOOLS, THE IGNORANT, THE PREJUDICED & THE WISE, ALWAYS ONLY AMONG VOLUNTEERS & WITHOUT A TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY.

PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM: Anarchism, voluntary association … is the scientific principle of sociology applied to society and the relations of man to man. Do not compel your neighbor to do that which he does not want to do; surely he will some day be in power – in the majority – and will force you to do his bidding. It is better to let each other alone. In matters of mutual interest you will be drawn together by the magic of self-interest. Where you disagree you will be repelled by the same force. This is science. It is simple. – In fine, the Anarchist wants to develop a free society, in which each man will be at liberty to work as an individual, or to cooperate with his neighbors in voluntary groups without any employers, bosses, or rulers of any kind.” – Jay Fox, quoted in MOTHER EARTH, Nov. 1907. – That quote goes far towards panarchism but in the end it fails to envision the consequence of this freedom, when applied to people who are not anarchists and do not want to live as anarchists right now or in the near future.  For them there must also be tolerated the associational freedom to live as statists – although not as territorial statists. Until anarchists have that clear in their own mind and succeed in conveying this good intention or just “war aim” or peace aim towards their opponents, they will themselves frustrate most of their own efforts. – J.Z., 14.1.99. – SELF-INTEREST, SELF-DETERMINATION IN EVERY SPHERE, BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION & CONTRACT FOR ALL, CONTROLS, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM: Anarchists to be free to do what they want with their OWN property, persons and communities. They, too, do not have the right to be aggressors or coercive "liberators" of those who disagree with them and would rather continue to do their own things for or to themselves, including propertarian and capitalist acts. – Alas, even most anarchists, not only most statists, do not as yet know and appreciate all genuine individual rights and liberties. Their economic knowledge and interest in genuine economics is mostly all too close to zero. – But they should get the full freedom, under exterritorial autonomy, to suffer under their own views, as long as they uphold them. J.Z., 18.1.95, 27.6.01, 7.9.04, 26.6.12.

PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM: Blankertz defined denn auch Anarchismus rundweg als "Modus … unter dem alle von Menschen gewuenschten Lebensformen nebeneinander bestehen koennen." - Bernd Laska, Die Negation des irrationalen Ueber-Ichs bei La Mettrie. - (Blankertz defines, indeed, Anarchism as simply a framework in which all wished-for ways of life can peacefully coexist with each other.) - Alas, most anarchists define their anarchism otherwise. While some of them would be tolerant towards all or most other forms of anarchism, few of them would concede to statists the right to live as non-territorial statists among themselves. - J.Z., 24.6.01, 26.6.12.

PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM: Seeing that there is in-fighting even among anarchists, a single and uniform anarchistic society will never suit all the different types and aspirations of anarchists, far less those of the usually much more numerous archists. Thus moral and rational anarchists would aim at letting each individual choose his lollies or medicine in this sphere as well. Allow all governments to continue or be come set up – but all only with voluntary members and without any territorial privileges. Then they, too, would tend to become merely some more exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers although their constitutions, for their own members, would remain more or less authoritarian or even totalitarian. – J.Z., 20.3.96, 9.1.99, 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM: Should anarchists strive for any kind of power over their dissenters or merely for voluntary self-rule for all? - J.Z., 18.1.95. – Q., VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT

PANARCHISM & ANARCHY, INDIVIDUALIST ANARCHISM: It is immaterial whether one be a communist or an individualist (or anything else. - J.Z.) so long as he be an anarchist. (Voluntarist! J.Z.) Anarchy, as I see it, admits of any kind of organization, so long as membership is not compulsory ... and I presume no one will object to any number of persons going by themselves and being ruled by a despot, if they so wish, so long as they don't force others to do likewise. - Joe Labadie, Liberty, 1/28/88,7; 4/14/88,8. – VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT

PANARCHISM & APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA, TOGETHERNESS: A famous anti-apartheid campaigner used to assure us on TV that: “The only way we can survive in South Africa is together. The only way we can even be human is together. “ (*) – Togetherness does not have to mean compulsory integration or majority rule or a single, uniform and territorial State. E.g., Free Trade unites the population of the world in another way and so do free migration and religious liberty, freedom of expression and information, the liberties of arts and literature. The togetherness of territorial political unity is a delusion and a threat to all dissenting minorities and sometimes even to the majority in any particular territory. Self-chosen decentralization, voluntary communities, unity in diversity, to each his own, are options that correspond much more to the genuine requirements of as diverse critters as human beings are. The calls for more or less imposed unity has led and still leads to numerous disasters, as have the calls for all too wrongly defined “equality”.  The Anti-Apartheid campaigners even managed to ignore the difference between compulsory integration and compulsory segregation on the one hand and voluntary integration and voluntary segregation on the other. Those "terrible over-simplifiers" tend to throw out the baby with the bath-water. Only an advanced encyclopedia of the best refutations would give us a good chance to shut them up and expose them as the empty heads and false leaders that they are. – Togetherness under a Nazi-, Soviet- or Maoist regime is not something right and worthwhile to strive for. Any compulsory “unity” must be excluded, especially any supposed territorial unity for whole populations. – J.Z., 27.11.11.  – Some of the worst and most violent criminals, in maximum security prisons, do not enjoy their togetherness there. And the decent citizens, living on the outside, rather prefer this compulsory separatism to any compulsory integration with these modern barbarians. – Women and children, who have been repeated beaten by their  “husbands” and “fathers”, do not enjoy their togetherness with them, either. - (*) Probably, Bishop Tutu. – Religious people like such general and thoughtless as well as misleading phrases. Often they pretend to be sky pilots and cannot even fly a plane. – I distrust all people who pretend to be familiar with invisible and untouchable ghosts and even pretend to talk to them and to get messages or signs from them. Most of them are harmless – but some of them became even excessively powerful men, prime ministers and presidents and then their “divine” inspirations can lead to unjust wars, unjustly conducted. – Even religiously motivated wars and civil wars do still exist in some countries. -  J.Z., 9.1.99, 26.6.12. – UNITY, UNIFORMITY, TERRITORIALISM, STRENGTH, CENTRALIZATION, DECENTRALIZATION, DIS., RELIGION, GOD

PANARCHISM & APARTHEID: The advocates of GEOGRAPHICAL APARTHEID and those of COMPULSORY INTEGRATION of the most diverse and mutually antagonistic groupings, do generally still favor constitutional and legal unification, even if only on a federal model, while panarchists would end geographical apartheid or integration as an official and enforced policy and replace them by voluntary apartheid and voluntary integration, as a matter of individual choice. - J.Z., 8.2.88, 1.4.89.

PANARCHISM & AUTONOMOUS DANCING: Even in dancing to the same music, we have largely come away from conventional group and partnership dancing, from coordinated moves and steps of several people, to each individual doing his own thing, as pleases him or her, within the limits of their hearing, and physical abilities. Moreover, new kinds of dances arise all the time - and are not forced upon anybody. Is this situation chaotic and dangerous or does it satisfy the largest number of potential practitioners? Add to this the multiplication of types of music and of musical instruments and recordings and those of different light effects - and of different stimulants and costumes and fashions being used by the dancers. Why should we be autonomous only in these aspects of our culture and civilization? Why not go for the freedom to throw overboard the territorial political and ideological dances, plays, games, roles and directions, systems, methods and institutions that are forced now upon us, turning us into jumping puppets in the hands of the big territorial game players? - J.Z. 4.2.92, 13.1.93, 20.1.12. - Moreover, while wearing headphones, alone, or with one's dancing partner or partners, different people could, at the same time, dance to different music on the same dancing platform. Their dances might not make much sense to mere observers, who are not listening, via head phones, to the same music as the dancers. But apart from public performances of professional dancers, dancers just like to dance for their own enjoyment, not for the benefit of any spectators. From panarchism in dancing to panarchism in the political, economic and social spheres is just a mental step. Let's step to it and dance to this music. Then we could enjoy ourselves as much as we could by being free to do our own things - while, by the way, helping to solve the problems of the world and this in a way that would not add to them. - J.Z., 11.12.03, 20.1.12. – Q., MUSIC

PANARCHISM & BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOUR: Wuensche deinem Naechsten nichts anderes als dir selbst. - Arabisches Sprichwort. HILDESHEIMER - ALLGEM., 24 Juni 1958. (Wish nothing else for your neighbour than what you wish for yourself. - Arab proverb.) Toleriere bei anderen und unter ihnen anderes als Du Dir fuer Dich selbst wuenschst! Sonst bliebe es vielleicht nicht beim Wuenschen fuer die Naechsten, sondern kaeme zu Befehlen und Zwaengen. - J.Z., 24 .10. 84. (Tolerate among others other things than you wish for yourself. Otherwise, you might do more than wish and begin to command and enforce your wishes.) – TOLERANCE, HARMONY, ETHICS, MORALITY, NEIGHBORLINESS, DOING THE OWN THINGS WHILE TOLERATING OTHERS DOING THEIR OWN THINGS.

PANARCHISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: One of the many evil effects of territorialism is, that it promotes “thinking” and “actions” upon the “principle” of “collective responsibility”.  Terrorist bombings, mass murders, blockades, air raids, area bombings, ABC mass murder devices are involved, torture, rapes, all seemingly “justified” in the minds of the violent private criminals or the official military men, because they are committed against the collectively defined and often territorially, racially, ethnically, ideologically or religiously “enemy”, no matter how little influence he, she, it or they had upon the aggressive and oppressive policies of their own territorial government or revolutionary movement with territorial ambitions, which also abuse and victimize involuntary followers and dissenters, that are somehow classed as its own people, by race, religion, place of birth or because they are likewise tax slaves and subjected to uniform laws. Only once people do enjoy individual secessionism and voluntary associationism could “collective responsibility” to some extent be rightfully applied to voluntary members of panarchies. E.g., their common “insurance company” might be held responsible to pay for damages that one of its members has caused to a member of another exterritorially autonomous “insurance company” or protective association. – J.Z., 10.1.99, 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & COMMUNITIES, FREE SOCIETIES: No territorial community is a genuine community as long as it subjugates a single sovereign individual, who is a peaceful person, making him a compulsory member and subject to constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and institutions that he disagrees with, by not allowing him to secede and to form or join his own kind of community of volunteers, which is only exterritorially autonomous. Compulsory State membership and compulsory and uniform laws and jurisdiction for all people in a country, seeing the growth of territorial  State power, is much more oppressive than many to most religious hierarchies have been. But then most of the religious hierarchies were ALSO territorial powers and THAT aspect rendered some of them terrible, too. – J.Z., 14.9.94, 14.1.99, 26.6.12.

PANARCHISM & CONFLICTING INTERESTS, NATURAL HARMONIES, VOLUNTARISM, UNITY, GROUPS, MINORITY AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIAL RULE: The human race is a fiction. There are only small groups with their own conflicting interests." - Poul Anderson, Cold Victory, The Psychotechnic League, 1982, 1983, A Tom Doherty Associates Book, ISBN 0-523-48527-1, p. 137. - What Anderson said about the human race could also be said about "nations" and "peoples". The conflicting interests are mainly brought about by territorialism. Under exterritorialism all become voluntary commitments or contractual exchanges. Constitutional, legal and juridical monopolies would cease. Nobody could then claim "ownership" in national customers. When each is free to do his own things to and for himself, then most of the supposedly "conflicting interests" would simply disappear. - J.Z., 28.6.01. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM OVER WHOLE POPULATIONS.

PANARCHISM & CRIME: The worst crime for most panarchies might come to be an offence committed against a non-member. - J.Z., 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM & DECENTRALIZATION: decentralization, dispersal and final elimination of authority and its replacement by autonomous and independent organizational units." - Maksimov, G. P., quoted by Paul Avrich in The Anarchists of the Russian Revolution, p.103. - Unfortunately, most anarchists envision such autonomous organizational units only for anarchists, not for the various archists as well. Consequently, they become enemies of voluntary and tolerant archists, rather than comrades in arms against territorialists, i.e. intolerant people. One could argue that such archists do not as yet exist and that would be largely true. (But how numerous are the exterritorialists among the anarchists? - J.Z., 18.9.04.) Exterritorialism can and will also spread among the statists, because it is to the advantage to all their factions, even to those, who are, temporarily, in territorial power somewhere, always only in more or less precarious balance with all the other internal and external territorialist factions, - J.Z., 20.1.12. - It would be much easier to come to an agreement with archists on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for all groups of volunteers than to fully convert them to choose some form of anarchism or libertarianism for themselves, too. To convert all people to e.g. one form of anarchism is like attempting to convert all of them to the faith of one church or sect. Religious liberty was and is much easier to attain and has a structure similar to that suggested by panarchism in the sphere of political, economic and social systems, i.e. that of secular faiths or ideologies. - J.Z. 6.1.93, 20.1.12. - Not even all anarchists have agreed on one form of anarchism. So they have become, somewhat, tolerant of at least some other forms of anarchism - but not yet of forms of archism that are practised only among volunteers who practise some other dogma or principle than the one that their anarchist critics believe in. As true anarchists, and thus voluntaryists, opposing domination or subjugation, they should. - J.Z., 7.9.04, 20.1.12. - They should no longer try to "rule" those who like being ruled or to rule over volunteers, by trying to impose their preferred form of anarchism upon these archists. Alas, anarchism, too, is also like a relatively new religion and its adherents are, usually, all too intolerant in their enthusiasm. - J.Z., 18.9.04. – Anarchist, statist, territorialist, religious and statist intolerance has to be turned into anarchist, statist and religious tolerance, on the bass of exterritorial autonomy for all groups of volunteers. – J.Z., 26.6.12.

PANARCHISM & DEMOCRACY: Robert A. Heinlein … also stated that the solution for all the problems of democracy was more democracy. - G. Harry Stine, ANALOG 6/96. - That would require self-government of individuals, individual sovereignty and individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for their volunteer communities. Most democrats and republicans do not yet envision as much liberty and are not prepared to concede it. (Not even most anarchists and libertarians do. - J.Z., 18.9.04.) It would mean that the rump democracies and republics, after all dissenters had seceded from them, would also be mere volunteer communities, that are only exterritorially autonomous - i.e., ruling by personal law only over their own remaining and thus voluntary members. - J.Z.,, n.d. & 28.6.01. – VOLUNTARISM, DEMOCRACY, SELF-GOVERNANCE, PEOPLE, DIS., MAJORITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM & DEMOCRACY: the essence of democracy is that people shall have the right to go to hell in their own way if they want to.” - John Chamberlain, The American States, 44. - Territorialism allows them only to do this in a collectivist and territorialist way, as if all had to use the same boat or ship. Under panarchism, rather than territorial majority or minority rule, they are not at liberty to take others with them into any hell, against their will. – The difference between “free people” and “the people” is involved. - J.Z., 9.1.99. – PEOPLE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SECESSIONISM & CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHISM & DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS IN DEFENCE EFFORTS: In many defensive efforts, panarchistic anarchists could even cooperate with the best intentions and actions of the better types of democratic governments, appearing as patriots rather than as traitors or terrorists. - They could e.g. become spokesmen for very important new allies for democratic governments, namely governments in exile that represent only volunteer groups without claims to territorial rule. - They could advise them on many personal law solutions for large problems and trouble spots today, where there exists no territorial solution. - Yes, indeed, as panarchists anarchists they could become the friends and allies of many of the better governments - and could finally turn them into governments that are quite acceptable, even to them, because they are only accepted by volunteers and dissenters are free to leave them, without having to leave their homes, native land, jobs, friends and relatives. - In other words, consistent panarchists could use the opportunities provided by many of today's problems and trouble spots to act as friends and advisors to their own democratic governments rather than as their irreconcilable enemies. They can propose practicable, because panarchistic, methods to settle the present wars and civil wars in and between other countries. They can increase the defensive strength of the own. They could rally friends and allies for attacked democratic governments from the ranks of the first victims of enemy regimes, who prefer being liberated to being forced to act as executioners and oppressors for their despotic territorial regime. - They could and should help democratic governments to reduce terrorism. They can offer the only comprehensive program to overcome the threat of nuclear war or war with chemical and biological mass murder devices. Their experimental freedom approach holds the solution, or the road to the solution, to every social problem that can be solved. - Thus I do assert that panarchism is very practicable, indeed, and does not have to be afraid of democratic or dictatorial regimes - to the extent that panarchists are not directly living under dictatorial regimes. - It can peacefully and educationally transform democratic regimes into panarchistic ones (truly democratic ones, with self-rule or popular rule for all, even minority groups). - It can expect the support of all aspiring politicians and of those temporarily out of office, whilst those in office, knowing their opinion polls, would not be afraid of losing power altogether but would then come to know that they could retain it over their remaining voluntary supporters and voters, if they act no worse than they did so far. - It has the greatest potential to defeat the aggressive and oppressive regimes in other countries, even with the support of democratic governments. - J.Z., n.d. & 18.9.04, 20.1.12. – DEFENCE, LIBERATION, LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, WAR & PEACE AIMS, DEMOCRACY, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT OR SELF-DETERMINATION

PANARCHISM & DISSENT: Allow all dissenters to cook in their own juice - to cook their stews and to consume them - at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 5.4.95.

PANARCHISM & DISSENTERS, LIBERTY, DEGREES OF LIBERTY: Allow all dissenting groups those degrees of liberties or restrictions which they do desire for themselves, individually or collectively, as their own business, their own internal affairs. - J.Z., 30.7.96 & 26.6.01.

PANARCHISM & DIVERSITY: A panarchistic theory and practice that offers all kinds of anarchism for all kinds of anarchists and all kinds of archies for all kinds of archists, does at least have the potential for satisfying the most diversified tastes. - J.Z., 3/88.

PANARCHISM & DIVORCE FROM GOVERNMENTS: Let us have freedom of divorce for individuals from territorial governments, their exclusive and enforced territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and administrations and their multitude of Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non-Government Organizations). – J.Z., n.d., 9.1.99. What we need are Fully Autonomous Non-Government Organizations of Volunteers: FANGOVs. - J.Z., 8.12.03.

PANARCHISM & DOMINATION: Any individually chosen domination or leadership, combined with voluntary subordination to the leadership, is not a domination, leadership or subordination in the conventional, immoral and evil sense, while all members and even a single one do remain free to opt out. Instead, it is a contracted enterprise, competitive, market-like, rightful for its members and educational as well - for its members and for outside observers. – J.Z., 14.11.93, 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM & DREAMS, MAJORITY & EXPERT OPINION: Every country, the whole world, and all populations, must be reorganized in a way to allow the realization of all the dreams about just alternatives, just - because they are realized only among those who believe in them, at their expense and risk, no matter how impracticable or absurd they appear to local majorities or experts. - J.Z., 30.7.78, 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM & DREAMS: Carry out your dreams - but at your own expense and risk! - J.Z., 10.9.82.

PANARCHISM & DREAMS: Follow your own dreams rather than those of any politician, prophet or "great leader". - J.Z., 26.1.93, 26.6.01. - Or only the dreams of the politician, prophet, great leader or guru of your own individual choice. - J.Z., 18.9.04.

PANARCHISM & ECOLOGY: Panarchism amounts to a natural ecology political “life forms”. In its voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy all kinds of political, economic and social "life" can peacefully coexist, compete or cooperate under optimal conditions for as diverse critters as men are. Democracy, autocracy, aristocracy, republicanism, monarchism, dictatorships etc., anarchism, socialism, communism, conservatism, radicalism etc., all can then be practised at the same time and in the same country or locally or world-wide, in all their varieties, but only among their volunteers and at their expense and risk. That will teach them, gradually, if they are teachable at all. If not, they will have to continue to suffer under the systems of their "own" free choices, really, those of the majorities or minorities they are prepared to put up with. - J.Z., 14.1.97 & 26.6.01, 9.12.03, 26.6.12.

PANARCHISM & EMPIRES: Empires used to be (established, mostly, by - J.Z.) conquests of territory, which is finite. The new empires are those of communication and the means of satisfying the needs and desires of men. These are infinite and always changing.” – Gilbert Trigano, born 1920, developer of CLUB MED, in 1986. – IMPERIALISM, COMMUNICATIONS, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM: Although panarchies are voluntary and exterritorially autonomous experiments and their members and outside observers will tend to learn more from these self-responsible experiments than rulers and subjects of territorial States tend to learn from their experiments, there will continue to exist, for a long time, many panarchies that will practice uninformed and prejudiced programs against and between their voluntary members, programs, which do them more harm than good and that infringe many of the rights and liberties that remain unknown or unappreciated by their members and thus unclaimed and unrealized among them. Only time will gradually tend to heal these flaws by unsatisfied individuals separating themselves from them. - J.Z., 18.12.92. 4.1.93, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & EXPERIMENTS: Those considering only the possibility and practice of territorial experiments have often come to demand “an end to experiments”, as did e.g. Northcote Parkinson in “The Evolution of Political Thought”, 1960, Viking Press. Such thoughts reveal all too little evolution of but, rather, stagnation upon the territorial model. In their condemnation of the compulsory territorial experiments, conducted by politicians and bureaucrats, they are right, in the majority of instances. These "mis-leaders" have repeated the same costly, compulsory and thus wrongful “experiments” over and over again, often with bloody consequences, and have shown an astonishing inability to learn from their own mistakes and those of others. We should, indeed, have the right and liberty to altogether get away from this territorial, limited, monopolistic and coercive kind of “experimentation” and gain the right to conduct our own experiments among like-minded volunteers and this at the risk and expense of these volunteers only. Then experimentation will not longer be widely considered a curse, a burden, an evil, but as an opportunity for everyone to become a pioneer and to set a worthwhile example to be followed or, otherwise, a deterrent example, one that would demonstrate that even with unanimous support a flawed theory cannot lead to a successful experiment, if that theory is followed, rather than ignored, whenever it is contradicted by better theories and the facts. - How could we ever have subscribed to a system that confined experimental freedom to politicians and bureaucrats, as if they were truly wise and superior beings, godlike or at least human beings, who able and willing to learn from mistakes rather than trying to cover them up? Why should we allow these mis-leaders, liars and false prophets to give experimental freedom a bad name? We should never have entrusted these people with any exclusive powers to conduct important experiments. Their results were predictable from numerous similar experiments in the past and through genuine political, economic and social wisdom. – J.Z., 9.1.99, 18.9.04, 27.6.12. – Q., DIS., TERRITORIALISM, POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

PANARCHISM & FANATICISM: a fanatic's willingness to kill or be killed in the service of a cause cannot prove the rightness of that cause". - Poul Anderson, Cold Victory, The Psychotechnic League, 1982, 1983, A Tom Doherty Associates Book, ISBN 0-523-48527-1, page 111. - Indeed. But it indicates the rightness of letting the fanatics have their way - AMONG THEMSELVES! - J.Z., 6.6.01. – If they happen to kill only each other in the process – good riddance!  P J.Z., 20.1.12. - TERRORISM.

PANARCHISM & FEDERALISM: Confederate, internationally, with all other of their victims, against all territorial politicians and bureaucrats and their territorial, States, policies, laws, institutions and measures, to assure to all people the kinds of non-territorial but autonomous communities of volunteers, which their members do consider to be ideal for themselves and all like-minded people. That kind of program, if it were widely adopted, could rapidly end most present oppressions, civil wars, wars, terrorism and wide-spread dissatisfaction. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04.

PANARCHISM & FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE: One should not have to resist, campaign, fight and win to gain one's independence. A mere declaration and registration of one's individual secession and individually linking up with another kind of government or society, all of them confined to exterritorial autonomy and personal law for their volunteers, should be enough. This registration might come to be done in competing registration offices for political membership - in order to satisfy those who fear even this kind of limited bureaucracy. One day such a declaration might be possible via a postcard, phone call or e-mail message. Steps like this might come to end mutual oppression and exploitation attempts, civil wars and revolutions as well as terrorist acts and to accelerate progress in most spheres. - J.Z., 30.7.96, 26.6.01, 276.12.

PANARCHISM & FOLKWAYS: Leave all people to THEIR folkways, customs, traditions, institutions, beliefs, faiths, isms and convictions, personal laws and preferred institutions, which requires only that dissenting individuals and minorities as well as majorities become free to opt out and free to practise their ideas and opinions, as far as possible, among themselves – always only at their risk and expense. - J.Z., 18.12.95, 26.6.01, 27.6.12. - Play a mental game and apply this revolutionary reform e.g. to the present problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you don't, the governments certainly will not do this for you and them. - J.Z., 9.12.03, 18.9.04, 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & FOREIGN RELATIONS: Foreign relations should be a matter only for those who have them and want them, e.g., like with overseas relatives and trading partners or confederates. Foreign relations that are not individually authorized are inherently wrong. Being based upon territorial sovereignty and compulsory State membership as well as collective responsibility notions they are quite wrong. Between exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers they would develop or exist naturally, across all present borders and would always be backed by individual consent and ended by individual secessions. - J.Z., 8.2.95. – FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

PANARCHISM & FREE CHOICE: Panarchism means: All the choices anyone would want - for himself. J.Z. 23.4.92.  - Naturally, always only at the own expense and risk. - J.Z., 18.9.04.

PANARCHISM & FREE SOCIETIES, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: A free society would be free of compulsory membership and of confinement to any particular territory. Its networks of voluntary and contractual relationships would cross and ignore all present statist borders and constitutions, laws, authorities and other institutions as if they did no longer exist. It would, indeed, abolish them and all the errors and myths, false assumptions and conclusions and popular prejudices territorialism and its frontiers and “authorities” are based upon. At the same time, it would respect them, in their exterritorial alternatives, for their voluntary supporters, who still want to uphold them, but for themselves only. The only rightful borders are those around individuals. They can link up their “borders”, if and to the extent that they want to. But they have no right to impose their borders or other chosen systems upon any dissenting non-member who did not act aggressively or criminally against them. – J.Z., 25.3.96, 9.1.99. - Passports and visas, custom duties and foreign exchange controls only for their advocates! - J.Z., 8.12.03. – Territorial systems are much more closed systems than exterritorial ones. “Everything is different in a closed system.” – Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars, p. 63 of the Harper/Collins Publishers edition of 1996. – J.Z., 20.1.12. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM & FREE SOCIETIES: Even the most free society should not be territorially imposed upon any peaceful dissenters. Anybody should remain free to opt out from them as well as from any territorial and despotic State and free to establish or choose another society or State more to his liking, provided only that it is only exterritorially autonomous and confined to voluntary members. – J.Z., 20.3.96, 9.1.99, 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & FREE SOCIETIES: Panarchism contains the bare bones of free societies, namely exterritoriality, autonomy, voluntarism and respect for individual rights for their "international relations". The rest should all be up to their individual members, their errors, mistakes prejudices and their degrees of enlightenment. - J.Z., 28.3.89, 31.3.89, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & FREEDOM & JUSTICE FOR ALL – TO THE EXTENT THAT INDIVIDUALS WANT THEM FOR THEMSELVES: Es gibt keinen Menschen, der nicht die Freiheit liebte; aber der Gerechte fordert sie fuer alle, der Ungerechte nur fuer sich allein.” – Boerne, Gesammelte Schriften, II: Der Narr im Weissen Schwan, 2. Kap. (There is no one who does not love liberty. But the just demands it for all, the unjust one only for himself.) - Since all want different liberties to different degrees and some liberties not at all, all should also, as de Puydt clearly demanded, have the liberty to choose different degrees of un-freedom for themselves. – Making freedom, anarchism, libertarianism or any other ideal dependent upon either the acceptance by all, or the imposition upon all, does make the realization of many to most ideals difficult to impossible and is to that extent self-defeating. While one should always be free to recommend any kind of radical liberty or right to all potential “customers”, one should almost never impose any of them. There are some exceptions, though: E.g. the right for individuals to secede from a totalitarian regime or from e.g., an intolerant Islamic church or sect may be imposed. We might also come, one day, to reach the degree of moral consensus that would induce us to prevent, as far as possible, parents from artificially and unnecessarily aborting their unborn children. The right to establish exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities is also one that could be rightfully imposed. The same applies to the right to establish, organize and train rightful militias, rightfully armed, for the protection of individual rights and liberties. Tyrannicide could also be rightfully institutionalized, as it was, to a limited extent in the past. The discussion of natural and of individual human rights and liberties is hardly finalized as yet. – J.Z., 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM & FREEDOM, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM & ITS EFFECTS: With the pro-freedom urges so rare and so insufficiently supported by publishing and libraries, especially in powerful and alternative media, and ignorance of freedom alternatives so wide-spread, it is no wonder that they are usually overlaid by avalanches of the results of power urges. All the more important is full exterritorial autonomy for the small groups of enlightened people that do exist. Their freedom experiments, to the extent that they are successful and are sufficiently publicized or observed, can have a significant effect, a much larger one than the all too limited quantity of freedom texts that is readily accessible so far, mostly only in conventional media. Panarchism allows even individuals to step out of collectivist messes on their own, by its "one-man-revolutions", in the same way that a dissatisfied consumer on a free market can start boycotting certain goods and services for the rest of his life, while readily buying others. - J.Z., 11.10.99, 27.6.01, 27.6.12. - Today I read with delight that the gun firm Smith & Wesson is in financial trouble, because it is widely boycotted by those defending their right to bear arms, after it compromised with government policies on trying to make guns "safe" via some technical gadgets. Guns are already safe with rational people and should always be very unsafe and even unobtainable for criminals. Territorial governments are those organizations that can be least trusted with guns, far less with ABC mass murder devices. – They are able to disarm most of the actual and potential crime victims (victim disarmament) but unable to disarm all private criminals with involuntary victims and also all territorial governments with involuntary victims. - J.Z., 9.12.03, 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & GAME PLAYING: All volunteers to be playing by their own rules and among and with themselves and what is theirs. - J.Z., 22.9.99, 26.6.01.

PANARCHISM & GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS, STRIFE & CONFLICT: Why can't we get along with each other, justly, tolerantly, peacefully? Because we are not yet panarchists! - J.Z., 8.9.97, 26.6.01. – As territorialists we are often put into the position of conscripts, who have to kill or be killed and have no recognized program for fraternization or right to negotiate and contract a separate peace between them, over the heads of the territorial governments, which are warring with each other by mass-murdering their territorial subjects. – J.Z., 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & GIFTS: You could not give your spouse, children, grandchildren and friends a better present. - J.Z., 04-11. - Alas, such excellent gifts are mostly not yet appreciated and accepted. - J.Z., 24.9.11, 27.6.12. – At present they are even outlawed. – J.Z., 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE:  Until panarchism is generally realized, world-wide, only governments-in-exile could represent all of their people (except common and political criminals), provided that they confine their aim and efforts to their own panarchistic regimes, i.e. voluntary followers only and exterritorial autonomy and use only means that are in accordance with such an aim and with individual rights and liberties. If and to the extent that they do so, they would greatly increase their chances for success and could employ a kind of political and military jiu-jit-zu, that would turn many of the forces of the regime (that they oppose) against this regime. – J.Z., 26.10.93, 9.1.99. – DES., MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, WAR AIMS

PANARCHISM & GOVERNMENTS: The only way to make governments enterprising in the best sense is to turn them into voluntary and competing enterprises, fully dependent upon their voluntary members, customers, investors and suppliers. - J.Z., 4.3.95, 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM & HAVING IT THE OWN WAY: Have your own way – in everything – but only at your own expense and risk – and that of those who voluntarily joined you and remained with you – and not at the risk and expense of anyone else. – J.Z., 24.10.93.

PANARCHISM & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM: Individual secessionism and panarchies can burden or unburden us fully in accordance with our individual choices. – J.Z., 1.4.96. – See e.g. under VOLUNTARY TAXATION.

PANARCHISM & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, KINGS, MONARCHS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: Nobody should be a king, president, bureaucrat or judge over anyone but himself and his own voluntary followers. – J.Z., 6.8.93.

PANARCHISM & INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM: All power not to the people but to the individual - over their own affairs, and to their voluntary associations, away from all territorial government and this under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, constitutions and jurisdictions. Nothing less will do for our times. This framework has the potential to cure most of our remaining major political, economic and social problems, by releasing all creative energies, ideas, opinions, platforms, programs, talents and resources towards solving them. - J.Z., 7.8.03, 15.12.03, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & INDIVIDUALISM: Only you can tell and rightly decide under what circumstances, institutions, systems and relationships you belong, because they would make you feel well and give all of your individuality its best chance to fit in and develop and mature freely. – J.Z., 17.2.98, 11.1.99.  – An old proverb says it well, too: “Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.” – J.Z., n.d. – PERSONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, FREE CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHISM & INTERNATIONAL UNITY: International toleration of all freely and individually chosen differences rather than territorial international or national unity organizations. Consequently, all people would be as much and also as little united with others as they want to be. We would have all kinds of internationally united organizations and federations, freely competing with each other, on the basis of mutually tolerant and non-geographical secessionism and self-government or full exterritorial autonomy for all voluntary communities, local, national and international, including non-governmental societies of all kinds. - J.Z., 7.8.03, 15.12.03. - But we would also have all kinds of exclusive "clubs" with whatever rules they want to apply to their own affairs, however spleeny these rules may appear to others, even to "experts". - J.Z., 7.9.04.

PANARCHISM & IRELAND: Ireland is the land of ire rather than of justice, freedom and individual rights for all of its mutually antagonistic present groupings. They may all be for peace and democracy – but only to the extent that they would be sure to come out on top and remain on top. (Or would get their chance for this at one of the next elections. - J.Z., 8.12.03.) Their territorialism, their various intolerant ideologies and their remaining religious spleens do keep them at loggerheads and their democratic or republican “ideals” do as well, since they offer them only majority or minority despotism of one group or the other, between voting. This in a country once covered by numerous self-governing communities. Later, having been subjected to conquests, expropriation, suppression and colonial treatment for all too long, so that the present abd all too wrongful and intolerant territorial model is almost the only one that all the antagonists have in mind. Panarchism would permit all the different Irish groups to live freely, independently, tolerantly, managing their own affairs, in non-geographical associations. They might even come to link up with Irishmen of their particular kind across the world. All Irishmen ought to become free to live in accordance with their own wishes, capabilities and efforts  - in Ireland and anywhere else. No Irishmen is to be subjected to the dreams of any other Irishmen or non-Irish persons. Thus the “brawling” of "everybody" against everybody, in Ireland, as in many other parts of the world, could finally be ended. Only the dream of a united territorial Ireland, under one or the other party, faith or ideology, would have to be given up, since it could not be based upon unanimous consent, not with people as they are and with their diverse beliefs and convictions. It is to be clearly seen as a utopia, one that has already caused a lot of trouble and threatens to cause a lot more trouble. What a waste of talents, lives (human sacrifices), energies, labor, time and property and this utopia has caused, in Ireland and much of the rest of the world! The new – and old – utopia for Ireland would be the same tolerant kind that is suitable for most of the rest of the world. For Ireland it would mean, to all Irish people and to their voluntary communities, all their own political, economic and social system choices, and this as a matter of the right of individuals to claim such liberty and of their duty to concede it to others. The principles and practices of private, diverse and free lives are to be extended to the last remaining spheres, which were so far preempted by territorial governments or revolutionaries with territorial ambitions. All Irish governments-in-exile, once they do aim at no more and no less than this kind of tolerant and peaceful society, for all the varieties of Irish people and their different beliefs and convictions, should immediately be recognized by all somewhat decent governments and treaties and alliances should be concluded with them. Better still, the similarly tolerant groupings in other countries should grant them this recognition and alliance. It could also come about as the result of an international federation in favor of full exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities. Such a platform could be much more liberating and peace promoting than any terrorist or military protective action for one of the present flawed territorial regimes or aspirations. – J.Z., 29.12.97, 10.1.99, 8.12.03, 20.1.12. - I do admit that I do not know whether the ancient Ireland was territorially decentralized or exterritorially, under personal laws. Personal laws tended to precede territorial laws. - J.Z., 7.9.04. – Probably, several books and essays on this are online. I have not yet looked them up and read all of them but only some hints. – Perhaps a separate panarchistic or polyarchic platform should be drafted for the somewhat diverse populations and special problems of every country. - J.Z., 27.6.12.)

PANARCHISM & ITS OPPORTUNITIES: Panarchism offers a new and unlimited sphere of opportunities for all independence, self-government and self-development efforts. - J.Z., 2.4.89.

PANARCHISM & ITS TOLERANCE: The degree of tolerance practiced by panarchism is very different from that practised by a uniform and territorial anarchism or limited government. A generalized limited government and an anarchy, with a territorial monopoly, are both intolerant towards rightful because voluntary and exterritorial autonomy alternatives to their organizational forms. Only panarchism maximizes tolerance towards institutional and system alternatives. - J.Z., 21.12.87, 1.4.89, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & LAND-RIGHTS: Only private and cooperative land-rights, no “public” or collectivist ones, by one or the other pressure group, no matter how many wrongs were committed against their ancestors. Is there anyone on Earth, whose ancestors were always treated with justice and respect – and with ancestors who themselves did always respect all the individual rights and liberties of others? Such questions do almost answer themselves. – There are many better ways - to achieve access to land and resources for all - than conquest, confiscations, compulsory re-distributions, special taxation, and special laws. These peaceful and rightful alternatives are open to many to most minority groups already and could be increased by the introduction and use of monetary and financial freedom.  Panarchism will ultimately lead to a peaceful competition between the dozens of different land reform movements as well. - J.Z., 15.10.93, 14.1.99. (See the articles in PEACE PLANS 5 on this.) – LAND REFORM, REAL ESTATE, LANDED PROPERTY, PURCHASE OF ENTERPRISES, Q.

PANARCHISM & LEADERS: Let each go his own way, without leaders, guides and experts not wanted by him, or with the leaders and communities of his own individual choice. - J.Z., 11.12.03, 7.9.04.

PANARCHISM & LIBERTARIANISM: Panarchy is a framework that could make libertarianism acceptable or at least tolerable to non-libertarians. - J.Z., 10.8.87. – It could also make non-territorial statism, for its volunteers only, tolerable for anarchists and libertarians of all kinds. – J.Z., 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & LIBERTARIANISM: We libertarians want freedom not only for ourselves, we want it for other people.” – Walter Williams. – Whether they like it or not?  We want it for ourselves but do not want to impose it upon others. Even freedom should not be obligatory for all but only optional or each should have only as much liberty as he wants and is willing to handle, with more being optional - as soon as he is ready for it. Tolerance is required towards statists and authoritarians – provided only they are, what seems but isn't self-contradictory, tolerant enough towards other authoritarians and towards the freedom lovers. Religious liberty, as an example, makes that clearer: Tolerance e.g. for Catholics and Fundamentalists – as long as they do respect the religious liberty of non-members with different religious or anti-religious preferences. That much has already been achieved, at least in many countries, although, alas, not yet in all of them. – J.Z., n.d., 12.1.99, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & LOCAL MILITIAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INTERNATIONALLY CONFEDERATED & FOREIGN RELATIONS: Foreign relations would largely be "administered", safeguarded or "controlled" and "regulated", to the extent that this would still be required at all, by the federations of local volunteer militias, which would be established and maintained to uphold nothing but genuine individual rights and liberties. They would be aided by federations of arbitration courts, developing a new kind of international law, one that is based upon the recognition of individual rights rather than of territorial laws. Also by bodies like the international postal union, and free trade associations as well as protectionist associations doing their things for or to themselves. - The foreign ministers, foreign affairs offices and diplomatic services would become largely superfluous, I believe. - J.Z., 8.2.95, 27.6.01, 20.1.12. - Many years ago, Viv Forbes, an Australian representative of FEE, publisher and speaker, suggested already: Sack all diplomats. Replace them by telex machines. By now PCs would suffice. - J.Z., 18.9.04.- WAR AIMS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL LAW, MILITIA.

PANARCHISM & MARRIAGES: Exclusive possession and domination claims cause even more problems between territorial governments and their involuntary subjects than they cause in many conventional marriages, after the honeymoon is over. – J.Z., 18.9.97, 10.1.99. - Divorces from all territorial political, economic and social systems and freedom for exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers offers the answer to the prayers and dreams of all dissenters. - J.Z., 18.9.04. – DIVORCES

PANARCHISM & MENU CHOICE FOR FREE CUSTOMERS: Panarchism does not start with a "tabula rasa" for all and an "Eintopfgericht" or single and equal dish for all but leaves all with their self-chosen meals from menus that embrace all options that somebody or some group is willing to offer them, in his "restaurant" or his "kitchen" or that they want to provide for themselves or their friends or associates, in their “eatery” and through their “cooking”. Each according to his own taste-buds, even in the political, economic and social spheres! Regardless of whether they prefer their "public service" meals raw or cooked or baked, whether they prefer vegetarian or meat dishes. This extension of choice and tolerance, from meals to public affairs, seems to most people to be such a large bite that they cannot readily chew and swallow it. It also seems to have all the wrong colors, smells, textures and tastes - compared with the foods that they are accustomed to and consider to be healthy or good enough. But, in the political, economic and social spheres as well, one dish or menu or prescribed recipe can never satisfy all the people who live in a whole country. Likewise, one fashionable theory or experiment can never satisfy all the dissenters. One temporarily dominant theory can never squash all justified criticism of it. And even the best theory or meal will have its critics and abstainers. Some people prefer to go on eating junk food, even it if kills them. (There was such a case in my extended family.) Not to speak of smokers, drinkers and of people, who simply eat too much. Thus no governmental experiment or reform should ever be imposed upon dissenters, no more so than any religion and church should ever become or remain imposed upon dissenters and nonconformists. Even when a large majority should be in favor of such an imposition. Full tolerance and freedom of choice for individuals and their voluntary associations are as much justified in the "public spheres" as they are in religion.  Compulsory membership in any tyranny or democracy, in any territorial regime or State, even in any "limited" government, does amount to despotism. Despotic is also the territorial imposition of any system upon a whole country and all its people. That kind of territorial despotism has to be replaced, everywhere, by voluntary membership under personal laws, or exterritorial autonomy, i.e. by panarchies, polyarchies etc. To each the ideal of his dreams - and financed out of his pockets. - J.Z., 15.10.04, 20.1.12, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & MICROFICHE PUBLISHING: In some country, probably the U.S., and years ago, probably 1990/91, in a copy-shop, I must have had a talk with someone called HOWARD ELSETH, who gave his telephone number as 535 7481 and showed some interest in panarchism and microfiche. I would like to get into contact with him – if he is still interested in these subjects. My note, hidden until now, was incomplete to contact him and he, although he probably got a leaflet from me, did not contact me. -  Panarchists of the world unite – you have nothing to lose but your chains and remaining prejudices. – Who knows of an efficient and affordable way to sort the panarchistic wheat from the chaff? - J.Z., 9.1.99. – A directory to all existing panarchists is, alas, still amiss. – J.Z., 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & MINORITY AUTONOMY: The majority of us belong to some minority group.” – Dangerous Buttons, No. 345. - This means that, with the panarchistic common platform of: “Full minority autonomy for all who desire it!” ultimately even the majority of the world population could be “united” into a federation favoring minority autonomy or panarchism for all but criminals and aggressors. It could and should be organized for defensive and liberating common actions against the remaining criminals and aggressors. - This drop-out option could lead to the biggest ever drop-in option.  (Voluntary membership or competition by similar organizations.) However, I believe that not many functions would be delegated exclusively to any single world federation, even one of minority groups. It should be just one of several exterritorially and peacefully competing world federations. Those who supplied the most efficient and cheapest protective services would gain the largest shares of their potential markets. But you can rely upon human prejudices, errors, myths and stupidity to assure that even the best such institution would not become the only one, ever. Hundreds of years of atheist researches, teachings and refutations have not yet destroyed the power various religions hold over the minds of hundreds of millions. The alternative statist religions will have a similar hold over the minds of billions. Perhaps we would need at least some of them remaining - as deterrent examples, to keep us on the straight and narrow paths. – J.Z., 7.1.99, 27.6.12. I find particularly disgusting otherwise intelligent, beautiful and decent people - still with religious spleens in their heads, which they guard with all their strength. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 20.1.12

PANARCHISM & MINORITY RULE: Minority rule? Yes! But only in form of the rule of everybody over himself, alone or in his kind of voluntary associations. – J.Z., 1.4.96, 15.4.96, 9.1.99. – MINORITY AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

PANARCHISM & MONETARY FREEDOM, GRESHAM'S LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM: There ought to be no territorial sovereignty in the monetary sphere either but full exterritorial autonomy among volunteers, in their own payment-communities - if the most just and useful payment systems are to arise and prevail., instead of the most wrongful and harmful monetary and political institutions, (e.g. the central banks and territorial governments,), being thoughtlessly and coercively continued. - J.Z., n.d. & 24.6.01, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & MONETARY FREEDOM: No one's liberty, life and property are sufficiently assured without full monetary freedom and full panarchistic freedom, i.e., fully free choice and competition for all governmental, economic and societal services. This is possible only on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy or experimental freedom for all communities of volunteers, living under their personal constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & MULTICULTURALISM: Multiculturalism should be an individual option, not an imposition, upon anyone, anywhere or at any time. - J.Z. ,11.11. 92.

PANARCHISM & MY WAY: I’ll handle this my way!” is a common saying and amounts to a limited but essentially panarchistic declaration of independence towards unasked-for “helpers”, “advisors” and coercive meddlers. Unfortunately, this proverbial wisdom, like many others, has not been explored and applied to its natural limits. If it were, these practitioners would arrive at the principles and practices of panarchism. – J.Z., n.d. & 7.1.99.

PANARCHISM & NICE PEOPLE, TOLERANCE: Panarchism means that people can hold and practice almost all kinds of beliefs - among themselves - and be nice people, nevertheless, towards all outsiders. - J.Z., 29.1.04, 24.4.04. Through their non-interventionism, tolerance and peacefulness they will also be mostly considered as decent people by outsiders with different convictions, beliefs, institutions and personal laws. – J.Z., 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & NON-VIOLENCE: Why fight, resist, subvert, boycott or even merely argue against any existing State or any proposed panarchy when the existing territorial States could be panarchistically reduced to mere panarchistic autonomy and when quite different panarchies do not really bother you at all but simply leave you alone, confining their activities to their own members and self-chosen own affairs? They could merely be your own suppliers or markets, if you are prepared to trade peacefully with them. You do not have to have any other relations with them. Thus you are free to ignore them as you are free to ignore any church, sect, hobby or sports group that does not interest you. Panarchies minimize motives for violence, although they do not “offer the other cheek”. – J.Z., 29.9.93, 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM & NOZICK: If some anarchists morally objected to participating in the State at all, we might allow them to contribute 5 % above the tax they otherwise would have to pay to some” (Some? - Sometimes I can’t read my own handwriting! –J.Z.) “from a list of specified private charities – and perhaps can ignore their complaints about having to file with the State proof that they have done this.” – That is a very unripe notion, not even up to the standard already set by Herbert Spencer, who clearly recognized the connection between voluntary taxation and ignoring the State. As if an anarchist would not also object to a tax increase as well as to all current taxes and to the uses governments make of tax funds. Moreover, who is the State to “allow” secession? Or is secession to be dependent upon permission from Nozick or other political “scientists” or philosophers? On the same page, in another context, he admitted: “When such things are done or funded through the political system, everyone is willy-nilly an accomplice.” - Nozick, The Examined Life, p. 290. – On page 291 he defends anti-discrimination laws. – And he wants “the zigzack of politics” to continue, i.e., collectivistic and territorialist policies as usual. Although he showed some panarchistic insights, particularly in his “Anarchy, State and Utopia” and its chapter dealing with a “meta-utopia”, his other books are still far from panarchistic thinking, as far as I have seen or read them. – In “The Examined Life”, chapter “The Ideal and the Action”, he seems to have forgotten about his previous discussions of a “meta-utopia” as a framework for simultaneously realizing different ideals in the same country among volunteers. In “Holocaust” he fails to discuss the underlying error of “collective responsibility” and, instead, applies it himself. Moreover, his chapter on “cosmic consciousness” or “universal consciousness” is misleadingly named “Enlightenment”.  However, there is at least one somewhat panarchistically sounding passage in his book: The Examined Life, on page 290: “More pointedly, I think someone who consciously objects on moral grounds to the goal of a public policy, should be allowed by the society to opt out of that policy insofar as this is possible, even though the rest would wish to include that person in their joint symbolic affirmation. A recent example in the U.S. is a war to which much of the population morally objected; a current example is the aborting of fetuses, which some portion of the population finds akin to murder. When such things are done or funded through the political system, everyone is willy-nilly an accomplice.” - Perhaps you have found other panarchistic pearls in his writings? - J.Z., 4.1.90, 14.1.99.

PANARCHISM & NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, EVEN UNILATERAL, WAR & PEACE: Panarchism as a disarming policy: Full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws - for all present revolutionaries, insurrectionists, resistance fighters, guerrillas and even to terrorists, including an amnesty for all their past crimes, if they abstain from committing any further ones from now on and fully accept this condition within a month. With a victory - for their own affairs - so close to them, one can insist upon them accepting our armistice and amnesty offer immediately and a one month period for their deliberations should be enough, particularly if all panarchistic information that so far exists in writing is made available to them. - J.Z., 29.3.89, 31.3.89.

PANARCHISM & PANARCHIES: Panarchism means the progress from monarchical sovereignty over the people’s sovereignty to individual sovereignty, expressed especially in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, which individuals may establish or join and also freely secede from. – J.Z., 18.2.05, 15.3.05.

PANARCHISM & PEACE, TERRITORIAL STATISM & WAR: Territorial States are by their very nature Warfare States. Only volunteer communities with full exterritorial autonomy – and confined to it – can peacefully coexist in the long run. Intolerant ideas and fanaticism might still lead them into aggressive actions but their fundamental institution would not. Moreover, the voluntary taxation, monetary freedom and absence of territorial targets as well as of any somewhat rational motives for war (fighting for markets, when free trade is coercively suppressed, as it was for Japan before WWII, or for access to land and resources, when they are monopolized by nation States, that suppress free trade, free investments and free migration), would make wars between panarchies much more unlikely. Luckily, free trade, unilateral disarmament, monetary freedom and free migration can be introduced unilaterally, profitably and with a reduced risk. – J.Z., 25.9.93, 9.1.99. - See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON:  On Panarchy. – WARFARE STATES

PANARCHISM & PEACE: For anyone comprehending the factors making for war and those making for peace (see especially PEACE PLANS 16-17 & 61-63 = or: & ) exterritorial governments and States are no threats to each other but only to territorial States and can and will thus peacefully coexist in the same countries and in the world. As for their conflicts with the remaining and authoritarian territorial States: They do have the potential, if their principles and practices are consistently applied in their resistance, liberation, revolutionary and defensive efforts, to reduce any bloodshed that might still be required, to a minimum, confined largely to war criminals and tyrants. Potentially, their “wars” could be turned into rightful and limited police actions. Existing territorial governments will have no good reason to desperately resist them. Under their usual delusions, they might even come to believe that under the free competition, which panarchism would offer them, world-wide, they could gain more followers in the rest of the world than they would lose in their own present countries. (Or criminally occupied "turf". - J.Z., 8.12.03.) Anyhow, a few will always be dumb or prejudiced enough to continue to follow them and over these they could rule more firmly and lastingly than they can rule presently over their many dissenters. To that extent panarchism has something to offer even to the worst kind of rulers. – J.Z., 29.9.93, 9.1.99. - J.Z., 18.9.04.

PANARCHISM & PLAYING GAMES: Play your own games - and let others play theirs! A common sense maxim applied in spheres where its application was so far suppressed. - J.Z., 18.1.95 & 26.6.01.

PANARCHISM & POLITICAL MATURITY OR INDEPENDENCE: Manche Politiker unserer Zeiten pflegen es als einen sich von selbst verstehenden Satz hinzustellen, dass kein Volk frei sein duerfe, bis es faehig sei, sich seiner Freiheit zu bedienen. Dieser Grundsatz is des Toren in der alten Geschichte wuerdig, der beschloss, nicht eher ins Wasser zu gehen, als bis er schwimmen gelernt haette.” –  Macaulay, Kritische und historische Essays, Milton. (*) – (My own and probably flawed re-translation into English: “Some politicians of our times consider it to be as a self-evident rule, that no people should be free until it is able to use its liberty. This principle is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to enter the water at all until he had learnt to swim.” – J.Z.)  Panarchism gives everybody the chance to become as mature and act as maturely as he is capable of and wants to. It does not presuppose or demand simultaneous and equal maturity or sufficient maturity for all people in a territory. But the wise and more enlightened people will be free to set examples for all prepared to follow them. The present territorial systems keep “the people” perpetually in a kind of political Kindergarten, in which the most important decisions of their lives are subjected to the “wisdom” of politicians and bureaucrats, within territorial “democratic” systems in which, as Hayek and others said, the worst tend to get to the top and to stay there, for all too long. – J.Z., 9.1.99. - (*) Actually, one can practise certain swimming movements on dry land and most of them almost completely, if one were suspended in the middle. - J.Z., 8.12.03.)

PANARCHISM & POLITICAL SCIENCE: Panarchism means an end to political science as usual, a "science" that has only concentrated on territorial politics while, quite unscientifically, ignoring its opposite, namely, political relationships based upon voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy. Thus it hardly deserves the name of a "science". All political science lecturers ought to resign, go back to school, and primary research, after first apologizing to their students. Political writers should likewise apologize, to their publishers and readers and should rewrite all their texts or declare that they would apply only in the sphere of territorial politics. - They are unlikely to do so. It is much more likely that they will continue to ignore panarchism or to ridicule it, smear it or otherwise try to put it down. No wonder, their reputation is at stake and the their years to decades of territorialist and as such largely wrongful and irrational teachings. The new model will only be slowly accepted, largely only to the extent that the leading advocates of territorialism and its institutions die out. - See: Kuhn's book on the story of scientific revolutions. - J.Z., 26.6.01, 20.1.12, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & POPULAR PREJUDICES: As long as most people remain blind or deaf towards or prejudiced against the tolerant, voluntaristic and exterritorial autonomy options, they will have to suffer the consequences of their remaining intolerance and their preferred territorial, coercive and monopolistic institutions and laws, regardless of whether they do really like them or consider them as inevitable or lesser evils. – J.Z., 4.7.93, 10.1.99, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & PREFERENCES FOR WRONGFULLY CLASSIFIED & FALSE ALTERNATIVES LIKE RIGHT VS. LEFT: Replace the fruitless and misleading discussions of right vs. left and left vs. right, anarchism vs. libertarianism and libertarianism vs. anarchism etc., by full discussions of all voluntaristic options that are not confined to territorialism but include all exterritorialist autonomy options for all volunteer communities of whatever shade of opinion and conviction. This kind of experimental freedom or freedom of action is most important - if we want to solve most of our remaining public problems, fast and effectively. Full tolerance is required for all tolerant actions so that all voluntaristic possibilities become explored and proven or disproven fast. Otherwise it will remain “politics as usual”, i.e. we will be getting nowhere or even go backwards or stumble into the general nuclear holocaust, essentially caused by the continuance of territorial super-States with their “super” weapons which are no smarter than those who advocated them, built them and kept them in readiness for mass murderous actions. – J.Z., 27.4.98, 9.1.99, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & PRISONS: in the ceaseless power struggle among those who have otherwise been rendered powerless…” – Stephen Donaldson, Nat Prison, ANALOG, Mid Dec. 93. – By being largely rendered powerless, even as territorial leaders, we tend to become power-mad – wherever and whenever we can still exercise at least some control over our lives and, in imitation of the power abuse of those above us, our own abuse of power over those below us or weaker than us. This can be seen in the relentless pursuit of entertainment, sports, artistic endeavors, the excess use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, in speeding and in criminal lawlessness, e.g. in wife and child abuse. Juvenile delinquency, for instance, tends to reduce sharply among those no longer forced to attend school and becoming productively employed. As for the powerlessness of convicts in prisons: At least in modern prisons one kind of power and opportunity is increased rather than decreased for most prisoners, namely that for self-improvements, if they so desire. They have more time and energy left for such endeavors and it usually costs them nothing. That otherwise their power over their own lives has been reduced is only a consequence of their previous criminal actions, in which they used and abused power over the lives, liberties, well-being and property of others. This is something many of them do not want to admit. For them “prison is the crime” or “getting caught”, rather than their own criminal offence. – J.Z., 3.12.93, 9.1.99, 18.9.04. (XYZ Panarchies would practise XYZ prison systems and the examples set by the best ones would tend to spread rapidly. - J.Z., 8.12.03.)

PANARCHISM & PRIVATIZATION OF GOVERNMENTS: Privatize governments, i.e., turn them into voluntary affairs and free and competitive enterprises – based only upon exterritorial autonomy and voluntary membership. That requires that individuals are and remain free to secede from them and to conclude other societal arrangements for themselves, i.e., to live under personal rather than territorial laws and rules. – J.Z., 26.2.94, 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM & PROTESTANTISM: Panarchism (Polyarchy, Multiarchy, etc.) amounts to political, economic and social or secular Protestantism and it aims to preach and practise the same kind of voluntarism and tolerance as is demonstrated by the best kinds of Protestants, all on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy for all the voluntary members of their communities. For this purpose it insists upon the rightfulness of individual sovereignty and of individual and minority group secessionism, the liberty to live under personal law and individually chosen constitutions and jurisdictions, all this as a preconditions for a free, just, peaceful, prosperous and progressive world, in which all enlightened people get their chance and only the unenlightened ones have to suffer under their own flawed choices. Under this system even life expansion, intelligence expansion and space exploration will make much more rapid progress. It extends tolerance and freedom of action to their natural limits. It releases all of man's creative energies and reduces his destructive ones. It is the consistent application of free market and laissez faire ideas, of self-government, self-help, self-realization, self-determination and democracy. Nothing else can make us as strong against any further authoritarianism, despotism, tyranny, terrorism  and totalitarianism. Without it we might all come to perish in the next and universal holocaust. - J.Z., 7.5.02 & 15.12.03, 20.1.12

PANARCHISM & PROTESTANTISM: Panarchism aims to achieve the same Protestant revolution in the political, economic and social spheres that succeeded in the religious sphere - and this without bloodshed, coercion or fraud, by quite peaceful means, via individual and group secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy for the secessionists, leaving all the associations, that they seceded from, in full control over their own affairs, but from this time onwards only among their remaining volunteers and those volunteers that might come to join them from all over the world, while, usually remaining to live and work where they are. For instance, the present USA would have many secessionists but they would be replaced by many more who would even prefer the present USA regime for themselves to the regimes they are presently suffering under. Only obviously despotic regimes would be losing more subjects than they would gain world-wide. After the experiences with e.g. the Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and Mao regimes, who would deny their dissenting subjects the right to secede from them? And who would deny that, in association with all the dissenters from them, the much more free States and societies could have easily defeated or overthrown them? In the same way as the parliamentary democracy of England, or at least some of its external forms, have spread over most of the world, so the exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers could and would spread over the whole world - but they would do so much faster and with much less struggle, from the smallest successful beginnings. There are less physical barriers now for the spread of good ideas than there were ever before. Freedom ideas could come to be represented in irresistible form – when, finally, fully utilizing the intellectual energies of all freedom lovers.  Moreover, they would be backed by successful experiments or demonstrations, provided by volunteers. Wherever free communities cannot as yet be freely established, they could become effectively prepared and demonstrated by exterritorially autonomous governments in exile, set up in somewhat free countries by refugees and deserters, to realize there their own rights and interests immediately and represent those, who would join them as soon as they become free to do so. In this way all the centrifugal forces could come to be mobilized against the remaining despotic territorial regimes. D-Day for all could arrive very fast and without much fighting on this day or in consequence of the fall of a regime. For their true believes any regime could be continued - but only at their expense and risk. Thus they would not desperately resist.  Volunteers would still be free to join them from the rest of the world. But such volunteers would, probably, be shamefully few. - J.Z., 15.10.04, 20.1.12. – GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE AS ALLIES OF DEMOCRACIES AGAINST DICTATORSHIP & AS DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE RIGHTFUL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DIVERSE PEOPLES TO BE LIBERATED FROM TERRITORIAL DICTATORSHIPS, DES.

PANARCHISM & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, CHURCHES, SECTS: One day we will wonder why we ever put up with territorial political hierarchies as we once did with religious ones (national churches, State religions). – J.Z., 25.11.93.

PANARCHISM & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OR TOLERANCE: The principles of religious liberty or tolerance should be applied to ideologies and their organizations and practices as well, that is, likewise, only among their believers. Most ideologies are, like religions, merely composed of dogmas, articles of faith, errors, myths and prejudices, unchecked premises, wrongful assumptions and as such cannot be proven to those who disagree with them. Thus they should not be given any territorial status, privilege or monopoly, either, via territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions, over any dissenters. Naturally, the few relatively just and rational ideologies should be given the same freedom to be experimented with among their volunteers. It is wrongful to recognize freedom to experiment in the spheres of religion, science, technology, the arts, sports, entertainment and in private lives but to deny it in the very important spheres of political, economic and social systems and to monopolize it there in the hands of a few territorial leaders, parties, minorities, majorities or movements. Each should have to suffer only the results of his own mistakes, including that of having chosen the wrong system for himself. Those, who have learned their lessons, should be free to withdraw from a previously chosen system, after an agreed upon withdrawal period, or instantly, in case of obvious abuses, and to join other systems that are more to their liking. - J.Z., 6.1.96 & 26.6.01. - Under panarchism even racists and extremist radicals could become peaceful neighbors - just doing their things to or for themselves, leaving all others alone. - J.Z., 18.9.04. – COMPETITION EVEN FOR WHOLE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS, MADE POSSIBLE BY EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARISM & INDIVIDUAL FREE CHOICES OR PEACEFUL ONE-MAND “REVOLUTIONS”.

PANARCHISM & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: Panarchism is simply a consistent application of the principle involved in religious liberty or religious tolerance to the political, economic and social spheres and also of the principles and practices of laissez-faire economics. If reformers and revolutionaries were to use panarchistic principles and practices against oppressive territorial governments, starting with the worst of them, then they could replace them without the enormous bloodshed that was and is involved in religious wars. However, as tolerant people are today still extremely rare. On the other hand, alternative media to cheaply spread panarchistic ideas, facts and arguments do today exist and could be effectively utilized by these few. If they established a proper ideas archive first of all, for all social reform ideas, and an encyclopedia of the best refutations for popular errors, myths and prejudices, as well as one for the best ways for putting forward any good case and an encyclopedia of the variety of definitions that do exist for every significant term, perhaps numbering all of them, then they would make their enlightenment efforts much easier. – J.Z., 9.1.99, 20.1.12, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & REPRESENTATION: Why and how could anyone represent AREAS and all their inhabitants rather than free people who have chosen him and no one else? Who or what illusion or delusion made him or her “representative” for all living in a territory, without a power of attorney from everyone involved? At most he or she could represent those, who subscribe to the delusions of territorial representative or direct democracies or republics. But not a single individual disagreeing with these “ideals” could be rightly represented by anyone in any territorial regime. – Territorial representation is not sufficiently representative. – It represents too much constitutional, legal, juridical and police repression for that. - J.Z., 12.11.93, 9.1.99, 27.6.12. – TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSENT, VOTING

PANARCHISM & RESPECT FOR POLITICIANS: I could only respect a ruling politician if he were to let all his opponents secede from his regime and also left them free to form alternative governmental or non-governmental societies. However, that was something even an Abraham Lincoln would not permit. He rather sacrificed half a million of his countrymen to preserve a compulsory territorial “unity” and his rule over it. – J.Z., 26.5.93, 14.1.99, 20.1.12, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & RIGHTS: Panarchism includes all the rights and benefits that can be provided e.g. by full monetary and financial freedom, free enterprise, free productive coops and free trade and this without forcing them upon any dissenter. – J.Z., n.d. It provides also a rightful and tolerant as well as tolerable framework for all other kinds of reforms, revolutions and utopias that apply only to those people, who do want them for themselves. – J.Z., 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: Compulsory attendance, compulsory subordination to hierarchies, compulsory association with people one dislikes, compulsory lessons, compulsory text books, selected by others, compulsory home work, compulsory examinations, monopolistic certification schemes, imposition of teachers as experts, do, between them and inevitably, lead to some passive resistance, vandalism, bullying, fighting, gang warfare, arson and some terrorist acts - even in schools, just like in territorial states and, largely, for the same motives or reasons. - J.Z., 19.3.01, 24.6.01. – Even a rat will attack when it is cornered. Many people will take only so much before they resort to violent counteractions against compulsion, coercion and violence against them. Territorialism breads terrorism, violent resistance, assassinations, arson, revolutions, civil wars, riots, and other destructive actions. It rarely leads to quite rightful, rational, creative and productive actions. It has held mankind back for all too many centuries. I can see no reason at all for continuing it. – J.Z., 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & SELF-GIVEN LAWS: Panarchy gives a new meaning to Rousseau's phrase : "Liberty is a set of laws which I have chosen for myself." - J.Z., 16 May 89. – Self-governance and self-determination, exterritorially and voluntarily realized, by individuals, minorities and majorities , always only by and for themselves. – J.Z., 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & SELF-GOVERNMENT OR SELF-MANAGEMENT, SELF-RULE, VOLUNTARISM, GOVERNMENT, ANARCHISM, COMPULSION: To adopt moral rules for oneself is not therefore inconsistent with anarchism. Government, with its laws, restricts our freedom by the threat of force, but if a person imposes rules on himself he is not being compelled but acting voluntarily. Freedom in the sense of government by reason is quite acceptable. As Tucker wrote: ‘If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny.’ The idea of ruling oneself rather than being ruled by others is implicit in the anarchist’s advocacy of self-government and self-management. The whole thrust of the anarchist argument for social freedom is that the absence of laws would not lead to a state of moral chaos or disorder since people are capable of governing themselves…." - “… they would accept Kant’s view of autonomy as self-imposed rules which have been freely chosen for oneself.” – Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, 38. –TYRANNY, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, LAWS, SELF-GOVERNMENT

PANARCHISM & SELF-HELP: Panarchism means full freedom for all self-help ventures. – J.Z., 10.1.99.

PANARCHISM & SEPARATISM: Separatism for everyone who wants it – but only on an exterritorial autonomy or personal law basis. – J.Z., 25.9.93.

PANARCHISM & SOCIAL SECURITY: Social Security is a gigantic fraud from which taxpayers can now legally 'drop out'". - Schiff, The Greatest Con, cover. - Can they, indeed? - J.Z. – Or only as “easily” as they can drop out of any other form of taxation? – J.Z., 20.1.12.

PANARCHISM & STATISM: The State, any form of it except the territorial one – for all those, who still want it for themselves. That should be one of the main demands of consistent anarchists and libertarians, who, using the same kind of individual choice, would want to establish their desired degrees of liberty among themselves, quite undisturbed by the statists. – J.Z., 12.2.98, 11.1.99.

PANARCHISM & TASTE, THE GREAT VARIETY OF PERSONAL TASTES, CHOICES AND PREFERENCES:  President De Gaulle is said to have once remarked, in an attempt to excuse his failures: “Who can govern a nation that loves 400 different kinds of cheese?” – Certainly no one who likes to prescribe his own preferred taste in cheese for millions of others. He raised an important question but did not answer it, although with regard to cheese and in numerous other private ways, he was prepared to leave Frenchmen their individual and exterritorially autonomous choices. But he wanted to monopolize, like most present politicians, the “public affairs” decision, i.e. all major decisions in the political, economic and social spheres. He did not learn enough from his chosen example. His supposedly “gloriously united” and “happy” “nation was, in reality, an ingloriously forced together combination, a disunited and unhappy “nation”, artificially made up and forcefully held together, in spite of the numerous tribal, religious and ideological individual preferences, which no single regime, party, parliament, no territorial rule at all, could ever rightfully and properly represent, even with the best intentions and greatest abilities among the leaders. The French have sometimes tried several territorial governments per year. None of them could provide satisfaction to all the dissenters. The model itself is unsuitable for the achievement of this aim. – J.Z., 8.4.95, 9.1.99, 18.9.04. – Once, when quoting De Gaulle’s remark to someone, that person replied that by now there are over 2,000 different kinds of cheese. – J.Z., 20.1.12. – Each to his own tastes in every sphere – but always only at the own risk and expense. Pick your poison! – as an old saying of drinkers of alcoholic beverages has it. – J.Z., 27.7.12.

PANARCHISM & TERRITORIAL ARCHISM, WELFARE STATES & OTHER EXPLOITATIVE STATES: Under territorial archism you are forced to contribute to the paying of the bills of almost everybody else and can claim that your own public affairs bills are to some extent paid by others. Under panarchism each has to pay only his own bills or only his share in the bills for those common projects, which he approved, personally. If under these conditions he is foolish enough to give others blank cheques upon his earnings and assets, then he has only himself to blame. – J.Z., 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM & TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS: While it is correct that almost all existing governments are territorial governments with compulsory membership or subjugation, competing only on the territorial level with other governments of the same kind, for the own or their territory and subjects, including all their dissenters, in a struggle for territorial monopolies, and for domination or imperial positions among these modern “robber barons”, conquerors, authoritarians, despots, tyrants and totalitarians, i.e., for criminal political turfs, it would be quite wrong to indiscriminately condemn as "governments" all the past, current and future governments and free societies that  were, are or will be only exterritorially autonomous and have only voluntary members.  Competing governments and societies are rightful, possible and practical, even desirable or ideal, compared with most of the past and present territorial governments. - J.Z., 1.1.99 & 24.2.99.  – Even if they do not correspond to the definition of governments that most anarchists and libertarians do have in their minds. – J.Z., 20.1.12, 27.6.12. – COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXTERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS

PANARCHISM & THE FREE MARKET: A free market for all government and societal services is one of the most important and yet most neglected markets. Now our very survival depends upon it. - J.Z., 2.11.99, 26.6.01. – See my ABC Against Nuclear War at

PANARCHISM & THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE: The whole of history, if viewed without a territorial bias, is full of evidence that you cannot trust the constitutions, power-holders, representatives, laws, bureaucratic machineries and methods of territorial States to keep the peace or minimize wars or promote progress and wealth, at all or sufficiently, rather than obstruct and prevent them. Territorial States, beyond a minimum size, are Warfare States, oppressive and exploitative institutions rather than liberating ones and all their “wars against poverty”, fights against unemployment and against drugs do rather spread poverty, unemployment and drugs than abolish them. I do not know of any creative or productive sphere in which territorial governments have ever or always acted rightly and efficiently, i.e., provided a better service and at lower market prices than free and competitive private or cooperative alternative suppliers could have provided, had they been freed to do so. The services of territorial governments cost, as a rule, as I believe David Friedman has pointed out, twice to three times as much as competitively supplied private services cost and are, as a rule, not worth their enforced prices, including the subsidies that are involved, at the expense of taxpayers. As inefficient panarchies would rapidly fail, i.e. run out of members and customers and go bankrupt, as they should. – J.Z., 9.2.98, 10.1. 99.

PANARCHISM & THE MASS MEDIA: The Mass media are largely produced and used by the ignorant and the prejudiced. They are thus, at least initially, least suitable to launch new and radical ideas. They would rather ignore, attack or ridicule them than fairly report and discuss them. – J.Z., 2.5.93. – However, have anarchists and libertarians shown enough interest in using all affordable, easy and powerful alternative media or, predominantly, only mass media, now including the Internet and the ancient and costly print on paper options for their books, magazines, leaflets and papers? - Well, at least their online offers have become numerous, large and increasing. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 20.1.12. – However, they are still far away from stating their full case and refuting all objections successfully, although technically and economically this would now be quite possible, if only enough of them were to seriously and systematically participate in this effort. – J.Z., 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & THE NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Territorially "united" we will sooner or later perish under ABC mass murder devices in the hands of madmen with unjustifiable powers. Exterritorially divided and autonomous we could prevent them from ever being used again. Their targets would be dissolved, as well as the powers, means and motives to use them. See my two books on this, in PEACE PLANS 16-18 & 61-63. - J.Z., 12.3.99 & 26.6.01.

PANARCHISM & THE REPEATED TROUBLES IN THE BALKANS: I do not want to “sit” on “my” solutions to the problems of e.g. Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, etc., and for the hundreds to thousands of other minority groups in the world, nor do I want to confine such information only to a few dozen people, who showed so far some limited interest in my preferred medium, libertarian microfiche, or only to the hundreds to thousands of libertarians whom I might, gradually, approach via costly and time consuming letters and e-mails. But I cannot afford conventional mass media and have not, as yet, become skillful enough in the use of free websites or blogs or of the potential power of CDs, DVDs and even much larger external HDDs, all of them very affordable but requiring much in scanning, proof-reading and editing to make all these texts and their ideas optimally accessible. I do not have much hopes for the Internet, in its present forms, as a suitable medium to provide sufficient enlightenment. E.g., the number of freedom books that it offers, in full texts, is still rather limited. How many pro-freedom pages are there among its billions of pages, so far? Why haven’t freedom lovers provided many more of them or even all of them - there? Will they all too much ignore e.g. the DVD and HDD options, as they did other alternative media and even their floppy disk and CD options so far? - The minority rights groups, that I heard or read about, do not seem interested at all in the exterritorial autonomy alternatives for volunteers but rather in freedom struggles for still more separate territories for separate groups and are thus part of the problem rather than the solution. Most of the organized secessionists consider only territorial secessions. The mass media are largely out of my reach and only occasionally do I waste another letter to the editor to one of them on a free banking or panarchist topic. – J.Z., n.d., 11.1.99, 18.9.04, 21.1.12, 27.6.12. - Responses to my literature lists for LMP: Libertarian Microfiche Publishing & have been very poor, also responses to my offers of libertarian files via e-mail, floppies and CDs. Most "minds" march only on the popular highways. - J.Z., 18.9.04. – BALKANS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS IGNORING POWERFUL & AFFORDABLE ENLIGHTENMENT OPTIONS

PANARCHISM & THE STATE: isolate(s) the factors which tend to make the State into an engine of suppression.” – John Chamberlain, The American States, 37.  – Panarchism isolates and removes them. – J.Z., 2.1.94.

PANARCHISM & THE USUAL REACTION TO IT: Men occasionally stumble over truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Sir Winston Churchill. Until an Ideas Archive and an Encyclopaedia of the Best Refutations of Popular Errors, Prejudices, Misconceptions, Dogmas and Myths, which Are Obstacles to Enlightenment, and other useful enlightenment tools are finally established and fully operating, truthful ideas and proposals will always have a very hard stand, especially under territorialism, when they touch on any of its wrongs and irrationalities. – Too many freedom lovers seem to believe that just a few more lectures, pamphlets, books, magazines, articles, websites, blogs, petitions, letters to the editor will be enough to turn the current trends around. They are not interested in fully mobilizing and utilizing ALL affordable and powerful publishing and reading opportunities, e.g. via a comprehensive libertarian digitized library, information service, encylopaedia, bibliography, abstracts and review compilation as well as an alphabetizes index to all libertarian writings. Compare my 2010 digitized book manuscript, still only called NEW Draft, not yet online but reviewed by GPdB on - I still offer it free of charge upon request as an email attachment, until it appears on a CD or online. – J.Z., 27.6.12. -  PEOPLE, ENLIGHTENMENT, IDEAS, RESISTANCE TO NEW IDEAS, ARGUMENT MAPPING, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ALL RELEVANT DEFINITIONS

PANARCHISM & TOLERANT UTOPIAS & PANACEAS: Panarchists may be the only ones who aim at a utopia or panacea that is extremely tolerant, a kind of “meta-utopia”, to use Nozick”s term, which provides a framework for all other utopias and panaceas. (Curiously enough, I have not yet found a libertarian review of Nozick's concept of "meta-utopias", although his books have often been reviewed. - J.Z., 8.12.03.) The way anarchism and libertarianism are usually advanced, is still only on the basis of small territories, within which there are only various anarchistic communities or only limited government libertarian societies. Their ideals are thus still fundamentally intolerant and authoritarian - because of their remaining territorial and thus monopolistic features. They are the ideals of “true believers”, who want all the world and all human beings to be liberated only in their way. Nothing else will satisfy them. With this approach they do maximize the resistance against their ideals, rather than minimizing it. Panarchism, although providing an excellent framework for all types of anarchists and libertarians (and representatives of other isms), who are prepared to act tolerantly and self-responsibly, at their own risk and expense, in the realization of their own ideal among themselves, does offer the same liberty, right and opportunities to all other dissenting groups as well and thus can hope to make friends and allies wholesale, rather soon, once it is sufficiently comprehended by a critical mass of people and consistently applied by them. No one has to fear any movement that does not aim to dominate, that does not claim to rule a whole territory and all its population, always including many kinds of dissenters. No one has to fear anyone, who is prepared to pay his own bills and bear his self-chosen risks himself or together with his associates. Territorial monopoly claims, on the other hand, combined with taxation and huge debts taken up by territorial governments, in anticipation of further future taxation, threaten all those who disagree with these intolerant claimants and thus lead to permanent strife and suspicion, to lies and deceptions, to power plays, dramas and tragedies, to zero-sum games, to party struggles and “politics as usual”. Alas, in our time and for decades by now, they have been rendered far more dangerous via ABC mass murder devices in the hands of officials and also, possibly, some other terrorists and madmen. Only panarchism offers a way out of the nightmarish situation created by ABC mass murder devices, still widely and quite wrongly considered as “weapons” or as sufficient deterrents. (How does one deter a madman or a fanatic?) How helpless territorial politicians are towards this threat and how they are only able to prolong it, they do demonstrate almost every day. – J.Z., 20.12.97, 10.1.99. 8.12.03, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM & UNANIMITY: Unanimity is the best fortress.” – Danish Proverb. – And it can be attained, in most cases, only exterritorially, in the spheres of political, economic and social systems. – J.Z., 16.2.86, 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM & UTOPIA: Utopia is, for you, where YOU find it or establish it. You should get the full freedom to do so. - J.Z., 7.8.03, 15.12.03.

PANARCHISM & UTOPIAS, TO EACH HIS OWN: To everyone his own choice of utopia, at his own cost and risk and that of like-minded volunteers - as long as they can stand it. - J.Z., 7.10.00.

PANARCHISM & VISION: Where there is no vision the people perish”. – Bible, Proverbs, XXIX, 18, ca. 350 B.C. – Not only “any” vision is required but a rightful and correct one or many of them. We have suffered from the imposition of too many wrongful and false visions, dreams, ideals, spleens or ideologies. Panarchism is a vision or general framework ONLY for all these visionaries and their followers. It facilitates the realization of the benefits they could provide to their voluntary participants and also limits the wrongs and harms caused to them alone. – J.Z., 16.2.86, 9.1.99. – Naturally, to the extent that they impoverish themselves in the pursuit of their ideal, we lose them as good customers for ourselves. But then we do not have a right to exchange our goods and services for what they might have produced or offered to us IF they had not adopted an impoverishing system, method or “ideal” for themselves. – J.Z., 21.1.12, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM & VOLUNTARISM: All the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations. - Benjamin R. Tucker, LIBERTY, March 10, 1888. - ASSOCIATIONISM, SECESSIONISM, OWN AFFAIRS

PANARCHISM & VOLUNTARY COOPERATION:  Panarchism is just another term for “voluntary cooperation”, “self-government”, “self-control”, complete “freedom of contract”, “full autonomy”, consistent “pluralism”, consistent “multiculturalism”, “non-oppressive apartheid”, voluntary “segregation” combined with voluntary “integration”, “consumer sovereignty” in every sphere,  “voluntaryism”,  “competing governments”,  consistent libertarianism and anarchism, “non-geographical autonomy”, divorce from governments, etc. - All terms that have so far been coined for this kind of “utopia” have still to be combined into one listing. - See a longer list under NAMES, TERMS, DEFINITIONS, EXPLANATIONS, ANALOGIES

PANARCHISM & WAYS OUT: Rightful and efficient ways-out will be easily and as fast as possible found under free experimentation for all, in all spheres, even those now monopolized by territorial governments, combined with an efficient free market for all new ideas and talents. – J.Z., 8.6.97, 10.1.99, 18.9.04. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM AS A NEW KIND OF PLURALISM: Territorial pluralism for a territory, under country-wide sovereignty, uniformly imposed constitutions, laws, jurisdiction, police etc. is something very different from the pluralism practised by exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, of which many could and should exist, corresponding to the variety of people and their various motives and bodies of knowledge, errors and prejudices. All could have their own either statist or anarchist or libertarian institutions and methods. They would not only enjoy more or less trivial conceded “liberties” under a territorial overlordship, with which they might strongly disagree with on fundamentals. – J.Z., 61.198, 11.1.99. –PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM AS POLITICAL ECOLOGY: Natural diversity and autonomy exist, largely exterritorially, not only for plants and animals but for the “political animal”, man, as well. Any imposed “monoculture” upon man and his desired and possible societies and communities, systems, methods and institutions as well as personal law, is a despotic imposition that does more harm than good. Only panarchistic freedom would allow man, that most diverse animal, all his very different choices, when practised self-responsibly in a suitable framework for volunteers. It would permit the establishment and continuance of most diverse utopian, institutions and methods, public interest or common interest services, all kinds of cultivated “gardens” and “parks”, also diverse land-title systems, agricultural systems and other real estate usages, at the cost and risk of their voluntary members and supporters. Only this kind of free choice would enable all to release all their own creative energies while not infringing or suppressing or legally “regulating” those of others. At the same time, it would maximize the opportunities for all to effectively resist the remaining destructive energies of territorially ruling criminals with involuntary victims, whether these criminals are in or out of office.  Without the full freedom for the whole spectrum for all rightful and tolerant human activities, all only by and among volunteers, whether it is obvious and visible to us or an invisible part to us, of the whole spectrum, we will never come to know what free men are really capable of in the long run, when no longer subjugated, exploited, mis-educated and misdirected by politicians and bureaucrats and by their own flawed ideas and opinions. Under panarchism even politicians and bureaucrats would have to be on the best behavior or they would put themselves out of business. However, even the worst kind of faiths and actions could then be long continued at the expense and risk of their remaining believers – and also as deterrent examples for others. Freedom of expression and information is not enough. It must be supplemented by freedom of action and experimentation, in a tolerant and thus tolerable form, to achieve as much enlightenment and progress as human beings are capable of. – J.Z., 28.5.95, 7.1.99, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM AS PROVERBIAL WISDOM: Live and let live.” – David Fergusson: Scottish Proverbs, 1641.

PANARCHISM AS SOLUTION: Panarchistically, we could all be "saved", whether we belong to a fleeting majority conglomerate or one of the numerous minorities, because each of them would then live and work in his own way and always only at the own expense and risk. All ideas, proposals and innovations could then be tried out fast, among their supporters, in the long run for the benefit of all. Imitation and improvements would be a matter of individual choice, not of political and prolonged battles, held back by the mass of the least informed and least interested. - J.Z., 27.2.89, 3.4.89, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM AS WORLD-WIDE OPTIONS FOR EVERYBODY: You are a citizen or inhabitant and owner of this planet much more so than a member of any “nation”, subject of any government or of the majority of the population of any territory. No nation or continent should be closed to you and no system that you want and can tolerantly practise, i.e., at your own expense and risk, alone or in association with others, should be prohibited for you anywhere, on any territory on Earth – or in the universe. Individual and exterritorialist sovereignty rather than collectivist and territorial sovereignty – and this everywhere. The exterritorial autonomy or personal law options do make this possible. - J..Z., 8.9.93, 13.1.99, 21.1.12, 27.6.12.

PANARCHISM EXISTS IN BUSINESS: Each competitive and free enterprise business attempts to compete successfully with all other similar businesses but does not attempt to legally or militarily destroy its competitors, i.e., they are not monopolistic and coercive or even warlike, as territorial governments are. - J.Z., 8.12.03, 7.9.04. – FREE ENTERPRISE COMPETITION, ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, DOING THE OWN THING, TRYING TO PLEASE ONE’S CUSTOMERS, SUBSCRIBERS, FELLOW-MEMBERS. VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION & MONOPOLIES OR IMPOSED PRIVILEGES.

PANARCHISM FAVORS ALL RIGHTFUL & TOLERANT POSSIBILITIES: Look at the other possibilities, become free to choose them for yourself and allow others to make their own choices for themselves. Each is to advance and to continue only at the own risk and expense. In this way freedom of choice, freedom of action, freedom to experiment could be realized for all. The territorial model sets different people, with different ideas against each other. The exterritorial model sets all of them free to do their own things for and to themselves. Thereby they do become pacified - and will tend to advance, in the average, fast, even though some might stagnate or even relapse for a while. Majorities and territorial governments have no right to determine the fate of non-aggressive individuals and minorities that disagree with them. - J.Z., 5.8.03, 15.12.03.

PANARCHISM FOR ALL ISMS: Panarchism caters to (for?) all justified (i.e. peaceful, voluntaryist, non-aggressive) isms, while e.g. limited government, anarchism and welfare statism uphold a territorial monopoly for their kind of faith. - J.Z., 2.1.88, 1.4.89.

PANARCHISM IN AUSTRALIA: Australia contains two major and many minor “nations” or "peoples" under a single territorial, monopolistic, coercive and unsatisfactory compromise constitution, which, in spite of its federalist nature, allowing State and Local Governments, all only territorial ones, cannot fully represent the greatly varied nature, interests, knowledge, aims and values of its whole population, never mind the false pretences of all territorial politicians about consent and representation. and aims. It is a clumsy, coercive, monopolistic, legalistic and bureaucratic system, all too full of imposed legislation, faction-ridden and lawyer-ruled. It thus slows greatly down or prevents free and natural progress for decades or makes it dependent upon costly and prolonged struggles. While somewhat better than many other territorial systems, it is simply not good, free and just enough for everybody. It cannot represent and liberate every of many of its diverse groups, to the extent that they wish to be liberated or ruled. It ignores the fact that only panarchies could truly represent individual choices or consent, not territorially and collectively chosen parties or deputies, elected by a temporary majority of the voters. Moreover, it is nonsensical to make any progress within the large governmentally and territorially monopolized spheres dependent upon a corresponding law being first passed or repealed. Even direct democracies do still contain outvoted minorities. Thus any referendum ought to be confined to upholding rights and liberties or extending them and to projects that are to be funded and run only by the majority that favor them. – J.Z., 13.3.93, 17.4.93, 12.1.99, 28.6.12. – REPRESENTATION, PARTY RULE, POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM, LIBERAL PARTY, LABOR PARTY, MODERN LIBERALISM, WELFARE STATE, STATISM. DEMOCRACY, REFERENDUM

PANARCHISM IN PRACTICE NOW: Panarchy exists in much of our daily lives - however, with all too many limitations upon our autonomy and with the exceptions of a few very important spheres, those monopolized by territorial governments. - J.Z., 4.9.87, 1.4.89, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM IN SCIENCE FICTION: when he returned to Earth and again ... rubbed shoulders every day with faceless millions, all busily living out their different ways and with their different aims and values. There, custom and synthetic social barriers served to mark out the lines of demarcation that man needed in order to identify with definable cultural groups.” – James P. Hogan, The Gentle Giants of Ganymede, 168.

PANARCHISM IN SPACE, ALAS, USUALLY ON PLANET-SIZED TERRITORIES ONLY, SINCE THEY ARE PRESUMED TO EXIST IN UNLIMITED NUMBERS & THE TRANSPORT PROBLEM IS PRESUMED TO BE SOLVED IN THESE SF STORIES: Let me give freedom to the rest of the Galaxy, each portion to go its own way according to its own customs and cultures. The Galaxy will become a working whole again through the free agencies of trade, tourism and communication …” – Isaac Asimov, Prelude to Foundation, 418. – He omitted productive enterprises. – J.Z., 21.1.12. – SCIENCE FICTION

PANARCHISM INVOLVES CLARIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF IDEAL MILITIAS FOR THEIR DEFENCE & A NEW KIND OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JURISDICTION BASED UPON THEM, AS WELL AS A DEGREE OF ENLIGHTENMENT THAT CAN, PERHAPS, ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE MULTIPLE STEPS OF A GENUINELY CULTURAL REVOLUTION TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS OF ENLIGHTENMENT:  Panarchism cannot be created in a vacuum, without sufficient preparations and preconditions, so to speak, out of thin air.  But the oppressions and mistakes of territorial politics provide incentives and opportunities for those sufficiently enlightened on the panarchistic options, to try to establish their alternative institutions and to use their own liberating and protective personal laws and measures. But even this requires minimum numbers of convinced and enlightened members to act effectively together - for their propaganda and their actions to succeed and spread, finally, in a chain reaction, once a critical mass is attained. When the panarchistic approach and practice is understood, even by its enemies, resistance against it will be reduced to a minimum, because then its opponents would not, in most cases (tyrants excepted, to some extent) have to fight for their lives, liberties and properties. For panarchism does also offer all their volunteers the continuance of the statist system they prefer, although only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy. That has the advantage for them that for all their internal affairs, among all their remaining volunteers, they would have got rid of all their opponents, since these would have seceded from them. They would only have lost the authority and power to rule and tax these opponents. But so far panarchism is largely only a "castle in the air" or a utopia in the minds of a few and even in these minds it is often still not quite clarified but mixed up with some territorialist thoughts, notions, errors and prejudices.  Thus self-enlightenment is the obvious first step and this requires access to all the panarchistic information, experiences and texts and discussions, which were so far recorded or even published somewhere and their correction and supplementation - until, finally, we will be close to a new kind of political science that will enable the panarchists to spread their message and advance in their path in the easiest and cheapest ways (using all kinds of affordable and efficient alternative media), making the maximum number of friends and allies on the way. However, panarchists, too, are not prepared to love everybody or subscribe to a universal and egalitarian brotherhood. Instead, they do offer a uniquely tolerant framework and opportunity for self-liberating actions to almost everybody, to all productive and intelligent and peaceful people, excepting only e.g. totalitarians, habitual official and unofficial criminals, fanatics, moochers and parasites. As has often been stated before (First, in a simpler version by Kurt Zube, in his Manifesto for Freedom and Peace, Panarchism offers “to each the government of his or her dreams, at the own expense and risk.” – Who would object to such a dream world, if it could be realized? Panarchism is the only framework that could realize it, with human beings as they are now, in the vast majority. – J.Z., 10.1.99, 8.12.03, 18.9.04, 28.6.12. – Compare my digitized draft book, of 2010, so far only called NEW DRAFT, not yet online but available from me and reviewed by GPdB at . – UNUSED OR UNDERUTILIZED ENLIGHTENMENT OPTIONS, MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS, PERSONAL LAW

PANARCHISM IS PRO-JEWS & ANY FORM OF VOLUNTARY JUDAISM BUT AGAINST TERRITORIAL ZIONISM, ISRAEL & PALESTINE. TO EACH HIS OR HER OWN, EXTERRITORIALLY: I am pro-Jewish but anti-Zionist - to the extent that Zionism expounds and practises a territorial nationalism. I hold that no territorial nationalism, not even a Jewish one, is justified. - J.Z. 27.3.1989. - Full exterritorial autonomy for Arabs as well as Jews - and for all other kinds of peoples and for all voluntary groups, societies, communities and “competing governments”. This kind of mutual tolerance, when constitutionally, legally and juridically fully recognized and enforced, does has the best chance to finally bring about a just and lasting peace to the Middle East and to the rest of the world. The curious thing is, that this radical solution would be no more than a revival and extension of the best among the Arab and Jewish traditions. - J.Z., 11.12.03, 21.1.12, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM MEANS: Anything goes - at your own expense and risk. - J.Z. 14.2.87. - That, does, naturally, exclude any unprovoked attacks, any initiated coercion against peaceful and rational people doing their own and quite different things quite independently among themselves, i.e. and without interfering with others, who are merely doing their own things. - J.Z. 3.-7.89, 21.1.12, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM OFFERS DIVISION OF LABOR & A NEW FREE MARKET FOR PUBLIC SERVICES OR SERVICES BELIEVED TO BE PUBLIC SERVICES BY SOME:  Under the freedom of action and experimental freedom of panarchism, practised by its very nature tolerantly, i.e. only by and among volunteers and at their own expense and risk, we would have division of labor, free enterprise and free market competition among reformers and revolutionaries, who could, peacefully coexisting and competing, try out xyz schemes at the same time and in the same country, each unobstructed by internal dissenters and active external animosity. Consequently, positive results from at least some of them could be expected soon and inherent flaws of self-managed false utopias would also become revealed much sooner and more widely, because people would pay more attention to such contemporary practices in the own country than they would to historical precedents or examples set in foreign countries. New kinds of competitions might result, like e.g.: In which panarchy was there the lowest degree of unemployment, of inflation, of crime, poverty and taxation? – Free and tolerant experiments will introduce a proper scientific attitude in the social sciences, to factual and statistically proven comparisons and tend to make them jump ahead, like natural sciences and technology did, once they were free to experiment. However, in spheres where nothing can be proven and everything merely asserted and believed, like religions, progress would not be speeded up, very much, although more tolerance might be applied there, too. – J.Z., 18.6.93, 14.1.99, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM OR NON-TERRITORIALISM OR CONSISTENT VOLUNTARISM & ITS CONSEQUENCES, AS OPPOSED TO TERRITORIALISM & ITS INEVITABLE RESULTS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY ACTIONS & MASS EXTERMINATION DEVICES: Panarchism would reduce all revolutions to one-man-revolutions and would thus turn all revolutions into peaceful and rightful ones.  What one man does with his life is his business and not the business of his neighbor or his country. At most he would ruin only his own life - not the life of anyone else.  His wife and children are not obliged to follow him into all his choices. (His contractual and natural obligations towards them would remain.) His revolutionary decisions would only affect his own life and not that of his neighbors, his former government, his countrymen, who did not act like him. They would be under no obligation to follow him. No rightful government would have to fear any such revolution. It could go on serving its followers as best as it can and if many individuals would leave it, then it would merely have to try to improve its services in order to retain the remainder of its followers and to gain new ones, perhaps also from among its former members. (People keep voting for governments, which have already disappointed them many times. Territorially no genuine alternatives are offered to them.) Insofar the secessionists really deserve prayers or letters of thanks. Panarchism and its individual secessionism and individual sovereignty and voluntarism would realize the essential vote, namely the right to ignore a government or to secede from it, no matter how many others had voted for it. It would provide the individual with an essential veto right - but one confined to his own affairs. Not even with the aid of his one territorial vote among millions could he then contribute to prevent other people from providing for themselves what they want for themselves, at their own expense and risk. But his own “vote”, choice or decision would become decisive for all his own affairs. His home, life, economic, social and political activities would really become his castle - against the votes, laws, jurisdiction, legislation, constitutions and administrative decisions and assaults of communities of his remaining enemies. Moreover, since his own decisions would not threaten their way of life, they would not want to storm his “castle” or forcefully change the rules of his society or community. The leaders in these voluntary, different and competing communities would all get a real mandate, unanimously, from all their voluntary members. As tolerant, because exterritorially autonomous associationists, they would have many allies, even among those with a quite different ideology, religions or ethnic background, all being interested in exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers and in achieving and maintaining that kind of independence and genuine self-government. To that extent a general harmony would come within our reach. Naturally, even panarchism could not prevent family squabbles or disagreements among lovers or other personality conflicts. But these do not threaten the survival of mankind or general peace, progress and enlightenment. In our private relationships we are already, largely, free to disengage, ignore, or to boycott others, to live our own lives in our own ways, regardless of the preferences of our neighbors and of local or State-wide or federal majorities and their preferences.) We do have to become similarly free to disassociate ourselves from what we perceive to be public policy mistakes or disasters, however constitutional, legal and juridically recognized they are by a territorial monopoly system and however orderly and legally administered. Each should become free to save himself, as far as he can, from such man-made mistakes or disasters, alone or in association with like-minded people, rather than being involuntarily drawn into them, e.g. via majority voting, taxation, centrally and monopolistically determined  foreign policy decisions, monetary and financial despotism or any other morally indefensible compulsions of territorialism, like anti-drug wars, compulsory worship, compulsory voting, compulsory military or educational servitude, immigration or emigration barriers and coercively levied tax tributes. - The supposedly life-, liberty-, security-, order- and peace-promoting measures, organizations and methods of territorial governments can, obviously, no longer be relied upon. Often they cost more in lives and property, liberties and rights than they save or try to avenge. Territorialist and imposed uniformity is the foundation for any authoritarianism, dictatorship, tyranny and totalitarinism. One territorial constitution, one legislation, one jurisdiction system, one administration for all people in a territory, no matter how much at least some may be opposed to it, means endless feuds, party politics, factions fights, religious, national, ideological and racial wars, civil wars, international wars, violent revolutions and resistance actions, including terrorist mass murders, and, worst of all, in our times, even total wars, with officially sanctioned and used mass murder devices, which our "wise and moral" rulers, our supposed representatives, think to be morally and rationally justified, at least as deterrents, although they are merely cheap, scientific and portable "extermination camp packages", directed collectively against all the people in whole cities or even in whole countries, under the quite wrong assumption that they would be a real entity and collectively guilty for the actions of their government or of some of their members. Almost none of our democratic or republican territorial governments have as yet unilaterally renounced the building, storage and use of such “weapons” or of nuclear reactors, which permit the construction and stockpiling, ready for use, of such mass murder devices, or rejected all alliances with all governments, which do thus make a general holocaust possible. - (New Zealand may have gone furthest in the direction of being a zone free of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Australia has only one research reactor {and already problems with the disposal of its radioactive rubbish} and no nuclear weapons but it is allied with the greatest nuclear weapons power and has provided military communication bases for the use of these mass murder "weapons". {Moreover, its miners provide many tons of uranium ore to its users and abusers!} Each of these “weapons” would, if ever used, as two nuclear bombs already were, against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, murder many more people than the largest private terrorist act so far committed. Even the survivors of the greatest official holocaust or genocide attempt against a single ethnic and religious community, in their territorial State, Israel, have not yet rejected these mass murder devices as totally unjustified, as quite indefensible and also quite unsuitable for any genuine defence or even as merely supposedly preventative or deterrent means. This in spite of the fact that their victimization was also on the principle of "collective responsibility" which is horribly embodied and exemplified in each WMD. It exemplifies the supposedly divine Old Testament "justice" and revenge, which was never sufficiently and publicly rejected by any of the Christian and Jewish churches and sects, although it is quite contrary to the image of a supposedly divine and loving father, and of the “brotherhood” of men, all supposedly a god’s children, of loving one’s neighbor and of offering the other cheek to strike. The wrong presupposition that territorially enforce unity means genuine uniformity of opinion and of uniform consent, leads, inevitably, to actions of collective responsibility, under which members of the same territorial nation, race, religion or ideology are collectively held responsible for actions of their territorial government, although they have no personal influence upon their governments, or may even have done their best to criticize and oppose them and may be involved in charitable or constructive private efforts to help people in other countries, who were victims of the policies of their own governments and of the foreign government that tried to help them in the usual official ways. Hostage taking and hostage murder are still wide-spread, no wonder if one considers the example set by official government policies, which considers the populations of whole cities and countries as hostages under the threat of WMDs. – J.Z., n.d. & 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM OR VOLUNTARISM OR NON-TERRITORIALISM FOR THE WORLD'S TROUBLE SPOTS, LIKE E.G., AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, ISRAEL, PALESTINE, SUDAN, IRELAND, NORTH KOREA, CHINA, CUBA: As a panarchist I like or am tolerant to all their diverse groups, but for all of them only for their volunteers and to the extent that they are tolerant to the volunteers of other societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers. Since in each of these countries there are many different groups of volunteers, I like many and also very different Afghanistans, Iraqs, Israels, Arabian or Islamic societies and communities, etc., all the varieties of them, but all only for their own volunteers, according to their own faiths, convictions and preferences, all only chosen by individuals and for themselves only, as long as they do still like them or can stand them. Under this condition these trouble-spots would quieten down, rapidly. Each group would be confined to its own brews and stews, its own mistakes, errors and follies, its own choices for itself and would have no one else to blame or to fear. Their not yet committed but potential customer would set out like a hungry person in the evening, wanting to dine out and seeking a dinner, attractive and affordable for him, among a number of restaurants within his reach, and, if he is not too much in a hurry, then he would be visiting a number of them, at least looking at them from the outside and viewing and judging their menus and prices, walking around, getting a constitutional, while increasing his appetite. These “restaurants” or different societies, communities and governance systems and all the services and institutions they would offer, would be in peaceful competition with each other. They would not mutually bomb their premises or poison their meals. They would not try to tax or conscript all their customers for a civil or an international war among themselves. With them their "public services" have become businesslike, civilized, progressive, peaceful and as good and cheap as possible, through free competition. Why not arrange the same consumer sovereignty, free enterprise and free competition for all our political, economic and social preferences? Who else but bad service providers would be harmed thereby? Obviously, the would not be wronged by those no ceasing to be their customers. Would they have any good reason to publicly complain if they cannot satisfy enough customers to stay in business? Any diner, who wants to save even more and is satisfied with his own cooking and prepared to undertake the chores involved, would prepare and eat his own meals at home. Would any of his neighbors or any of the restaurants he did not visit have then any right to complain? - How many trouble-spots are there in the world, in which such panarchistic service provision and choice is quite urgently needed? Is it quite superfluous even in the best of countries, under the best of the existing territorial governments and for the seemingly most homogeneous populations? Don’t they have at least their religious and ideological differences as well? How much more consumer- and also producer- satisfaction is achieved in this peaceful competition than under a condition where each gets only the prescribed, equal and rationed meal in government-owned (nationalized) or State-run feeding stations? Should they not be free to try to make something more edible or appetizing, or cheaper or healthier at home, if they can or to find it from a freely competing supplier? How popular are hospital and prison meals, as a rule or the meals provided to soldiers? Exterritorially, for volunteers, under personal laws, peaceful coexistence is not only possible but the rule. Only when "menus" or systems, theories and ideologies and uniform practices are territorially imposed upon dissenters does dissatisfaction and conflict become the rule rather than the exception. - Why should the politicians, members and voters of defeated parties be deprived of the "meals" they prefer for themselves and are willing and able to pay for? Why should they be deprived of self-government? Why should the 51 % rule also the 49 %, rather than the 51 % ruling merely the 51 % and the 49 % ruling the 49 % ? Why should any peaceful aspiration, e.g. like that of the pot-users, be driven underground and threatened with long-term imprisonment or even the death penalty? Let them enjoy or harm themselves - in their way! Tolerant self-government - even for all the parties and candidates defeated in supposedly “free” but still territorial and collectivist elections! They should not just have to play a subordinated role as members of a loyal and obedient opposition, waiting for its chance to wrongly dominate the presently ruling group. Regarding the own life, properties and incomes, the individual must become quite free to make his own decisions, in every sphere. This requires only individual sovereignty and free choice of governments or societies, i.e., panarchism or polyarchism or competing governance and societal systems. Territorialist coercion and monopolism prolonged the Dark Ages, those of wrongful persecutions and of wars, civil wars, revolutions and terrorism, which, due to territorialism do persist even into our "modern", “enlightened” and "scientific" age. - Exterritorialism or panarchism can prevent them altogether or greatly reduce their scope and duration. - J.Z., 13. & 15.10.04, 21.1.12. – Q., FREE CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTATION, FREE ENTERPRISE & FREE TRADE IN EVERY SPHERE, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

PANARCHISM REMOVES NUCLEAR TARGETS: Split territorial governments, states, nations, peoples, in a panarchistic way, i.e. allow their subjects to split themselves up, according to their preferences in a voluntaristic, exterritorial and autonomous way. Thus you would achieve, soon, extreme degrees of decentralization and also of world-wide federated societies, which would remove targets for mass murder devices and motives and means and motives for building, maintaining and using them. - J.Z., 5.6.92, 7.1.93. - See especially PEACE PLANS No.16-17: An ABC Against Nuclear War: & -

PANARCHISM REPRESENTED BY ONE PERSON CONNECTED TO THE WHITE HOUSE? During my 1990 trip in the U.S.A., someone told me that Boyden Gray, a White House Counsel, then in the Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C., whose address one could get by calling the White House switchboard, supposedly one of the top advisors to the government, himself, or his deceased brother, Burton Gray, did some research into exterritorial autonomy. I never followed up this hint because I do not believe that the top men are sufficiently accessible to new ideas and because, apparently, this panarchist has never influenced Washington’s external and internal policies, according to what I receive of the news. But anyone interested is invited to try to follow up this lead and might at least uncover some thesis or research paper that it would be worthwhile to publish, at least on microfilm, online or on disk. I have seen quite a number of books written by lawyers on personal law from a lawyer’s point of view rather than that of an anarchist, libertarian, social reformer and peace lover. Most of them are so highly priced that they deterred me from buying them and their limited point of view deterred me as well. Most likely nothing better is behind this hint as well. YOU follow it up, if you like. - J.Z., n.d. – The Internet does now offer very numerous references to opinions on personal law, panarchism and panarchy, voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy, but still all to dispersed and insufficiently ordered and evaluated. – J.Z., 21.1.12. – A Google search today did not supply me with any further information on this. – J.Z., 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM VS. LIBERTARIANISM & ANARCHISM IN THEIR MOST POPULAR FORMS: To each his own governmental or non-governmental and societal system, including his preferred tax- or contribution-, jury- or arbitration-system etc. Limited government advocates have all too much limited themselves to territorial systems, rather than extending liberty into all spheres of rights and liberties, not only for themselves but even for their opponents, on the basis of personal law or exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers. They are still territorial statists, only to a lesser extent than other territorial statists. They, too, in most cases, want to impose their supposedly highest ideal upon dissenters in what they consider, once they have won an election, to be their exclusive territory or turf. The same applies to most of those who call themselves anarchists. Most do merely want to decentralize exclusive territories rather than abolish them altogether. All too many of them still strive to establish new hierarchies, although upon the federalist model. Most are not yet fully for free competition, free markets, consumer sovereignty, free choice, free contracts, when it comes to competing governments and competing societies, especially when these try to realize a program that is opposed to the own ideals. The reason for this is that most do still think in terms of territorial models only, under which one can only be either an anvil or a hammer. - J.Z., 1.2.01 & 24.6.01.

PANARCHISM VS. POLITICS AS USUAL: Whoever wants to be ruled by the modern kings, aristocrats or feudal lords: the ruling territorial authoritarians, politicians and bureaucrats, should be free to do so at his expense and risk, as long as he can stand them. But no one, anywhere and for any time, who has not acted aggressively against others, should be conscripted and taxed into such a servile and vile relationship. - J.Z. 11 Nov. 92.

PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIAL CONSTITUTIONALISM & DEMOCRACY: Conserve, adjust or innovate, alone or among volunteers and as far and fast as you like, but always only at your own risk and expense, not as a territorial constitution-, law-, regulation- or juridical decision maker for others – unless you have been invited to do so – by each of your subjects. - J.Z., 15.4.92, 21.1.12. – VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT, INDIVIDUALISM

PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIAL STATES: Panarchism is based upon the difference between the collectivist, territorial and uniform and imposed laws and institutions of the compulsory members or subjects of collectivist “sovereign” “nations”, “peoples” or territorial governance systems over whole but diverse populations and the individualistic, exterritorial, diverse, and freely chosen laws in autonomous communities of like-minded volunteers under personal law, individual sovereignty and secessionism. - J.Z., 4.9.90, 14.1.93, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM: In all countries people are more or less at each other's throats, constitutionally, legally, juridically, via taxation, budgets, "sanctified" by "free votes" that authorize exclusive rule by minorities or majorities, sometimes by a very small clique, that plays one group against the other, to its own advantage, according to the old Roman maxim: Divide and rule. The "dividing" does not go to the extent of recognizing exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities but only to degrees of temporary power-sharing of and raising mutual fears and jealousies. Territorialism leaves only the choice between being an anvil or a hammer. It permits only zero-sum games in its sphere or compromises that cannot fully satisfy the compulsory participants. Territorial models cannot cater sufficiently to the great diversity of capabilities, interests, beliefs, ideas and convictions found among human beings and their groups. It leaves them only the option: Submit to others or try to dominate them, given the chance. The essential compromise: To each his own, is fundamentally rejected by territorialism, which has institutionalized mutual intolerance. Within it you can only be top dog or bottom dog or follower or leading or minor representative of one or the other pressure or special interest group. It is permanently a dog-eat-dog situation, not one of free enterprise and free competition between free enterprises and competing societies and communities in every sphere. It is a conquest and domination situation, not a free market one of competing businesses trying to attract sovereign consumers, workers or investors. Laissez-faire is suppressed by it, not only in economics but in politics and social arrangements. - J.Z., 3.10.99 & 28.6.01, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM: Territorial politics does at its best impose merely a well-meant but quite unrealistic utopia upon all the people in a territory, whether they like it or not. At worst, it establishes and maintains a nightmare that does not even satisfy those who imposed it and try to continue it. As the old saying goes: "Any leash has two ends!" Only full exterritorial autonomy, initiated by individual or group secessionism, allows the wise to choose use the best paths for themselves and thereby, gradually, point them out and demonstrate them to the masses as well, giving them a chance to follow their example, once they dare or have clearly come to see their sensible alternatives. - J.Z., 25.8.98, 26.6.01, 21.1.12, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM VS. THE TERRITORIAL STATE: Panarchism would spring the traps of territorial States, i.e. of the coercive, monopolistic, collectivist, aggressive and oppressive schemes to dominate whole populations, regardless of their natural or individual preferred diversity. - J.Z., 7 Sep. 89, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM VS. UNITY & UNIFORMITY: Panarchy wants to put an end to "united" archists and "united" anarchists and replace all their aspirations and associations of diverse and autonomous anarchists and archists, each living as far as is humanly possible, exterritorially autonomous, in accordance with his own dreams, ideals, rational and moral preferences, together or nearby or only networking and cooperating over a distance, with like-minded people, under personally chosen, not territorially imposed constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. - J.Z., 14.8.85, 10.1.93, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM WOULD TRANSFORM TERRITORIAL & CENTRALIZED SOVEREIGN STATES INTO PEACEFUL, RIGHTFUL & EXTERRITORIALLY DECENTRALIZED COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, WHICH, AS SUCH, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A THREAT TO ANY OTHER PEACEFUL INDIVIDUALS OR GENUINE COMMUNITY OF VOLUNTEERS ONLY: Realized individual secessionism and an-territorially autonomous communities of volunteers would transform all present States into rightful societies or communities, which have only voluntary members and as such they would have the right to exist and to continue as long as they can manage to satisfy their own volunteers without preying upon the members of other voluntary communities. To that extent panarchists would earn the gratitude of any ruling or aspiring politician, who is sufficiently rational and moral. For it would give all of them their best possible chance to become and remain uncontested leaders of all those willing to follow them, as long as they can manage to satisfy their followers. - If the present territorial leaders really believed in their “cause”, then they would be convinced that they would at least have the potential to gain, by the conversion to panarchism and letting dissenters go their own ways, while gaining more new followers from all over the world, more than they would lose as their secessionists. If they lost more people than they gained, they would have no more good reason left to complain than a businessman has, who lost more and more of his customers because he was unable or unwilling to satisfy them as much as other businessmen do. - J.Z., 15.04, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, A CHARACTERISTIC OF LIFE: What is the greatest gift of all? It is life itself. And what is life? The essential characteristic of life is the power to choose, to make decisions, to act. And that's another way of describing "freedom - to", or freedom in action. We can say that the greater the freedom in action, the more life there is - or the higher the form of life. - Andre Spies, THE CONNECTION 131, p14. – How could we have been satisfied with so little freedom of choice in public affairs as we have now, under territorialism and its ruling power addicts? – J.Z., 28.6.12. - FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT & ASSOCIATION & CHOICE, Q.

PANARCHISM, A COMPETITION IN PUBLIC SERVICES: All services, to be and to remain genuine services, must be freely and individually chosen by their voluntary and sovereign customers. – J.Z., 13.11.93, 21.1.12. Their supply must also become competitive. – J.Z., 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM, A GREEK INVENTION OF 1962? - Thursday, 13 January 2005, email to John Zube, from - with an attachment of 114 KBs. I cannot even copy this attachment in a Greek URL! - I would need a German or English translation to comprehend it. - J.Z., 11.10.11.

PANARCHISM, A QUESTION: Panarchies that are restricting the rights and liberties of their members; are they mere frauds - or does that charge apply only to monopolistic, coercive and territorial governments? - "The theory presents no obstacle to the use of all just means for the maintenance of justice; and this is all the power that government ought ever to have. It is all the power that it can have, consistently with the rights of those on whom it is to operate. … Indeed, this is the only government, which it is practicable to establish by the consent of the governed; for an unjust government must have victims and the victims cannot be supposed to give their consent. All governments, therefore, that profess to be founded on the consent of the governed, and yet have authority to violate natural laws, are necessarily frauds. - Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. - But to the extent that they would have given it and continued to do so, to voluntary and competitive governments, from which they can at any time individually secede, these would represent them and are to that extent subjectively and even objectively rightful for them at their stage of personal development. No one is obliged to always and under all circumstances fully claim and practise all his individual rights, even if this were physically possible. Imagine anyone minding his business, producing and trading, working and supervising, while driving, piloting, … singing, dancing, reading, climbing, running, playing, talking, watching, listening, eating and drinking – all at the same time. There are some natural limits for everybody. We can, sometimes, often do several things at the same time but cannot do all things at the same time and under all circumstances. Are we wrong in being selective and self-limiting? - J.Z., 15.1.93, 18.9.04, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, ADULTHOOD, GROWING UP, NO MORE TERRITORIAL & COLLECTIVIST NURSERIES FOR GROWNUPS: Man's adulthood or majority will begin with the realization of panarchism. It will close the compulsory nurseries of territorial States for the adults of whole populations subjected to them. - J.Z., 26.6.01, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM & STATISM: Panarchistic minded anarchists want the statists to remain free to continue their statist stupidities, idealism and utopias and, yes, even their wrongs, but only among themselves, among their voluntary victims. Their territorial victimization of dissenters must cease. However, at least some of them ought to remain “on probabtion”, while being disarmed, until they can be trusted again not to abuse arms. - J.Z., 4.1.95, 27.6.01. – E.g. the equivalents of the SA, SS and Gestapo of the Nazis, the GPO, NKWD etc. of the Soviets, the secret police forces of all totalitarian, despotic and tyrannical States and all private terror groups of fanatics aiming at territorial despotism with themselves on top and using the principle and practice of “collective responsibility” actions in their “liberation” efforts or “freedom” fighting against numerous innocent people, also some of the secret services of “democratic” or “republican” governments, which have already abused their powers all too often. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The possession and the keeping in readiness any ABC mass murder devices is a good enough how far the corruption through power does go. – J.Z., 21.1.12, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM & VOLUNTARISM: Anarchism and its organizations and institutions do not have to be egalitarian, communistic, individualistic, socialistic, cooperative, mutualist, syndicalist, ecological, scientific, moralistic, religious, non-hierarchical, economic or anti-economic, capitalistic or anti-capitalistic - but it can be all these things and many more, for different kinds of anarchists - AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALL ONLY PRACTISED IN VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, SOCIETIES AND COMMUNITIES. With people and their beliefs, knowledge, prejudices, premises and convictions as diverse as they are, voluntary arrangements expressing and practising all kinds of beliefs among the members, at their expense and risk, and seeing how the diverse believers are living mixed with each other in the same territory, the voluntaristic realization of all their different ideals is not possible otherwise than by conceding to all of their supporters full exterritorial autonomy, based on individual sovereignty, and individual secessionism, i.e. fully voluntary membership only. - J.Z., 20.10.95, 24.6.01, 9.12.03, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM, ARCHISM, CHAOS, ORDER & DISORDER:  From the point of view of an anarchist, the archy or order of a statist amounts to chaos and disorder. From the point of view of a statist or archist, the anarchy of any anarchist movement and community or society amounts to chaos and disorder. That leads to extreme mutual antagonism, since each is afraid of the other, i.e. the practice of the other’s “ideal” upon himself, without his own consent. The great variety of anarchist groups, as well as the great variety of archist groups, might go on arguing endlessly and fruitlessly among themselves and also with their opponents or they might, finally, come to agree upon: Anarchies of every kind and shade for anarchists of each type, as well as archies of every kind and shade for archists of every type, all only at the own expense and risk, all in the same country or even in the whole world and all at the same time – and that as soon as they can agree upon this “compromise” or radical solution. It would permit them to peacefully coexist. Then, after some practise of this tolerant alternative, within a panarchistic framework, the definitions and facts will gradually become clear and the mutual misunderstandings and antagonisms will become reduced. They will not necessarily agree with the views and practices of their dissenting neighbors but will come to tolerate them as good neighbors, tolerant and peaceful ones, doing their own things to and for themselves at their own expense and risk. On that basis they might even become personal friends, no matter how different their political, economic and social ideals might remain. To a sufficient extent they would come to understand, appreciate or tolerate each other. – J.Z., 11.12,97, 10.1.99, 21.1.12, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM, OTHER ISMS & FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT: Each form of anarchism and of other isms is “true” only for those who do believe in it. Consequently, only they should "suffer" under its practical application – by being free to choose it for themselves and to apply it only among themselves, regardless what other people in the same country or in the world are doing to or for themselves. If they demanded no more than that, then they would minimize resistance against their aspirations and might even be granted, by a huge dissenting majority, e.g. the "liberty of fools" to do their own things, if they were not granted, upon principle, the right to freely experiment at their own expense and risk. To reduce experimentation, in very significant spheres, to single territorial experiments only, one at a time, one after the other, with the experimenters often unable to remember and avoid previous mistakes (as e.g. those of price controls, rationing, regulations and of monetary despotism) and having always the opportunity to blame their mistakes upon the resistance offered by their opponents, is a very incomplete and insufficient experimental system. Panarchism would lead to multiple free experimentation of a different kind, at the same time and in the same country. Thus the process of learning and enlightenment could be greatly speeded up. It would become much more difficult to ignore positive results from free experiments undertaken by others nearby, in the same country. Allow each fool and each wise person to chose his fate, system, method, institutions and associates, his personal law for himself, as far as this is humanly possible in every sphere, even in those, which were so far monopolized by territorial governments. – J.Z., 15.1.94, 9.1.99, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM, SOCIALISM, COMPULSION, COERCION, VOLUNTARISM: Anarchism is socialism minus the big stick. - Jo Labadie, Essays, 1911, p.60. - Panarchism is also every other ideology, religion, faith, system, utopia or establishment - minus the big stick! – Not that every anarchism is socialistic. It tends to cover the whole spectrum from quite individualistic to quite authoritarian anarchism. See my spectrum of hyphenated forms of anarchism and their very opposites - on . - J.Z., 6.1.97.

PANARCHISM, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM, INDIVIDUALIST ANARCHISM, LAISSEZ FAIRE, INDIVIDUALISM, FREE MARKETS IN EVERY SPHERE - FOR VOLUNTEERS, VOLUNTARISM: Panarchism means Laissez Faire for the provision of all governmental and societal services, by and for all kinds of individuals, entrepreneurs and cooperators or partners. - J.Z., 5.7.03, 15.12.03. – DEFINITIONS, EXPLANATIONS

PANARCHISM, APATHY, INDIFFERENCE, TRADITION, CUSTOM, IDEAS, INTOLERANCE: Every day billions of people suffer under territorialism with its numerous wrongful and harmful features: monetary despotism, leading to inflations, deflations, stagflations, unemployment, poverty, oppression and persecution (killing even more people than wars, civil wars, revolutions, terrorism, robbing people by taxation, confiscations, bureaucratic, juridical and legislative delays or outlawry of progress, compulsory mis-education, conscription, impoverishing "protective" and anti-economic "policies", imposed legal monopolies and their high prices and inefficiencies, man-made housing-, energy- and fuel-shortages, etc. Nevertheless, they still do not bother to explore and discuss alternatives to these territorial “policies” and institutions or allow them to be freely practised but all only among their volunteers. Most of them, most of the time and in most places, do provide what Ayn Rand called "the sanction of the victim". Ayn Rand herself opposed what she misconceived as "competing governments" and thus provided her own "sanction of the victim" to territorialism, even though only in its “limited” but still territorial form. - J.Z., 2.10.00 & 27.6.01, 18.9.04, 21.1.12, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM, CAMPAIGNS, PROPAGANDA, EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS, PUBLICITY: There would be less need for truthful propaganda if there were experimental freedom for all proposals and among volunteers. – Even some of the greatest truths are not yet sufficiently published and proven against the vast host of popular myths, errors, prejudices, false assumption and conclusions. – We should not have to depend upon first persuading the majority of people before we can start with better personal laws, societies and institutions applicable only to volunteers.  – The greatest truth, optimally expressed, is still not sufficiently persuasive for all too many. J.Z. 4.6.92, 7.1.93, 10.12.03, 21.1.12. 

PANARCHISM, CAPTAINS & FREEDOM OF THE HIGH SEAS: We can be the captain of a ship – but not of the sea.” Heard on TV show “The Sliders”, 29.5.98. That is not a bad analogy to panarchism. - "Freedom of the High Seas" is another liberty, which demonstrates exterritorial autonomy at least in this sphere – amounting to ca. 2/3rds of the world’s surface. – J.Z., 10.1.99.

PANARCHISM, CHOICE OF LAWS RATHER THAN EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW: Choice of laws rather than equality under the law. Diversity under self-chosen laws rather than uniform laws or territorially imposed laws. Exterritorial autonomy for all, who do want to realize their individual and group preferences as much as this is possible without interfering with the voluntary and exterritorially autonomous activities of others. Individual sovereignty and volunteer community autonomy rather than geographical and "representative" sovereignty imposed upon a fictitiously united "people". - J.Z., 21.10.93, 27.6.01, 21.1.12, 28.6.12.

PANARCHISM, CHOICE, FREE SOCIETIES: Free choice of constitutions, laws, juridical and administrative systems rather than merely the choice between involuntary obedience to territorialism or, if it is offered at all, under territorial statism, of free migration, but merely between different territorial States, all of which, under territorialism, are essentially like one anvil under one hammer. – J.Z., 25.3.96, 9.1.99. – Admittedly, the anvils and the hammers are somewhat different but those held with a pair of tongues between them do remain, essentially, in the same un-free, uncomfortable and rather dangerous position. – J.Z., 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, CIVIL WAR, ETHNIC CLEANSING, LIBERATION ATTEMPTS, INDEPENDENCE FIGHTS, BOSNIA, MINORITIES, RELIGIOUS WARS: If individuals, minorities and local majorities were as free, as they are now regarding religion, mostly or in many countries, namely free to live under their own laws and governmental or societal institutions and economic systems, which they do prefer for themselves, then they would not feel oppressed and thus compelled to fight for territorial liberation and domination by them over those who disagree with them. Exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities could realize that, just as religious tolerance or religious liberty did wherever or whenever it was realized. It is the road to peace, justice, freedom, enlightenment, progress and prosperity. It is the same with experimental freedom in the arts, in natural sciences, in technology, for free enterprises and in our private lives, in all our work and exchange contracts. Territorial statism, even of the “limited” libertarian kind, does not work well enough, either, when it comes to monopolistically and compulsorily provided constitutions, laws, jurisdiction, protection, defence, economic and social development, even though at least its economics, is objectively much more just and efficient. Nevertheless, even the most anti-communist and anti-socialist countries still continue this kind of territorial, coercive, centralistic, monopolistic, exploitative and oppressive State Socialism in the sphere of political, economic and social systems, where it has never worked very well and has led to numerous wars, civil wars, revolutions, rebellions, riots and terrorist acts, economic crises and extensive and lasting poverty. In Bosnia, Ireland, Israel, Sudan and in many other places, not even religious liberty has been fully realized, far less panarchistic freedom in all other spheres. We do pay a very high price for continuing to ignore the option of panarchistic freedom. - J.Z., 7.8.95, 24.6.01, 9.12.03. – BALKANS, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, IRELAND , SUDAN, ISRAEL, PALESTINE, ETC.

PANARCHISM, COEXISTENCE & TOLERANCE: The central political task of the final years of this century, then, is the creation of a new model of co-existence among the various cultures, peoples, races and religious spheres within a single interconnected civilization.” – Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic.  – Such remarks have been uttered at least in the hundreds, often by some quite famous people. But very few have drawn the exterritorial, voluntaristic and autonomist conclusions from such thoughts, since most have their thinking stuck in the predominant model, wrongs and muck of the territorial State, of whatever size. – J.Z., 7.1.99, 18.9.04, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, COLLECTIVE & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty: nor can any individual or any body of men be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it. - Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French National Assembly, III, 1789. - Although meant as a declaration against the exclusive sovereignty of a single and absolutist monarch, its modern generalization is quite false and the opposite is true: The INDIVIDUAL is essentially the source of all sovereignty: nor can any nation or any body of men be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it. - J.Z., n.d. & 24.6.01. – VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

PANARCHISM, COMMON PURPOSES, ASSOCIATIONISM: It allows for the formation of virtually any completely voluntary association for the achievement of really common purposes, without requiring the subordination of any to a dictator or to a majority vote.” – Roy A. Childs, Anarchism and Justice, I-V.

PANARCHISM, COMMUNISM & CENTRAL BANKING: The communist system as a whole, as well as any of its institutions, like e.g. central banking, and any non-communist system as well, should be confined to voluntary victims or followers only and that requires exterritorial autonomy or experimental freedom and personal law for all volunteer communities and the abolition of all territorial ones with compulsory membership. - J.Z., 23.9.99 & 28.6.01, 10.12.03.

PANARCHISM, CONSENT, CONTRACTS & COVENANTS: Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants.” – J. J. Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 4, on Slavery.

PANARCHISM, CONSENT, CONTRACTS, VOLUNTARISM: Capitalism, communism, fascism and any other system – but all only among consenting adults. No system is to be imposed except peace, justice and indemnification upon aggressors against the peaceful systems of others. - J.Z., 15.1.97 & 26.6.01.

PANARCHISM, CONSENT, POWER: No one to have the right and power to rule another man without the other man's consent. To do so or to try to do so is the only crime, the only terror act. All such authoritarian and tyrannical actions ought to become outlawed. Against them every act of self-defence is just - although sometimes not advisable. This right to self-defence would best be organized in an ideal militia for the protection of all genuine individual rights and liberties, to the extent that people do already claim them for themselves, a militia thus very different from most militias of the past and present. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04, 21.1.12

PANARCHISM, CONSENT, RULE, OPTIMUM SIZE, VOLUNTARISM: see how quickly a reign over many becomes impossibly huge. - Poul Anderson, Agent of the Terran Empire, Coronet Books, Hodder and Staughton, 1965, 1977, page 97, ISBN 0 340 21245 4. - Compare: "No man is good enough to rule another man without his consent." - Parents cannot even fully control their own children - and yet Prime Ministers, Presidents and other despots, non-elected ones, pretend to be able to control millions of adult people to their advantage. Now and then even the child of a top political leader turns into a drug addict. According to Sorokin, criminality is highest among political leaders. - J.Z., 28.6.01. We tend to be led and misled by criminals in top positions - and yet remained all too complacent about this fact, ever hopeful that the next one will be an honest and decent guy, a genuine leaders instead of a misleader. - J.Z. 10.12.03, 21.1.12. - Panarchies would at least represent unanimous consent and tend to remain within their optimum size. - J.Z., 8.9.04. - LEADERSHIP

PANARCHISM, CONTINENTS & THE WORLD, COOPERATION & FEDERATION, NETWORKING: Exterritorially, you could claim the whole of Australia, even the whole of the world for yourself and your community of like-minded people, namely to live and work anywhere under the system and contracts you prefer. – J.Z., 13.11.93, 9.1.99, 8.9.04.

PANARCHISM, DECENTRALIZATION & THE EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE: The readings of history and anthropology in general give us no reason to believe that societies have built-in self-preservation systems. And therefore we can't say that man will be sensible enough not to destroy himself. He never has been sensible enough not to destroy himself but he lived in small groups so that when he destroyed himself he didn't destroy everybody. So the necessity for new inventions for the conduct of the world cannot possibly be over-emphasized." - Margaret Mead, Conversations with Henry Brandon, NEW REPUBLIC, June 23, 1958, in Seldon, The Great Quotations. - It looks as if even she has overlooked the exterritorial autonomy and personal law tradition. It will be a long time before the "social sciences" really deserve the name of sciences. - Maximum freedom for all does, obviously, maximize self-preservation options. - When it comes to war and peace decisions and other aspects of international politics, then many war-making factors, not maximum freedom, peace and justice promoting ones, have been realized even in "democracies", because they do still represent territorial, centralistic, collectivistic and coercive governmentalism. ABC mass murder devices are the extreme product of such policies and institutions and yet, in the minds of the general public and in the minds of most scholars, they are still not linked to territorialism! The democratic States, like the US, UK, were even the first to develop and acquire over-kill stocks of these mass-murder and anti-people "weapons". As strong are notions of territorialism and of collective responsibility even in them! Nevertheless even these great wrongs and flaws are not yet a major topic of public debate and criticism. Democracies and their "great leaders", too, are ready to shed blood like water and to lay whole countries to waste in the pursuit of their "policies". - J.Z., 26.6.01, 8.9.04, 18.9.04, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, DEFENCE, AGGRESSION, WAR & PEACE:  Territorial archies have borders, which they try to preserve or expand against expansion attempts or aggressions by other territorial archies. This kind of artificial and coercive construction has institutionalized wars, civil wars, revolutions and terrorism for centuries to thousands of years, for it left no peaceful options for desired changes to all of those dissenters, who are not in position of power and influence, and have no strong enough minorities or majorities to back them up. Thus frustrated they do tend to lash out. Add to this the fact, that their co-religionists, and fellow ethnical people or ideological comrades are subjected, beyond the own territorial borders to other territorial regimes, representing those they may have come to hate, then you get all kinds of somewhat justified liberation efforts arising out of that situation.  But the very mix-up of the diverse groups in almost every territory in the world would assure, that a newly liberated group, having become dominant in the territory it exclusively claims for itself, would become a new territorial oppressor. The territorial sovereignty model can never lead to complete liberation for all. It only assures large degrees of dissatisfaction and clashes of interests, again and again. It does not allow individual secessionism and its one-man revolutions. It does not permit full exterritorial minority autonomy. It forbids consumer sovereignty in those spheres, which it has legally preempted. Thus it cannot make all men happy and peaceful as they could and should be. It makes millions hateful and aggressive. The territorial model leaves them no rightful, easy, rational and attractive way out. -- Some anarchists and libertarians imagine that extreme territorial decentralization would offer a final solution. But they have not properly thought this through. If tradition is any guide (See Edward Gibbon, on the Laws of the Barbarians, chapter 38 of his famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.), then in a family of 5 there could be 5 different law systems represented, by birth, marriage or personal choice. Should Berlin Walls be erected between them? Should one have to migrate and resettle, leaving one’s language area and culture behind, to settle in one’s own small ideological ghetto, or reserve, turning all of the inhabitable world into something like a zoo with different display cages for different kinds of human animals? If animals and plants were intelligent enough and could laugh and speak, they would ridicule humans, who could not imagine better institutions for themselves than such territorial and self-made prisons for each of their separate kinds. Animals and plants have managed to develop a very mixed-up but functioning ecology, where each of them can manage to survive (if not as an individual, then as part of a species, at least for long times - J.Z., 8.12.03) wherever on Earth it is possible for them to survive, in accordance with their requirements and abilities. Why should supposedly rational and moral beings concede to themselves less liberties, less freedom of movement, settlement and action than the very plants and animals, in their wild, uncivilized, barbaric and primitive state of nature, do still enjoy all around them? Not to speak of microbes and viruses or insects and birds. Why should human beings, supposedly so intelligent, be unable to abstract the principle involved e.g. in religious liberty and its diversity and in the vast variety of other private actions, all now practised as self-evidently rightful, by the vast majority, and to apply this principle (requiring, obviously, voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy for associations and their decision-making and actions), to the remaining spheres - so far still preempted by territorial governments? – Observers of opinion exchanges among human beings will soon come to realize how much people love to contradict others. It is almost a perpetual game for them. So why is it that they do not sufficiently question and contradict territorialism? How were we so conditioned and how can we de-condition ourselves in this respect? Have we got any good reason to suspect that we could not, that we are hopelessly territorial animals? Even Robert Ardrey, in The Territorial Imperative, had to concede the existence of examples contrary to his main thesis, e.g. among the great apes. But he remained committed to his thought-model of territorialism and wrongly assumed that it fully applied to humans, not only their “nesting” and privacy behavior. – J.Z., 20.3.93, 11.1.99, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, DEFINITION ATTEMPT,  TOLERANCE: Panarchism is tolerance for actions of all tolerant people and this in the spheres of political, economic and social systems. - J.Z., 30.6.00, 27.6.01. - SHORTEST DEFINITIONS OF PANARCHISM, TERMS, NAMES 

PANARCHISM, DEFINITIONS OR ANALOGIES: Panarchism means “living your own life”, “living on your own terms”, “doing it your own way”, “doing the own things”, “following your own dreams” or being “the smith of your own fate”.  Such and other bits of proverbial wisdom indicate a degree of readiness for panarchism but only in all too general form and not yet in the required details. While territorial statist popular prejudices predominate, a sufficient comprehension of the rightfulness and usefulness of panarchism cannot be expected. – J.Z., n.d., 14.1.99. – Compare also the positive meaning of most of the hyphenated terms starting with “self”, e.g., “self-help”. – J.Z., 29.6.12. -  SHORTEST DEFINITIONS OF PANARCHISM, TERMS, NAMES, TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM, DEMOCRACY & MAN: Man is not fit for political democracy or political democracy is not fit for man but man is fit for the democracy of the free market and the democracy of the free market is fit for man. Once territorial governments are reduced to only exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities, then most of the present difficulties of democracies and republics would disappear – not to speak of those of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. – Note to: Carl J. Friedrich, New Belief in the Common Man, page 8. –  But this does not mean that I consider the panarchistic framework, just by itself, without any other free market institutions, as a cure-all, although I do believe that all the other free market institutions could  most easily and rapidly develop and spread widely and peacefully under it, always as a matter of free individual choices.  I still consider e.g. the contributions that microfilm, disc and website publishing, referenda for individual rights and liberties, free market education services, genuinely cultural revolution methods, ideas archives,  directories, events calendars and various encyclopedias could make. Most of these fall under the classical liberties like freedom of expression and information. (*) Panarchism falls under the relatively new liberty of action and experimentation in the last spheres from which they were so far excluded by territorial States. - J.Z., 30.3.96, 9.1.99. – (*) Compare on this my 2010 digitized book manuscript, still only called New Draft, not yet online but reviewed by GPdB on Until it appears online or on a disc – anyone is invited to do so, I will send it free upon request as an email attachment, zipped, in the 27.7.10 version, RTF, 306 Kbs. – J.Z., 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, DEMOCRACY, VOTING, INDIFFERENCE, APATHY, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES, PEOPLE: Should people, who have hardly any knowledge of or interest in freedom and individual rights, or in their past and present conditions and their future potential, have any right to vote and decide - except within their own volunteer communities? - J. Z., 9.1.96. – Q. – VOTING, DEMOCRACY, PUBLIC OPINION, DIS., VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHISM, DISMISSAL OF A GOVERNMENT, VETO OF INDIVIDUALS: Everybody should be free to dismiss a government - not for all others in this continent, like two Australian Governor-Generals did, but just for himself or herself. - J.Z., 20.8.78, 21.1.12. - PANARCHISM, DISOBEDIENCE, DISESTABLISHMENT,  INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM

PANARCHISM, DISSENT & FREEDOM: Panarchism means FULL freedom for all dissenters do to their own things for and to themselves, i.e. at their own expense and risk. For this it requires exterritorial autonomy for volunteers and personal law. - J.Z., 30.10.91, 13.1.93.

PANARCHISM, DIVIDE & RULE: Divide, survive, become free, secure and prosperous - is a more modern and truthful version of this old saying. But it still applies within the wrongful and harmful politics of territorialism. Instead of the imposed "divide" one should rather say: Let their people go, let them secede, withdraw, opt out, do their own things, allow everyone to survive the threats inherent in territorialism, to become free, secure and prosperous, by their own and independent efforts - or let them harm, if anyone, only themselves, by their self-chosen actions. - J.Z., 26.6.01 & 28.6.01. - The own degree of exterritorial freedom will be more secure if one grants all others their wanted degrees of exterritorial freedom. - J.Z., 18.9.04. – To each his own! – An old Latin definition of justice, fully applied in all spheres, even all those now still territorially monopolized by governments. – J.Z., 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, DUTY, COUNTRY, FAMILY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-GOVERNMENT: My first duty is to myself. My second duty is to my family. My third duty is to my country." - Dr. David Cunningham. - The third applies only if one's "country" is one that contains one's self-chosen government or community, from which one could also divorce oneself, if one wanted to. - J.Z., 29.6.84, 28.6.01. – DIS., DUTY, LOYALTY, ALLEGIANCE, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-GOVERNMENT OF THE EXTERRITORIAL & INDIVIDUALIST AS WELL AS VOLUNTARY TYPE.

PANARCHISM, ELECTORAL REFORM, DEMOCRACY, VOTING, TERRITORIALISM, FREE CHOICE AMONG GOVERNMENTAL & SOCIETAL SYSTEM: It is wrongfully assumed that another and better election system for all people in a territory is necessary or could be rightfully imposed. The essential reform of voting should rather consist in allowing individuals to vote themselves out of the existing territorial institutions (as well as out of any of the panarchies to be established), which they do dislike and to join others, exterritorial and voluntary one ones, which are prepared to accept them - or to establish their own. That is the vote for "one-man-revolutions". It would apply individual sovereignty and realize consumer sovereignty in the spheres where it is presently still suppressed by all territorial governments. It is practicable under the ancient tradition of personal law and exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities. Compared with this fundamental "electoral reform", any change-over from e.g. "first past the post" to "proportional representation" etc., is rather trivial. - J.Z., 11.12.92, 24.6.01, 9.12.03. - Within panarchies of like-minded people there would, moreover, in most cases, be little stress in their internal decision-making e.g. via one or the other voting system. On the most essential aspects of their communities their volunteers would be rather unanimous. - J.Z., 9.12.03.

PANARCHISM, ESCAPE ROUTE: Escape into panarchism, from statist and territorialist nightmares into personal dream-worlds - but you have to pay their bills and take their risks. - J.Z., 14.7.98 & 26.6.01. – To each his or her own utopia, government or non-governmental society of his or her own dreams or personal choice. Nothing less will serve to solve all our remaining and solvable problems or serve better to reduce or defeat the dangerous surprises nature has still in store for us. – J.Z., 29.6.12. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM

PANARCHISM, EXISTENTIALISM, DO YOUR OWN THING: Do your own thing and I'll do mine. - Quoted as an existentialist slogan.

PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOTING, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL: Vote yourself out of their territorial systems. A territorial vote confines you to remain in a territorial "prison". It is not a free vote but a mandate for serfdom, authoritarianism, bureaucracy, even for temporary dictatorships, all too often turned into lasting ones, into tyrannies and totalitarian regimes. It is habitually and traditionally abused to force you into participation in their wars, financially or with your bodies. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE & PEACE PLANS: While I cannot single-handedly stop territorialist nations and their fallacies from mass murderous attempts towards the own minorities and majority and minorities or majorities of other territorial “nations” and the attempts to suppress particular ideologies or their practice, I can at least, in my microfiche PEACE PLANS series, jot down my own thoughts and those of others on the “exterritorial imperative” and make them available upon demand in this format, and via some correspondence, however small this kind of “publicity” for them is.  The Internet might come to help me to make some of this material more widely accessible. But so far it has not dug up and spread such information or interest in it. – J.Z., n.d., note for ON PANARCHY No. 18, revised 11.1.99. – By now often much more such information is offered on the IN - in form  of search results - than any individual can effectively cope with. Only a fraction of all this information and even of my own digitized writings and downloaded files of others is here offered in alphabetized hints, abstracts, or quotes, from short to long ones. Thousands may have to contribute to make this preparatory listing coming close enough to being really helpful or even close to being comprehensive enough. But a start with this aspect of the information revolution had to be made somewhere, by someone. – J.Z., 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, FATE & SELF-HELP: Each to be the blacksmith of his own fate.” – Ancient  German proverb. (“Jeder der Schmied seines eigenen Gluecks.”)

PANARCHISM, FLORA & FAUNA: Plants, in their natural condition, live peacefully, tolerantly, competitively and panarchistically together in the same territory, in their diverse ways. So do numerous species of animals and insects, to the extent that their nature does not make them eat each other. So can and should humans. At least we have already overcome cannibalism in its primitive form. We have to learn to end cannibalizing parts of our lives, via e.g. taxation and regulations, wars, civil wars, revolutions and terrorism as well as well. - J.Z., 6.1.95, 24.6.01, 28.6.01. – And the threat to the very survival of man, which military “science”, its mass murder devices, territorialism and wrongful collective responsibility notions do pose for us. Everything is already prepared for this man-made disaster and nothing to prevent it except some texts, like e.g. that in PEACE PLANS 16-18, offering an ABC against the threat of nuclear war – but it, too, remains largely unread, although it has been on line for years at - J.Z., 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, FOOLISHNESS, STATISM, SOCIETY, STATE, PREJUDICES: Men would not live long in society were they not the dupes of one another. - La Rochefoucauld, Maxims, 1665. - That applies rather to territorial States than to free societies and the general society of man. Nor does it mean that there ought to be only one compulsory, coercive and monopolistic, because territorial, society or State in any country or in the world. - J.Z., 5.7.86 & 24.6.01, 21.1.12. - Separate panarchies for all kinds of dupes as well as for all kinds of more or less wise men and women! - J.Z., 18.9.04, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, FRAMEWORK FOR WIN-WIN SOLUTIONS, IN MOST CASES: Sometimes it’s impossible for everybody to win … And sometimes if everybody doesn’t win, nobody wins.…” – James Gunn, Crisis!, SF, 1986, p. 143. – When some panarchy fails, because of wrong or irrational principles and practices applied by their voluntary members to their own affairs, then this panarchy loses its struggle for survival but all other panarchies would win additional knowledge through close observance and recording of this experience, which would add to a genuine social science. - J.Z., 9.1.99, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, FREE BANKING: Governmental and monetary and financial services  should all be subject to free competition, i.e., free offers, free refusals and free market rating. In short, they should all be subject to the Law of Supply and Demand. None should have Legal Tender power or any monopoly powers. The taint of territorialism should be removed from them. Laissez Faire, Laissez Passer (Let people produce, let people exchange.) should be realized in these important spheres as well. Otherwise all other rights and liberties will remain incomplete and threatened. Under exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities both radical liberties (free enterprise for competing governance and societal systems and free exchange) become quite practicable, although, initially, only among their first volunteers. – The rest will either have to learn from their successes or go on suffering unnecessarily in numerous ways. - J.Z., 13. 12. 03, 8.9.04, 29.6.12. – FREE COMPETITION IN EVERY SPHERE, LAISSEZ FAIRE, SELF-HELP, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-GOVERNANCE, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHISM, FREE TRADE, GLOBALIZATION & PROTECTIONISM, BOTH VOLUNTARY: Complete or fractional Free Trade - but only for those who desire them for themselves! At the same time, any degree of "protectionism" for those who desire it for themselves. Any ism - but only for volunteers. Any tax and or voluntary contribution and subscription schemes or voting or juridical or immigration and membership schemes – but all only for their volunteers. Also discrimination, segregation and integration, egalitarian or elitist system - but always only for their volunteers. - J.Z., 4.9.00, 27.6.01, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, FREEDOM & RESTRAINTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, MILITIAS, PANARCHIES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES: Restrain everybody from restraining the freedom of others. - The institutional realization of this ideal consists in panarchies based upon exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups that desire it. - The principles to be abided by are the individual rights claimed by members of volunteer communities within their communities and, probably, the optimal institutions to uphold these rights would be local volunteer militias for their protection, internationally federated. - J.Z., 23.2.91 & 26.6.01, 18.9.04. – HUMAN RIGHTS, FREEDOM, RESTRAINTS, COMPULSION, COERCION, TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, CONSENT, LICENSING, CRITICS: For any liberty or ideal to be realized among its believers and at their expense and risk, one should never have to need the consent of its critics but only that of like-minded volunteers. All enemies of liberty should remain free to retain their beloved restrictions – but only among themselves. They should even be free to multiply and extend them, as much as they can stand them. This would be a just and self-inflicted punishment for their kind of foolishness.  – J.Z., 1/5/93, 14.1.99, 21.1.12

PANARCHISM, FREEDOM, LIBERATION MOVEMENTS & ANARCHISM: Wer der Welt Freiheit bringen will - das heisst eben doch: seine Auffassung von der Freiheit - ist ein Despot aber kein Anarchist". - Gustav Landauer, Anarchistische Gedanken ueber Anarchism, in AKRATIE, Basel, No. 13, Jan. 80, S. 21. - (Whoever wants to bring freedom to the world, that is, his concept of freedom, is a despot and not an anarchist.) - Unless, of cause, he wants to realize it only exterritorially and among volunteers! - J.Z., 26.6.01. – WORLD-STATE, WORLD FEDERATION, UNITY, UNIFORMITY, STRENGTH, DIS., VOLUNTARISM & COMPETITION VS. COMPULSION, MONOPOLISM & COERCION, ANARCHISM, DESPOTISM

PANARCHISM, FRIENDSHIP & FAMILY CIRCLES, RELATIVES & THEIR NETWORK: The network of one's friends, relations and business associates forms already a very important exterritorial society for everybody, one which is, to some extent, already autonomous, although still all too much interfered with by territorial governments. Individual secession and association are relatively free in these spheres and taken largely for granted. - J.Z., 22.7.86, 23.6.01. - In orthodox Jewish and Chinese families the traditional autonomy is larger and stronger than in most countries with Western civilization and well intended but often quite wrongful marriage, family, adoption and guardianship laws, jurisdictions and welfare administrations. On the other side we find the illegal or underground autonomy of Mafia families and crime syndicates. And, in between, honest general smugglers, tax evaders and drug smugglers, the illegals without victims or only voluntary victims, who, as such, are obviously not victimized - unless they are, e.g., coercively – or otherwise and without their knowledge, injected with drugs, to change their behavior to please this kind of criminal aggressor against self-ownership and self-determination or free individual choice or experimentation. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, FRONTIERS, CITIZENSHIP: You were citizens of a country which had no frontiers…" - Morris West, The Ringmaster, 222. – BORDERS, EXTERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM, FRONTIERS, TERRITORIES, OPPORTUNITIES UNLIMITED: Panarchism means no frontiers, no exclusive territories or turf and unlimited freedom opportunities for all, apart from the natural limitations set by the labor power of the participants, their capital, tools, means, ingenuity, persistence and, naturally, the equal rights and liberties of others. - J.Z., 2.4.89, 21.1.12. – We need a world without territorial statist borders but with strong borders around every individual and group of volunteers, who are just wanting to do their own their own things, self-responsibly, without wrongly interfering with any other individual or group. – J.Z., 29.6.12. – ONE WORLD? WORLD STATE, WORLD FEDERATION? WORLD UNITY OR FREE CHOICES FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS & MINORITIES RESPECTING THE FREE CHOICES OF OTHERS? Q.

PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT, FREEDOM, COERCION, FREE PEOPLE, FREE INDIVIDUALS: Freedom can only become full and effective once no form of government, society or system is any longer territorially forced upon any peaceful citizen. - J.Z., 9.11.97, 26.6.01, 21.1.12. – TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY STATE MEMBERSHIP OF SUBORDINATION

PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES: Every government and every society is right - but only for those who believe in it and as long as they do. - J.Z., 5.9.99.

PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM: Desert, disassociate or divorce yourself from all territorial governments and thus from most of all the additional troubles, that have been artificially imposed upon you. To have to overcome or get along with nature is difficult enough. You should not have to overcome as well, as e.g. a citizen of the U.S.A., over 54 million laws and regulations! To abolish them, through the political process, you might have to have a life-span of millions of years and most other people would have to come to think like you, however unlikely that might be under present conditions. Thus individual secessionism and its one-man revolutions and the resulting exterritorial volunteer communities, should be constitutionalized, legalized and juridically recognized everywhere, while no territorial power should any longer be recognized, supported and obeyed in any way (if one can risk this or can get away with this), no more so than any other criminal gangs and conspiracies. - While a single seceding individual cannot overthrow a territorial regime on his own, millions of cooperating secessionist could. - With their secessionism they would have undertaken the first steps towards the solution of all problems which territorial States cause and cannot solve while they remain territorial States. Experimental freedom in all the spheres in which it has so far been suppressed by territorialism (the political, economic and social systems), would soon reveal the solutions through the successful experiments among volunteers. - At the same time, whatever does not and cannot work would also become convincingly demonstrated by the other experiments, the ones that fail or that are somewhat working - but are, obviously, inferior to the most successful ones. - J.Z., 9.11.97, 8.9.04, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, IGNORING LAWS, IGNORING THE STATE: Anyone should become free enough to individually sack, as far as his own affairs are concerned, any territorial politician or bureaucrat or “public servant”, just like one was once free to sack any private servant or employee, or agent, no matter how much these or other territorial statists would like us to retain their "services" or expensive and risky disservices. – The individual dismissal of territorial politicians and bureaucrats, by those who do not or no longer want them, is by definition fair and justified. It gives a decisive voting right to each individual. It emancipates them. It ends their status as serfs towards the new kinds of feudal lords. - J.Z., 30.5.93, 14.1.99, 8.9.04. - The same applies to any compulsory insurance, trade- or professional union etc. and, naturally, to all compulsory military servitude. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 21.1.12.  – SERFDOM, PUBLIC SERVANTS, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, SACKING THE STATISTS, ONE BY ONE OR IN LARGE LOTS – OR SECEDING FROM THEM, FREELY & EXTERRITORIALLY, VOTING

PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: Withdraw your power of attorney from your territorial governments, at the federal, State & local level. - J.Z., 17.6.03, 8.9.04. Also from all their QUANGOS: Quasi-autonomous non-government organizations established by territorial laws and granted privileges and coercive powers over dissenters. - J.Z., 18.9.04. - INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, POWER OF ATTORNEY, WITHDRAWING FROM TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, CONSENT, VOTING, STATE MEMBERSHIP

PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUALISM & CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Choice in governments and non-governmental social systems, all only exterritorially autonomous, is more useful and important and as rightful for individuals and their voluntary associations as is free individual choice in ear rings, necklaces, books, paintings, sculptures, shoes, hair styles, clothing, foods, drinks, sports, crafts, hobbies, entertainments, holiday trips, bicycles, cars, gardens, houses, etc., etc. In all such private activities and choices we conduct ourselves already as exterritorially autonomous beings, although, usually, we do not use these terms in these private choice spheres. It is high time that we become as autonomous in the remaining spheres now monopolistically and coercively preempted by territorial governments, i.e. in our individual choices of political, economic and social systems. The territorial political vote does not give us individual consumer sovereignty but at best only the collective one that a majority or a powerful minority offers. And it keeps, at least temporarily, all dissenters from important decision-making on their own affairs, even when their own lives, liberties and properties are at stake. – J.Z., 26.10.93, 9.1.99, 18.9.04, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUALISM, FOREIGN POLICY: Fully free individuals would also be free to choose their own government, tax and juridical system, international friends and allies or enemies, their own war and peace aims, defence and liberation methods and organizations, their own international treaties, including separate peace treaties and disarmament agreements, their own foreign aid or investment programs, their monetary and financial system as well as their own preferred neutrality status, trade agreements or restrictions, their own immigration policy, either welcoming migrants with open arms or keeping them off the own properties, their own kind of world federation or world-wide decentralization system. Without his individual consent no individual can rightfully be represented in international relations. No more territorial, compulsory, monopolistic, centralistic, collectivistic and despotic decision-making and powers over others in that sphere, either. Thus the threat of large-scale violence, wars organized, caused and run by territorial governments, would largely be done away with. - At most we would still get a number of mentally disturbed individuals running amok and some fanatic sectarians using terrorist means. Most likely their numbers and motives would be greatly reduced as well. When people are quite free to do their own things for or to themselves, then they are much less likely to blame and attack others, especially not those who, quite obviously, do not have any powers over them. Panarchies lead to introspection and self-criticism and, lastly, to many more responsible people. - J.Z., 15.1.97 & 26.6.01, 8.9.04, 18.9.04, 21.21.12. - DECISION-MAKING, ALLIANCES, TREATIES, ALLIES, ENEMIES

PANARCHISM, JUSTICE & PERFECTION: Only under panarchism can you get close to justice for everyone. To each his own kind of justice system. – J.Z., 11.2.97. – There are long-standing traditions on how to deal with members of different justice systems. Free societies will make their own contractual choices among them - long before it comes to any clashes. – J.Z., 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, LAWS, CUSTOMS & TRADITIONS: No imposed laws, customs or traditions: "The one invariant custom was: Don't impose YOUR customs on ME". - Robert Heinlein, Glory Road, 196. - J.Z., 11.12.03. – ROBERT HEINLEIN, TOLERANCE, IMPOSITIONS, TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM, LEADERSHIP, DEMOCRACY, DELUSIONS, UNANIMITY, CONSENT: Unanimous consent will, even more so than democratic majority approval, support the delusions of any panarchistic leader and his followers. Thus all kinds of mad schemes are likely to be tried as well - and repeated over and over. On the other hand, the inherent self-responsibility involved, the own failures and the successes of other panarchies all around the failed one, with members living inter-mixed with non-members, will tend to prick the mere glittering soap bubbles, again and again, and finally teach many people - who could not be persuaded by mere words. - J.Z., 19.5.99, 8.9.04, 18.9.04. – EXPERIENCE & EXPERIMENTS VS. DELUSIONS, ERRORS, FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, MYTHS & DOGMAS. HISTORY WILL COME TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND AS WELL.

PANARCHISM, LET 100 FLOWERS BLOOM: You'll get your chance. You'll go your thousand-fold ways, finding a hundred that are new and good, because we have the wisdom to see that nobody has the wisdom to tell the whole world what it must do. - Page 190 of Poul Anderson, The Byworlder, Gollancz, ISBN 0 575 01574 8, page 50. Date? (Cover page ripped off in my copy.) - EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM, COMPULSION, ANARCHISM, COMMUNISM, VOLUNTARISM: 1.) “The libertarians say: Let those who believe in religion have religion; let those who believe in government have government; but let those who believe in liberty have liberty, and do not compel them to accept a religion or a government they do not want.” - - 2.) “Speaking generally, mankind can be divided into two groups, Authoritarians and Libertarians. The first believe in making people good, the second believe in letting people be good. The first believe in compelling others to conform to their wishes, the second think it is better to convince than to compel.” – 3.) “The Libertarians believe that if an idea is good, it is not necessary to force its acceptance, and if it is bad, it should not be imposed.” – Charles T. Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians.  – Ulrich von Beckerath used the following hope-inspiring analogy on such slumbering but, potentially powerful ideas: “They might be lying there for a long time, like a heap of gunpowder in a dry spot, seemingly harmless and insignificant. But let just one spark drop into it and then no power in the world can prevent it from exploding.” The question is, can one turn some panarchistic ideas into such dry gun powder and some others into such sparks? – J.Z., 14.1.99,  21.1.12. – Q.

PANARCHISM, LIKES & DISLIKES: Let any somewhat rational individual do what he likes and avoid what he dislikes, in all spheres, but always at his own expense and risk only. - J.Z., 5.2.95 & 26.6.01.

PANARCHISM, LOVE, TRUST, SELF-RELIANCE, SECESSION, VOTING, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS: Who really loves politicians and bureaucrats? Not even the politicians and bureaucrats do. So, why do we put up with them rather than secede from them and picking, for ourselves, for our voluntary communities, only those authorities, experts, professionals, public servants and institutions which we do, individually, really trust, at our own risk and expense? Do not vote otherwise, i.e., in the common, confused, collectivistic, majoritarian and territorial sense. "It only encourages them!" - J.Z., 24.5.00. That would end all imposed hate, revenge, resentment and frustration-relationships while not stopping any love, friendship, trust and business-relationships. - 28.6.01. – Compulsory State membership might be compared to a compulsory marriage with every other inhabitant of that territory, also a compulsory common purse and budget, with divorce and secession outlawed, i.e. in practice a guaranty for numerous dissatisfactions and complaints and also many resistance efforts. Does territorialism amount to a real mutual love and respect relationship? – Just listen to or read something of the avalanches of disputes between citizen-subjects and party politicians during election times, which should suffice to dispel many delusions of uniform and united territorial nations and their levels of government. – Alas, too few people are so far able to deduct the right conclusions from the facts the know or can observe. – But they do know enough to make use e.g. of the chance to opt out of taxation, one they have achieved that or if it is offered to them. - J.Z., 29.6.12. - Q., VOTING, ELECTIONS, INDIVIDUAL FREE CHOICES, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY TOWARDS ALL SERVICES

PANARCHISM, MAN, MAN'S NATURE, VOLUNTARISM: All men seek the society of those who think and act somewhat like themselves. - William Cobbett, Advice to Young Men, I, 1829. - One reply to the all too many who still think that panarchies are impracticable, impossible, utopian, unrealistic, a mere dream and not for man as he is. - J.Z., n.d. - Man is a social and also an anti-social animal, a political and also an anti-political animal, an economic and also an anti-economic animal. Only under panarchism can he settle himself into the kind of niche, which, at least temporarily, will fit his individual inclinations. - J.Z., 24.6.01. – ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, HUMAN NATURE, MAN, DIS.

PANARCHISM, MARKETS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE & SECESSIONISM: Free markets, i.e. free individual contracts and full consumer sovereignty and free enterprise for all services, including the "public" ones, now territorially imposed and maintained. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04.

PANARCHISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, POLITICIANS, EXTERRITORIALISM, TERRITORIALISM: Minority autonomy rather than domination by majorities or minorities, a few politicians and all too many bureaucrats. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04.

PANARCHISM, MONARCHISM & REPUBLICANISM: The split between these two groups of believers is one of the all too many false alternatives. Their disagreements could be avoided by a covenant between them, one which would concede monarchism to all monarchists and republicanism to all republicans, no matter where they lived in a territory. Naturally, this would have to be supplemented by the rule: Any kind of monarchism for any kind of monarchist and any kind of republicanism for any kind of republican. Moreover, one would have to add: Any kind of ism or utopia for any kind of ism believer or utopian, always only for volunteers, under personal law or full exterritorial autonomy, i.e., at their own expense and risk. - J.Z., 5.11.99 & 28.6.01, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, MOVEMENTS, ORGANIZATIONS: Every movement, organization, party, institution etc., that has only voluntary victims is, to that extent, right, at least for them. A territorially, centrally, monopolistically and collectively imposed form of political, economic and social "sado-masochism" is not and cannot be right and beneficial - for all those who did not individually consent to it. - J.Z., 23.2.00, 28.6.01. - INSTITUTIONS & VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, CONSENT, SADISM, MASOCHISM, STATISM

PANARCHISM, NATIONAL LIBERATION EFFORTS:  According to a radio report I heard on 26.11.93, Kurdish nationalistic organizations are also banned as “extremist groups” in Germany.  That would mean that territorial nationalism, if not already practised by an existing and officially recognized government, is officially classed as “extremism”. I do agree, but do extend my classification of “extremism” to all existing territorial governments, as being authoritarian and even totalitarian in their territorial claims and practices. It is right to condemn any revolutionary, terrorist and civil or national liberation war efforts as “extremist”, if they merely want to replace the present wrongful territorial and exclusive rule by another wrongful and exclusive rule, changing merely the ruling minority or majority? – Is exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities an “extremist” demand? It is, in a way, since one can hardly go rightfully beyond such a radical liberty for all voluntary communities. But at the same time, such communities, would also be extremely tolerant, peaceful and progressive, as well as democratic and republican, by their very nature! – I had thought that I was almost alone in condemning territorialist ambitions as authoritarian, totalitarian and extremist!  Now, to some extent, I have at least one government on my side in this! – It would be quite another matter, if the various Kurdish resistance groups agreed between themselves to demand only exterritorial autonomy, in all countries, for their own various Kurdish volunteer communities, as well as for all the other dissenting minorities in all countries, not only those in which there is a strong Kurdish minority, amounting, in some localities, to a strong Kurdish majority. – Such limited and tolerant aspirations would deserve international recognition, perhaps as alternative governments in exile. Only authoritarians and totalitarians would have to be afraid of such opposition. - Rightful and limited revolutions, even one-man revolutions, would be made easy by it. - J.Z., 26.11.93, 9.1.99. -  TERRORISM & EXTREMISM, TERRITORIALISM, KURDISH NATIONALISTS

PANARCHISM, NATIONALISM, UNITY, & CONSENT: Panarchism allows each national government to rightfully and rationally reconstruct itself into a stable and lasting form, based upon individual consent. - J.Z., 4.7.86 & 24.6.01.

PANARCHISM, NICE PEOPLE & TOLERANCE: Panarchism means that people can hold and practice almost all kinds of beliefs - among themselves - and be nice people, nevertheless, towards all outsiders. - J.Z., 29.1.04, 24.4.04. – “Nicepeoplecomeinallcolors!” is one of my favorite slogans. I had noticed as a bumper sticker many years ago. I wish most button and sticker producers would include it in their slogans collection, for many years have passed since I last saw it displayed in public. For a while I had made one up myself and attached it to my car. One might add: Nice people could tolerantly practise all kinds of diverse isms and beliefs. For religions this is already largely proven, as it is for ordinary consumer goods and service choices, in arts, sports, entertainment, literature, tourism, diets etc. – J.Z., 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, NUDISM, COVER-UPS, CLOTHING & OBESITY: Can advocates of nudism and of clothing get peacefully along with each other? Does the nude appearance of nudists in public constitute an aggressive action against the adherents of cover-up apparel? On some beaches this question is already peacefully settled in favor of each doing his or her own thing. Nudist clubs have established nudist extraterritorial enclaves. There is also the question of hygiene, not only on the seats of public toilets but also in buses, taxis and trains. Perhaps separate transport facilities will come to exist for them or not only the neck rests will have temporary paper covers, as they have in planes. There will be attractive and deterrent examples. Overweight people might become shamed into dieting or exercising sufficiently. Beautiful bodies will become models for those who have let themselves go. But the mere visibility of something disliked, or liked very much, does certainly not constitute aggression or initiated violence. It must become tolerated, as it is already widely, even and especially among primitive people - and on some beaches. However, even nudists will probably prefer to wear some protective clothing while only overcrowded buses, trams and trains are at their disposal. Even they do not want their privacy sphere invaded by too close proximity or unintended skin contacts with strangers. Moreover, at least all babies and some older people need nappies. Indecent exposure may be in very bad taste but is certainly not a crime with victims. Only violent and aggressive actions are real obscenities. - J.Z., 18.9.04.

PANARCHISM, PANARCHIES AS VOLUNTARY & EXTERRITORIALIST ALTERNATIVES TO ALL TERRITORIAL STATES, COMMON FEATURES: The essentially anarchistic or libertarian or individual rights framework, which panarchism offers to numerous diverse panarchies, which would be established under it, does not give a sufficiently detailed picture of these different examples and of their common traits. IN COMMON they would have: a) voluntary membership, based on individual secessionism and associationism, b) exterritorialism or non-geographical association, apart from small estates for homes, businesses or industrially used lands, the real estate of gardens, parks and reserves, whether privately, cooperatively, fraternally or otherwise run, c) full autonomy, based on individual sovereignty, d) respect for the already discovered, recognized and claimed individual rights and liberties of members of other panarchies, as the basis for a new kind of international law, even though they may not practise all of these rights and liberties within their own panarchies, e) personal choice constitutions, laws and jurisdictions - that would only bind their voluntary members (apart from criminals and aggressors against them), f) an essentially voluntary taxation, subscription or contribution system, based on the fact of their voluntary membership, however forcefully they are levied from voluntary members, g) individual secessionism, h) voluntary membership in ideal local militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties, internationally federated. - All these features are interlinked and interdependent. - J.Z., n.d. & 8.9.04, 18.9.04, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, PATRIOTISM, FATHERLAND & FREEDOM: Ich  bin der Mitbuerger eines jeden, der denkt, mein Vaterland ist die Freiheit.” – Salvador de Madariaga. (I am the fellow citizen of everybody who thinks that his fatherland is liberty.) – I am neutral and tolerant towards all those VOLUNTARILY submitting to some government, as long as they do not try to subjugate anyone else, i.e. make no territorial monopoly claims. – J.Z., 20.7.86, 9.1.99, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, PEACE & "A WORLD OF ONE’S OWN": There will be peace when all live in a world of their own. – Free after a pop song heard on 10.10.93. – That can be achieved only once we are no longer confined to territorial choices only, which are “choices” for the abstract of “the people”, not for free individuals, unless they are prepared to subject themselves to emigration and submission to another territorial government. – J.Z., 9.1.99. - The "alienation" of many people from the present world is sometimes even expressed during love-making by remarks like the one quoted in the above heading. Lovers often feel they have dropped out of the real world into a world of their own. For moments they can feel that they have really dropped out of the world with its numerous troubles. Presently, the real world does not give them that chance otherwise, except in their remaining private actions and choices. Panarchism would give them the chance in their public affiliations and activities as well. Unfortunately, the instincts and feelings involved do not help them to clarify their ideas on the right to drop out of the State or to ignore it, in all other matters as well. - J.Z., 8.9.04, 29.6.12.  - ALIENATION & LOVERS

PANARCHISM, PEACE & INDIVIDUAL CHOICE: Peaceful and Pluralist Practices for Personal Preferences Planet-wide. – 6xP. - J.Z., n.d.

PANARCHISM, PEACE & JUSTICE: Panarchies are a framework for peacefully, freely and justly getting along with everybody - well, almost everybody. The remaining few troublemakers will not constitute a major problem for the world. - J.Z., 8.9.97 & 26.6.01. - Panarchists would hardly tolerate nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons next door - and they would constitute the best and almost omnipresent kind of nuclear disarmament inspectors. They would also give the least rationalizations and motives to resort to such "weapons". - J.Z., 8.9.04. – NWT.

PANARCHISM, PEACE, LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER OR APART FROM EACH OTHER, TOLERATING EACH OTHER: To preserve the peace we need not learn to live "together" but, rather, apart from each other, quite independently, although next door to each other. All our lives, and our production and consumption of public services should be as independent from that of others as are our religious and other private and individual preferences already are. - J.Z., 2.3.01, 24.6.01, 21.1.12. - By now we have already produced some competition in the provision of e.g. telephone and railway services. Even some private prisons have been established. Numerous private security services have already existed for a long time. But privatization has not yet been maximized. - J.Z., 8.9.04. – Internet alternatives are offered in more and more spheres, recently even arbitration services. – J.Z., 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, PEOPLE & DIVERSITY: People are different. Let them be. – J.Z., 9.7.93. - In every respect, including their choices of political, economic and social systems individually adopted by them. - J.Z., 18.9.04.

PANARCHISM, POLITICAL & RELIGIOUS MYTHOLOGY: By now, in most countries and most of the time, political mythology does much more wrong and harm than religious mythology ever did. Nevertheless, the principle and practice for rightfully and sufficiently "settling" of religious disputes by the realization of religious liberty or religious tolerance, is not yet accepted as THE solution in the political sphere or that of economic and social systems. These are still only territorially, i.e. coercively, monopolistically, centralistically and "politically" realized and upheld against dissent, resistance and free competition. So far, this kind of alternative political framework is not even taken into consideration in most public debates, conferences, summit meetings, academic lectures and the literature of political "science". The mass media also remain largely silent upon this freedom option. There are very few exceptions, which I tried to combine in my ON PANARCHY series and also in my PAN AZ compilations and in these alphabetized hints, quotes and extracts. Obviously, this offer is still very incomplete and flawed. An individual can read and offer only so much. Input from at least thousands is needed to provide this kind of a foundation for a new kind of political science, one not wedded, inseparately, to terrorialism but aware of the rightful and rational alternatives to it. - J.Z., 3.3.95, 27.6.01, 9.12.03, 8.9.04, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, POLITICAL MARRIAGES & DIVORCES: Individual sovereignty amounts to political independence and maturity, at least for all rational beings. Individual secessionism amounts to individual political divorces from the existing territorial political system. Voluntary membership in exterritorially autonomous communities amounts, as a rule, to a non-sexual and political, economic and social group “marriage”. A new kind of political partnership, associationism and disassociationism is involved, a new form of political self-management and self-determination, a new kind of “social contract” “league”, “compact” or “covenant” and constitutionalism. The old ideas, institutions, rules and methods, means and ends, excuses, motives, tools and organizations (like parties and political campaigns) of  territorial politics and territorial systems, methods and institutions would no longer apply. Voting, if not replaced by market actions, contracts and institutions or mutual and voluntary aid, would be reorganized, extended and limited in many different ways, as varied ones as would please the volunteer communities involved. Almost everything except respect for the individual rights and liberties of others would become optional for individuals. – J.Z., 16.9.97, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, POLITICAL SCIENCE & TOLERANCE: Panarchism means a new political science about the extent and limitations of tolerance for diversity in constitutions, legislation, jurisdiction, administrations, experiments, actions and institutions, including defence, policing, penal and education systems. – In short, it means laissez-faire, laissez passer in every sphere for all kinds of people, including even the great diversity of statists, but all of them “deprived” of any territorial monopoly. - J.Z., 26.6.01, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, POLITICIANS & BUREAUCRATS: If you want a job well done and at a competitive price - don't hire a territorial politician or bureaucrat. Rather hire a capitalist or a politician and bureaucrat just for your own affairs and those of like-minded volunteers. - J.Z., 29.1.04, 24.4.04.

PANARCHISM, POWER, STATE & WAR: What remains of the territorial power, exploitation and warfare State - once we make all participation in it quite voluntary and subject it to fully free competition by exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities? How many voluntary victims could they retain, in the long run, and mobilize against freedom lovers of all kinds? Free societies could, for instance, ally themselves with all the military, tax and education slaves of a territorial regime, with all the victims of its monopolistic "public services", its monetary despotism, and its wrongful policies. Freedom could come "to eat up" or infect despotism - with its principles and practices. - J.Z., 23.7.97 & 26.6.01. – SECRET ALLIES, CAPTIVE NATIONS & MOVEMENTS, LIBERATION, DEFENCE

PANARCHISM, PREACHING IT & OR PRACTISING IT: It seems that one has to endlessly preach all aspects of panarchism, repetitively, until this ideal is finally sufficiently spread and one becomes free to practise them. One or the other panarchistic thought or formula (Perhaps a much better version than: "Make love, not war!"? - J.Z., 8.9.04.) will finally come to influence or dominate public opinion, so that panarchism will be considered as much as the self-evident “solution” as is nowadays territorial sovereignty, in spite of all the wrongs and defects of the latter. However, party strife, civil wars, revolutions or revolutionary and resistance attempts do exist everywhere and their supporters should be good prospects, for if they adopted panarchism as their aim and panarchistic liberation methods as their action program, then they could reach their particular aim for themselves much faster and more easily. Even the military, if they did scientifically explore all their defence options, should be interested in those provided by panarchism. With them they could largely dissolve enemy forces and overthrow enemy dictators, i.e., without great losses for the own side or great human sacrifices on the other side. So far their intelligence services were not thorough or intelligent enough to unearth these options and use them for their rightful purposes. - This leads to the question: Can panarchism be used for wrongful purposes? I doubt it. At most one can only set up, with its help, wrongful systems for their true believers. And these true believers, as long as they hold to their wrong beliefs, would not be  wronged by becoming free to practise their beliefs among themselves. They would even defeat their own "idealistic" purposes by setting deterrent examples to all others. - Panarchism has even the potential to turn terrorists into free and self-responsible experimenters, tolerant of the free experiments of other volunteers. - They would only have to get rid of another major prejudice still, namely that of "collective responsibility". Otherwise the endless battle between terrorism and anti-terrorist measures by territorial governments will continue, at huge costs in lives, liberties and money. - J.Z. 13.1.93, 11.12.03. - Luckily, territorialism is interlinked with collective responsibility notions in the same way as panarchism is closely related to individual responsibility. - J.Z., 8.9.04. – Territorialists still manage to define whole cities, whole countries, whole populations as “enemies” and their “weapons” choices are thus correspondingly wrongful and irrational. – J.Z., 29.6.12. - ITS VALUE FOR REVOLUTIONARIES & THE MILITARY & FOR COUNTER-TERRORIST MEASURES, Q., COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, TERRORISM, INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, ENEMIES, TARGETS, MASS MURDERS, NWT.

PANARCHISM, PRICING, ACCOUNTING, BUDGETS, TAXATION, VOLUNTARY TAXATION:  Territorial government services are not competitively supplied and freely priced (in optional and competitively issued, valued and accepted or rejected exchange media and value standards) and paid for on a free market for their services. They may not be freely refused and taxes to pay for them may not be refused. From this territorially, monopolistic and collectivistic despotic arrangement (which combines financial with monetary despotism, combined with voting powers for the ignorant and prejudiced and all too many and large monopoly powers for the few "decision-makers", our "great" leaders and "representatives" and ministers and bureaucrats), do result most of the economic wrongs and inefficiencies of territorial governments, not only of the openly State Socialist ones and their numerous violent clashes as well. Voluntary taxation, contribution, financing, insurance and guaranty schemes, as well as competing exchange media, clearing, saving, investment, value standard and currency systems would be characteristic for panarchies, competing with each other for customers. Thus they would realize free enterprise, free trade, free markets, freedom of contract and association, free pricing in this sphere, too, as extensively or as limited as they want to. Compare on this the essay by Tibor Machan "The Roots of Government Budget Crises", in Marc Brand's Liberty email of 8.12.03. Alas, Machan did not draw the panarchistic conclusion from his many correct statements in this essay. As far as I know, he remains an advocate of "limited" governments, still with exclusive territorial powers, and many involuntary members and outvoted voters, however "limited" these "limited" but still territorial monopoly governments supposedly are. Judging by my letter exchange with him on CD-ROM publishing for libertarians, it seems unlikely to me that he could be converted to a more advanced view on panarchism, either, unless he manages to stumble upon it himself. Otherwise I do respect him as one of the foremost libertarians, who is generally favoring individual rights more so than most other libertarians do. - J.Z., 8.12.03, 8.9.04, 21.1.12. - STATE SOCIALISM, DEFICITS, DEFICIT FINANCING, FORCED LOANS

PANARCHISM, PRIVACY, CHOICE, INDIVIDUALISM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM: Expand your privacy sphere to include all your rightful political, economic and social choices. - J.Z., 17.6.03.

PANARCHISM, PRIVATE LIVES & PUBLIC LIVES: Panarchism would advance us from individual free choices merely in our private lives to individual free choices in our public lives. - To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams or choice. Exterritorially this would be quite possible, under personal laws and through voluntary communities, introduced via individual and group secessionism rather than violent revolutions and resistance actions going to private and official terrorist actions. - The worst of all territorial regimes, even the best of them, is that they are imposed upon dissenters. Let all dissenters do their own things for or to themselves - at their own risk and expense only.  They would leave the majority alone and the majority should leave them alone. To each his own, the ancient principle of justice. A-territorial mutual tolerance is possible in the public sphere as well as in the private sphere. Moreover, it would work in the public sphere as well as it does in the private spheres. It works in the religious sphere. Already now we have some national and international corporations that are larger than some territorial States. Full exterritorial autonomy for their affairs as well. That could bring them on our side as well. Who could quite rightfully and rationally complain about such an arrangement? Laissez- faire in the political, economic and social sphere could satisfy almost everyone – if it is not obligatory but optional. It would include even statist arrangements – between their volunteers. It would bring to their logical conclusion the ideas of democracy, republicanism, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, self-help, self-reliance, mutual aid, voluntary cooperation, free peoples, free nations, free movements, experimental freedom, freedom of action, freedom of association, freedom of contract, consent, mandate, liberation, justice, etc., all based upon individual rights and liberties in their best definitions. It would provide the best framework towards peace, freedom, security, justice, progress, all advanced by volunteers only, and at their speed, not threatening anything but unjust domination over and persecution of dissenters. - A genuine political science will not exist until the a-territorial (exterritorial, personal law) and voluntaristic alternative is as well explored as is the territorial and compulsory membership and subordination practice. - J.Z., 9.10.04, 21.1.12, 29.6.12. – (Computers can't count properly: I had the same file double and thus checked the word number: I got two figures: 348 words and 366 words. But the texts and the words were identical! - J.Z., 20.10.11.)

PANARCHISM, PROGRESS:  My personal bias is still very strong, not for new analyses, explanations, reviews, discussions and comments but for positive ideas, plans and programs for action, utopias and significant technical innovations and scientific discoveries, for tools, systems and methods, for solutions to acute and large problems, all to be applied only by and to volunteers - apart from offenders against individual rights and liberties. – For the latter there would be competing policing, court, penal and rehabilitation systems. - J.Z., 4.9.87, 1.4.89, 21.1.12. -PROGRAMS, POSITIVE PROPOSALS, BIAS & PREJUDICES, IDEAS, PROGRAMS

PANARCHISM, RADICAL PLURALISM, NON-GEOGRAPHICAL ASSOCIATIONISM: Most thoughtful men recognize that group diversity is part of our world; how we learn to live with and accept diversity will determine in great measure the future of civilization." - Gittler, Understanding Minority Groups. – DIVERSITY, PLURALISM, COMPETING SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES, EVEN COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXTERRITORIAL MINORITY AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

PANARCHISM, REBELLION, RESISTANCE, REVOLUTION, CIVIL WAR, CIVIL UNREST, TERRORISM: People free to secede from any territorial government or any existing panarchy, free to do their own things afterwards, to and for themselves, at their own risk and expense, will have no strong incentive to resist, rebel or rise against any government or panarchy or to commit any terrorist or warlike act against one. Thus all somewhat sensible governments, among the existing territorial ones, would be well advised to let them go and thus become societies of volunteers themselves, under personal law. - J.Z., 7.7.88, 27.6.01, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, REFORMATION, RELIGIOUS & OTHER TOLERANCE: Why did the Reformation stop at religious liberty – in the minds of most? – J.Z., 16.7.93. Solve that riddle and you could help us to come much closer to panarchism for all, in all spheres. – J.Z., 14.1.99, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, RESISTANCE, SECESSIONISM & HUMAN RIGHTS: Freedom means the right and power to organize to say no to any meddling legislation, political, bureaucratic and “justice” system, i.e., the right to fully enjoy and practice all one's individual rights and liberties without permit from any territorial politician or bureaucrat or judge. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04, 21.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, RIGHT & WRONG POLICIES:  We must continually convey the message that wrong policies will produce wrong consequences which we can forecast.” – Anthony Fisher. – There are no right territorial policies – because all of them suppress individual liberties, rights and choices of their dissenters. – J.Z., 6.2.97, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, RULE, POLITICIANS: They want to govern us. But we ought to concede to them only fully experimental freedom to rule themselves and their followers. And we should claim the same liberty for ourselves. - J.Z., 17.11.99, 24.6.01, 21.1.12. - GOVERNMENT, PARTIES, MOVEMENTS, IDEOLOGIES, STATES, SELF-RULE, SOCIETIES, TOLERANCE

PANARCHISM, SANCTUARY, MOBS & MASSES: Individual secessionism and exterritorial minority autonomy, once recognized, will be at least the equivalent of the “sanctuaries” formerly provided for those pursued for one or the other motive. However, they will not be sanctuaries for criminals with victims, whenever the victims are members of other panarchies. Offences of members of one panarchy against members of the same panarchy are the business of that panarchy only. – J.Z., 14.1.99.

PANARCHISM, SECESSION & BARBARISM, TERRORISM: A man free to secede is much less likely to relapse back into barbarism or to remain a barbarian. - J.Z., 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM, SECESSION, FRAGMENTATION, DESERTION, DIVERSITY, DISASSOCIATION: Without freedom to disassociate oneself individually and to associate in exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities there is not sufficient freedom in our political, economic and social arrangements. - J.Z., 25.8.98, 28.6.01. Also not enough science in our “social sciences”. – J.Z., 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: Panarchism demands the right of the individual to appoint his own political agents over or for himself and to change them when it suits him. - J.Z., 20.8.92, 4.1.93. - Well, one might come to resolve that, apart from extraordinary circumstances, an individual should be bound by his own choice of government for at least a year. - J.Z., 9.12.03.

PANARCHISM, SOCIETIES, CHOICE, AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIALITY, VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES: To each the government or free society of his or her dreams - via individual secessions and exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities. - J.Z., 18.10.99. - By all means, do find, develop and express a clearer and more concise expression of the essence of panarchism, one that would conquer, or, rather, free the world, because it would be spread from mouth to mouth, rapidly, and also widely adopted by all media. - J.Z., 8.9.04. – NAMES, TERMS, DEFINITIONS, SHORT EXPLANATIONS

PANARCHISM, STRENGTH: We would need very little diplomacy, police power and military strength, secret service agents and no party politics at all, nor any election campaigns and donations - if we left each other alone, exterritorially. - J.Z., 24.10.93, 28.6.01. - MILITARY, DIPLOMACY, POLICE, LEAVING EACH OTHER ALONE, EXTERRITORIALLY

PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM & THE “NATIONAL INTEREST”: What under territorialism is believed to be in the national interest is, in reality, mostly very much against the real national interest, that is, in the interest of all peaceful and productive people in a territory. Almost exclusively only those intent upon abusing any territorial powers given to them, in their own favor, pretend to act in the “public interest” or on behalf of “the” people. – J.Z., 3.9.98, 9.1.99, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM & THE MYTH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE: The "Myth of the Chosen People" is associated with territorialism, imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, despotism, slavery, exploitation and mass murders. It largely motivated the ancient Egyptians, Jews, Chinese, also the Romans, Greeks, Japanese, Arabs, Spaniards, French, English, Prussians, Germans, Nazis, Turks, the Brahmins in India, the Mongol Horde, the Soviet Empire, the New American Empire, the Inca Empire and probably most others as well. - Individual rights and liberties, including individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, are the radical and strongest opposites to this kind of centralism, domination, exploitation and monopolism, which was often advanced as if it were the only rightful and civilized option. While there are still ABC mass murder devices around, we can no longer afford to live under this mythology and its institutions - if we want to survive. Under the political, economic and social equivalence to religious tolerance or religious liberty, all such devices would be destroyed by those targeted by them, taking their fate into their own hands, away from power-mad territorial governments. - J.Z., 7.7.99, 15.12.03, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY: To give mankind a boot (boost? J.Z.) up the evolutionary ladder, away from his (its? J.Z.) dead-end role as a territorially defensive (aggressive! - J.Z.) squabbler. Away from fighting over material resources. - Joel Richards, Pindharee, page 182. A Tom Doherty Associates Book, N.Y., 1986.

PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM: A country should not be like a football or cricket field under one system of rules and one umpire but, rather, like a city, in which different groups of people play at the same time and on different patches, their own or leased blocks, buildings, or rooms, quite different games with each other, games which are all confined to their volunteers. Indeed, in many ways they do act already do so, panarchistically, in any city - but not consistently and comprehensively so. Most cities develop a considerable cosmopolitan tolerance for different kinds of people and their different activities. But that tolerance for tolerant actions is, there as well, not yet developed to its maximum. Territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions, police forces, regulations and administrations do still interfere, often ignoring or exploiting and restricting property rights and personal rights. - J.Z., 1.3.00, 27.6.01, 8.9.04, 29.6.12.. – CITIES, COSMOPOLITANISM, DIVERSITY, DOING THE OWN THINGS

PANARCHISM, THEORY & BACKING FOR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM: Panarchism is essentially the theoretical and practical backing for experimental freedom, at the own expense and risk, in every sphere where it is not yet realized, i.e., especially in the political, economic and social system spheres, now subjected to monopolistic, coercive and collectivistic rule under the territorial model. - J.Z., 18.1.95, 26.6.01. As such it is the start of a genuine political science, one no longer dogmatically wedded to the dogmas, false premises, assumptions and prejudices of territorialism. – J.Z., 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, TOTALITARIANISM, DETERRENT EXAMPLES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM: Note to Dennis Wheatley: Curtain of Fear, London, 1953: Experience with totalitarian ideologies must be next door or on one's own body and mind to be noticed and believed by almost all. Thus panarchist freedom is required also for totalitarian Communists and Nazis - ultimately in order to defeat them or reduce them to insignificance. However, all their actions must become confined to their volunteers and, at least for the time being, they should be disarmed, as far as possible, by rightful volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties. Once they have obviously learnt to become tolerant, then and only then, could this restriction upon them and other formerly intolerant believers, be removed. – The Weimar republic made the great mistake of letting the right wing and the left wing totalitarians arm and militarily organized themselves, while most of the rest of the population was disarmed, so that it was only a question of which of these two totalitarian groups would gain territorial power. - J.Z., 28.12.88, 15.12.03, 8.9.04, 21.1.12. -

PANARCHISM, TRADITION, LOYALTY & ALLEGIANCE: Panarchism expresses a new kind of allegiance, loyalty and solidarity towards the OWN ideals and towards individual rights, voluntarism and the maximum of tolerance for tolerant actions and freely chosen constitutions, systems and societies, personal laws, selected juridical and political systems, to any service freely offered and priced and accepted or rejected by sovereign individual consumers. – J.Z., 24.1.97, 9.1.99, 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, TRUTH, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM & CONVINCING OTHERS: It is error, which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. - Truth can stand firmly and openly in sight of thousands, who may continue to ignore or deny it. It does not automatically convince all, most people or large numbers. Certain errors, myths and prejudices have remained very popular for a long time and are likely to continue to remain popular, even once experimental freedom has been introduced. But without experimental freedom (and without an encyclopedia of the best refutations of popular errors, myths and prejudices, without an ideas archive, flow chart discussions, digital argument mapping and complete library and publishing services in affordable and powerful alternative media, including complete abstracts and review collections, indexing and bibliographical services) truths will continue to have a hard stand. - J.Z., 7.11.85, 5.7.86, 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM, VICTORIES, ELECTIONS, VOTING: Panarchism replaces complete, although only temporary victories over all dissenters, by part-victories that achieve exterritorial autonomy for all voluntary communities, those of the victors as well as those of the outnumbered or defeated in territorial elections. - J.Z., 26.1.04. 24.3.04. - Thus it comes much closer to genuine self-government and self-determination than any territorial system does, except when its "territory" is confined to private or cooperatively owned real estate property. - J.Z., 6.10.11. Elections will be radically changed: No more winner takes all, but all get what they can rightly demand for themselves, within their rights and liberties and are willing to work or pay for. Instead of merely voting, they sign up in different membership lists for those programs, institutions and systems, which they prefer for themselves. – J.Z., 21.1.12.

PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM & FAIRNESS: Anything goes and is fair among those who do volunteer for it and can practise it at their own risk and expense.  Territorial governments do not have the right to preempt any sphere for tolerant actions and experiments to themselves. Every territorial government's coercion of innocent citizens, engaged in rightful actions, without other victims than themselves, is quite wrong and must be ended, forever. – J.Z., 29.5.93, 14.1.99, 8.9.04, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, TOLERANCE: For any new or old group of volunteers any new lifestyle, constitutions, laws, jurisdiction, political, economic and social system that does not victimize non-members. - J.Z., 27.11.99.

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

PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, LIMITS: Would you put some arbitrary limit on the number of different jurisdictions, bodies of laws, policies, penal systems, policing organizations etc. that could peacefully coexist, each operating only for its own voluntary membership and being paid for by it? Putting a limit on the number of experiments of this kind would be as absurd as putting e.g. a numerical limits on the number or religious organizations that may be established or on the number of technical and scientific or artistic experiments that may be tried. - J.Z., 18.1.95, 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP IN STATES & SOCIETIES: All State and community memberships are to become quite voluntary. All laws to become personal laws only. All taxes to become voluntary ones, at least through voluntary membership. All sovereignty is to be confined to exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. This radical reform is ultimately based upon individual sovereignty, realized especially through individual secessionism. On this basis a new political science, philosophy and practice will arise, one quite in accordance with the diversity among human beings and their genuine individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 1.3.95, 27.6.01, 9.12.03, 29.6.12. - SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, STATES, COMMUNITIES, SOCIETIES, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE

PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, VOLUNTARY SUBORDINATION: Volunteer with your own tax dollars for the government or society of your choice and obey only its rules in all your internal affairs. - J.Z., 15.1.97.

PANARCHISM, VOTING & REPRESENTATION: Panarchism need not be introduced completely in a single step. It could begin e.g., as a biarchy, in countries where each of the major parties gets close to 50 % of the total votes, as a triarchy, where three and about equally strong parties now struggle for power and as a quartarchy where none of the major parties can claim to represent much more than 25% of the vote. They could either have their own kinds of salaries, taxes and budgets or would, initially, each only get their percentage share of present salaries, taxes and budget items. - On the other hand, panarchism still being as unknown and unpopular as it is, its introduction via individual secessionism and the recognition of the full exterritorial autonomy of volunteer communities, might proceed rather slowly anyhow, with few individuals only daring to take this step and only tiny minorities organizing themselves in this new way. - J.Z., 31.5.96, 26.6.01. - Dropping out of particular laws, regulations and jurisdictions should also be practised. See: Alternative Institutions. - J.Z., 8.9.04.  - See: BIARCHY, VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, BIARCHY, GRADUALISM, START-UP OPTIONS

PANARCHISM, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM: The man who can right himself by a vote will seldom resort to a musket. - J. Fennimore Cooper, The American Democrat, X, 1838. - Especially when that vote is so individualized and extensive that it includes individual secession and association with volunteer communities that are exterritorially fully autonomous. - J.Z., 24.6.01.

PANARCHISM, WAR, ENTHUSIASM: What we now need to discover in the social realm is the moral equivalent of war: something heroic that will speak to men as universally as war does (MORE SO! - J.Z.), and yet will be as compatible with their spiritual selves as war has proved to be incompatible. - William James: The Varieties of Religious Experience, XIV, 1902. - The chance of having one's own will, institutions and services, but without imposing them upon any others and without destroying them and their institutions, in a purely creative and freely competitive struggle against the forces of nature only and for the realization of the own ideals in one's own sphere. - Thus all can be winners, gaining their systems for themselves, as long as they can stand them and, once dissatisfied, advancing to something which they will then realize will be better for them, at least for a while. - The one-man-revolution will be made possible and millions of them will tend to advance all of us very fast and in a rightful and sensible way. - J.Z., 7.11.85 & 24.6.01. - COMRADESHIP, SOLIDARITY, VOLUNTARISM, PIONEERING, EXPERIMENTATION, FREEDOM OF ACTION, UNANIMITY, COMMITMENT, IDEALISM, VICTORY, WINNING, SELF-HELP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, FRAGMENTATION & DECENTRALIZATION OF THE BEST TYPE

PANARCHISM, WEAPONS & BROTHERHOOD: I was just watching again: "All Quiet on the Western Front", after E. M. Remarque's famous anti-war book. Emotions towards human brotherhood should not primarily induce us to throw away all weapons and uniforms but, rather, all the wrong, intolerant, monopolistic, territorial, coercive ideas and institutions that make us arm and organize, train and wear uniforms to fight each other, upon command by our central authority, instead of leaving each other alone or only communicating and trading with each other. - What we are now taught by parents, in schools, universities, by books and the mass media, sends us again and again into mutual slaughters. Work for peace by starting to think and decide and act for yourself. - J.Z., 5.2.93, 8.9.04, 21.1.12. – REPLACING TERRITORIALISM BY EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, COMPULSION, MONOPOLISM & COERCION BY VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHISM, WHY HASN'T IT SUCCEEDED AS YET? Why haven't we got panarchy as yet? 1.) Because it remains so far an almost unknown ideal. 2.) Resistance fighters have so far fought for territorial domination rather than personal law independence and this mistake is just one of many which they commit in their ignorance of better alternatives. 3.) Individual rights are still insufficiently recognized. 4.) There is as yet no suitable organization for the defence of individual rights. - J.Z., 7.3.88. - Moreover, the affordable, powerful and lasting alternative media are so far barely utilized for this purpose, so that most of the panarchist texts remain unknown and un-translated, are mostly not even listed in bibliographies, abstracts and review collections and contained in special library collections. - J.Z., 18.9.04. – Q.

PANARCHISM, YOUR LIFE, YOUR DECISION: It’s your life. It should be your decision.” – MacGiver in the TV series MacGiver, segment: “Lost Treasure in Atlantis.” – Apart from the technical ingenuity and self-help practice revealed by this TV hero, the depressing "message" of this hero is, usually, welfarism, altruism and sacrifices as well as great risks undertaken by enterprising heroes on behalf of the “needy” and “helpless.” – J.Z., 10.1.99. - That it is, largely, territorialism, which makes them needy and helpless in the first place, is not shown in this TV series, either. - J.Z., 8.9.04.

PANARCHISM: A panarchy for me and my associates, a panarchy for you and yours, a panarchy for everybody, who wants a different system for himself and like-minded people. For each the self-chosen utopia and this at his own risk and expense. Then no one can any longer blame, exploit or oppress foreigners or dissenters but only himself, if he has made the wrong choices. - J.Z., 22.8.99, 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM: All political, economic and social models, utopias, ideals, experiments and communities, services as well as (objectively considered) disservices, are right and advisable for all their adult (and thus somewhat rational) voluntary followers but wrong for any conscripts into them (including minors, who are not the absolute property of their parents!  - J.Z., 8.9.04.), under wrongful territorialist assumptions. At least no individually and thus rightfully chosen and voluntarily maintained institution, community or experiment should be suppressed. It should succeed or fail upon its own merits, by gaining or losing followers. Their members and outside observers are thereby giving maximum opportunities for losing their errors, false premises and prejudices and gaining insights on what it right, sensible and practicable in human associations. - J.Z., 26.4.88 & 24.6.01, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Allow everyone to choose his own leaders, allies, enemies, doctors and other experts, including his own government and personal laws or supposedly ideal free and just society, according to his own standards or dreams, at the own expense and risk. No government is good enough to be forced upon anyone – except criminals with victims. – J.Z., 19.10.98, 10.1.99.

PANARCHISM: Anyone to be free to set up his own favorite system, anywhere, on his property and with his property and with voluntary helpers and at his own and their risk only. As a self-chosen personal law system it would largely extend beyond the borders of his property but would there, too, remain binding only for him and would there be restricted by the property and personal rights of others. His personal law choice might come to be adopted by voluntary members and their worldwide federation, all over the world. At the same time, there could be many diverse exterritorially autonomous associations of volunteers locally, nationally, continent-wide and world-wide, competing with his particular solutions, real or imagined ones. - J.Z., 5.6.92, 7.1.93, 10.12.03, 8.9.04. (I keep trying to improve these statements, as can be seen from the added dates. - J.Z., 8.9.04.)

PANARCHISM: Apart from criminals with victims, only the investors in and subscribers to exterritorial societies and governmenance systems ought to be ruled by their laws. – J.Z., The diverse panarchies would all deal with the crime committed by or against their members. Investors in panarchies would be wise to subscribe to some or the other international covenant on investments and insurance and indemnification. Likewise, they should make contracts on the kind of international law and arbitration system or service, which they prefer. - J.Z., 25.11.93, 9.1.99. 8.12.03, 23.1.12, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Be your own person and have your own community, according to your own lights and choice, to live your own way of life in every respect, always at your own risk and expense. - J.Z., 27.7.86 & 24.6.01.

PANARCHISM: Choices, decision-making, options so extended for individuals and communities of volunteers that they become maximized, in every sphere, even in those presently territorially monopolized by States, i.e. "public services" and "common interest" institutions, but always only on a voluntary and exterritorial basis, under "personal laws" and also at the own expense and risk. - that is the essence of panarchism or polyarchy or whatever the future and popular name of that framework may be. - J.Z., 9.10.04, 29.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Democracy and republicanism, monarchism and despotism, capitalism and communism, fascism and conservatism, socialism and anarchism, any system for anyone, all in the same country or all over the world - but all only for their adult volunteers and at their expense and risk. No system to be territorially imposed. - J.Z., 15.1.97, 26.6.01.

PANARCHISM: Each to be free to choose sides in everything – at his own expense and risk. – J.Z., 19.1.96.

PANARCHISM: Every man to his own task. - Proverb. - The primary task of any adult person is to run his own life himself or with the help of self-chosen experts only, regardless of what other experts other minority or majority group members prefer themselves. - J.Z., 23.6.01.

PANARCHISM: Experimental freedom in all spheres that do not endanger the rights, liberties, lives, property and health of others. It means free experimentation, freed from the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of laws, regulations that infringe basic rights and liberties. - J.Z., 19.1.04, 6.10.11.

PANARCHISM: Exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, i.e., genuine self-government rather than territorially conducted misgovernment over dissenters. - J.Z., 29.1.04.

PANARCHISM: For freedom lovers, panarchism would mean a “lock-out” of politicians, bureaucrats and tax gatherers and also to a voluntary and permanent strike against them, by individuals as well as by many minority groups and some majorities. For the others it would mean a much more steady and contractual as well as permanent relationship with them, undisturbed by extremists and other dissenters, until they, too, finally get sick of their “minders” and “protectors”, “great leaders”, “big brothers”, prophets and gurus. – J.Z., 17.7.93, 14.1.99.

PANARCHISM: Free contracts, free competition, free cooperation, free markets, free enterprise, for every aim, program and organization and service, to they extent that they are desired by some, even for “government” services, but all only through and among volunteer communities or free experiments that are only exterritorially autonomous. – J.Z., 29.12.96, 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM: Free enterprise, free markets, free contracts, free pricing, free trade, freedom to compete, freedom to ignore, freedom to associate and to disassociate oneself, freedom to abstain, refuse, remain neutral or to commit oneself, freedom to do one's own things. They are all as much needed in the sphere of political, economic and social systems as they are e.g. in our private lives, in religion, in sports, in the arts and in science and technology. That should be quite self-evident to anybody, who is quite aware of the results of our free individual choices by which we are surrounded. We are complaining as a rule, and rightly so, only about those choices made by others for us, at our expense and without our individual consent. As long as we see nothing wrong in territorial rule and voting and representation and decision-making, we do not go to the root of the remaining major problems. - J.Z., 30.7.98 & 26.6.01, 8.9.04. – TERRITORIALISM, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDEPENDENCE, DOING THE OWN THINGS, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN LIVING VIA PERMITS, ORDERS & LAWS PASSED BY OTHERS.

PANARCHISM: Freedom does not mean licences "bought" from politicians and bureaucrats, on their conditions. One should remain free to individually fire and ignore the lot, as far as one's own affairs are concerned. One should become free to live in full peace and freedom from them, either fully on one's own or to associated with like-minded others under the own kind of personal law and institutions or to hire one's own alternative masters or representatives. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04, 22.1.12. – PERMITS, LICENCES, BUREAUCRACY, LAW, INVOLUNTARY INSTITUTIONALIZATION, TERRITORIALISM, CENTRAL PLANNING & DIRECTION

PANARCHISM: Freedom for the capitalistic, the anarchistic, as well as for the socialistic religions. - J.Z., 24.3.89.

PANARCHISM: Freedom to rule oneself - at the own expense and risk - and that of like-minded people - without help or hindrance by any territorial politician or bureaucrat, constitution, law or jurisdiction. It means individual sovereignty combined with exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities, living under their own personal laws, constitutions, juridical, voting and protection systems. - J.Z., 29.1.04, 24.4.04.

PANARCHISM: Full autonomy for all volunteer communities but only on an exterritorial and personal law basis. – J.Z., 17.10.93.

PANARCHISM: Full exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities would permit the peaceful coexistence of alternative societal "universes", now and here on Earth, for their supporters. What more can they rightfully demand for themselves, for their public affairs? – Should people ever become satisfied with anything less? - J.Z., 7.10.99, 24.6.01, 29.6.12. – Q.

PANARCHISM: Get all the politicians and bureaucrats and judges out of your pockets and out of your lives - unless YOU, individually, declare them that you want them there. - J.Z., 21.1.04.

PANARCHISM: Governments and free societies by individual choice - rather than by territorial imposition upon any non-criminal dissenters. – J.Z., 20.3.96. – By now there are probably thousands of definitions each for socialism, anarchism, democracy and republicanism. In the absence of many definitions from others, of panarchism, I dare to make dozens to hundreds of attempts to finally come up with the best definition that I am capable of. If that sounds boring and repetitive to you, then so be it. I will, nevertheless, continue with my efforts. – J.Z., 11.1.99.

PANARCHISM: His way and the way out for everybody - who is not a criminal with victims. So that we can finally all say: “And what is best of all, I lived it my way!” – J.Z., 14.7.98, 10.1.99, 30.6.12. - All the popular sayings that have some panarchist contents have not yet been listed together, as they should be. - However, I cannot tackle all such jobs by myself. - J.Z., 8.9.04. – PROVERBIAL WISDOM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, LIVING ONE’S LIFE THE OWN WAY, SELF-DETERMINATION

PANARCHISM: How many and how different governments, societies and communities? As many as are wanted by volunteers for themselves, with all of them limited to exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 17.6.03, 15.12.03, 8.9.04. – Q.

PANARCHISM: I claim the whole Earth for myself and for all others – but only exterritorially, for our diverse and voluntaristic as well as autonomous communities of all kinds, as long as all of them do respect this expansion of the framework for free and tolerant actions and all the individual rights and liberties involved, at least to the extent that they are recognized and claimed by members of other communities. – J.Z., 18.7.98, 10.1.99.

PANARCHISM: I do not intend to stop thinking, writing and speaking about panarchism, its introduction and its possible achievements, or exploring past experiences with it and identical or similar thoughts of others - even while I have to do this mainly by myself and for myself. One can advance an idea also by persistently arguing with oneself and with relevant observations, proposals and arguments of others, to the extent that they were and are accessible to oneself. Ideally, I would like all these entries embodied in a large databank and fast retrieval system. My own systems, knowledge, resources, skills, time and energy are much too limited and small for that. There would be few who would not greatly benefit if panarchist ideas became public opinion. Alas, rational self-interest in ethical solutions is still all too small and rare. - If others do get turned off by my monologues, long compilations and my single-track mind and concerns, they do not have to read me, write to me or visit me. - I can only hope but doubt that they can find as worthy an aim and endeavor for themselves. - J.Z., 5.2.93, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: I hold that panarchism - or experimental freedom or freedom of action or exterritorial autonomy for volunteer groups, in the three major spheres where it is still suppressed (politics, economics and social relations), while in most other spheres it is daily and widely practised by most people, quite unconscious of the principles and system involved, raking them simply for granted, does offer the solutions to most of the problems of our times, wars, civil wars, bloody revolutions, terrorism, poverty, inflations, deflations, mass unemployment and despotism, also ignorance and prejudices (via competing educational systems, including e.g. extensive microfiche and disc use, an Ideas Archive, an encyclopedia of the best refutations, one of all definitions, stressing the best ones). - J.Z. to C. B., 13.1.00, revised: 22.1.12. – Most of all, however, it will provide new solutions through the experimental freedom which it introduces in spheres so far territorially and coercively monopolized by territorial governments. In theses spheres, that of political, economic and social systems, we could then expect the same rapid progress which resulted from individual choices, voluntary actions and free experimentation in the natural sciences and in technology. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: I wish you the government of your individual choice - upon your back, i.e., at your expense and risk, while wanting for myself only the free society of my own individual choice, at my expense and risk. - On that basis we could peacefully coexist for a long time. - J.Z., 2.3.96, 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM: If you want a job well done and at a competitive price - don't hire a territorial politician or bureaucrat. Rather hire a capitalist or a politician and bureaucrat just for your own affairs and those of like-minded volunteers. - J.Z., 29.1.04, 24.4.04. - POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS

PANARCHISM: In Australia, and not only in Australia, dozens or even hundreds of different governments, as well as of different non-governmental societies, could and should peacefully coexist, each for and at the expense of its voluntary followers only. – J.Z., 2.11.96, 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM: In order to induce the self-formation of certain abstract structures of inter-personal relations, we need to secure the assistance of some very general conditions, and then allow each individual element to find its own place within the larger order. The most we can do to assist the process is to admit only such elements as obey the required rules.” – Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, 83. – To achieve the same for competing governments the minimum requirements are: 1. Voluntary membership, 2. Individual secessionism, 3. Exterritorial autonomy, 4. Personal laws. These make the peaceful coexistence of xyz different communities in the same territory and even world-wide possible, as long as these basic rules are predominantly abided by. Then it becomes also relatively easy to cope with the remaining intolerant and aggressive people. – J.Z., 7.1.99. - Alas, even Hayek advocated only limited but still territorial governments and had only limited notions of monetary freedom. He thus constitutes a prominent example for the fact that the panarchist and monetary freedom alternatives have not yet been sufficiently published. If they had been, then a scholar like Hayek would have been familiar with them. - J.Z., 8.9.04.

PANARCHISM: In politics, economics and societal arrangements, as well as in religion, the arts, science, technology, sports, entertainment, crafts, hobbies, choice of profession, of doctors, psychologists, architects, builders and all other kinds of private life activities, each should be free to choose his own road or expert at his own risk and expense. - J.Z., 25.8.98, 26.6.01. – EXPERTS, PROFESSIONALS, AUTHORITIES, LEADERSHIP – WITHOUT TERRITORIAL MONOPOLIES

PANARCHISM: Individual secessions from all territorial governments and from all panarchies, and merely exterritorial autonomy protective associations or communities of volunteers, rather than any imposed territorial rule, even one of the best kind or a most limited one. This choice would most advance the rightful aspirations of any democrats, republicans, libertarians and anarchists and would most restrict despots, authoritarians and totalitarians. – J.Z., 18.11.93, 9.1.99, 30.6.12. – DEMOCRACY, LIBERTARIANISM, ANARCHISM

PANARCHISM: It could solve the greatest remaining mysteries and problems for human societies. It could be used as a universal "solvent" or panacea. It is the proper model or paradigm or framework for all attempts to better the human conditions. It is a peace-maker, a cornucopia, a genuine utopia or "meta-utopia" as Nozick called it - and remains, nevertheless, like laissez faire capitalism in economics, and full monetary freedom regarding currencies, largely "an unknown ideal". (Ayn Rand: Panarchism remained an unknown or unappreciated ideal even to her! The managed to completely misunderstand one term for it: “competing governments” and equated it with the wrong doings of monopolistic and coercive territorial governments.) It is a requirement for a just and progressive society, for all liberation and revolution attempts, keeping them in bounds, among volunteers. It is the equivalent to free experimentation in science, technology, the arts and in business. At the same time, territorialism and its absolute sovereignty over the people in a large territory, remain largely unknown as a wrongful, even a criminal condition, undiscovered, un-captured (not analyzed!) or uncharged, as are most criminals with victims, although territorially imposed systems are obstructive, destructive, expropriating and even murderous. Usually, and in most people’s minds, they are not  considered guilty of any charges laid against them, in the few cases that they have been publicly accused. (“Right or wrong, my country!”)Instead, they are taken for granted, considered to be rightful and necessary. Like monetary freedom in relation to the custom and long established laws of monetary despotism, panarchism is rarely considered as a rightful and efficient alternative to territorialism, its monopolism, exploitation, misdirection, misjudgments and coercion. – So far one can finds only even fewer defenders for it than for unilateral free trade and free migration, or full monetary freedom, which are also only facets of universal panarchism. To me it is rather obvious that individuals should be free to secede from e.g. the burden of 54 million laws and regulations, as exist now in the U.S.A. as well as from the "foreign policies" of "their" governments, to the extent that they do seriously disagree with them. - J.Z., 28.8.95 & 24.6.01, 9.12.03, 22.1.12. – However, the number of search results one gets with Google for terms like “panarchism” and related ones, is multiplying, thus indicating a growing public awareness of it. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: It has the potential to become self-realizing and powerfully defensive in defensive and revolutionary wars and to achieve a lasting peace and achieve it faster with a minimum of bloodshed. - J.Z., n.d. - Compare: START-UP OPTIONS, DEFENCE, PEACE, LIBERATION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, WAR & PEACE AIMS, UNILATERAL PEACE OFFERS

PANARCHISM: It is not enough "to be your own man" and to "live your own life your way", in the religious and private sphere, in your job or career choice, in the super-market as customer, in the choice of your clothing, your vehicle, your recreation and amusement, your sport and fashion, your food and your drinks. You ought to have the same consumer sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy or individual sovereignty regarding political, economic and social systems and bodies of laws and jurisdiction, your preferred bureaucracy, if any, your constitution, all kinds of public services, all kinds of taxation, contribution and budgeting systems, together with like-minded people. - J.Z., 28.10.94, 27.6.01. – INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, SELF-DETERMINATION IN EVERY SPHERE

PANARCHISM: It means societies, States and governments, constitutions, laws, etc. all becoming individually chosen or refusable institutions or institutions from which individuals may secede. The remaining and the new communities would all be only exterritorially autonomous, have only personal laws and voluntary members. They would not be bound by ancient or new laws, customs, juridical decisions, traditions or by majority or minority despotism, nor limited by party strife or torn by civil wars, since all parties or movements would then be free to go their own ways. Each election would be won by every party or leader or prophet that have offered themselves as a choice, since they could then use their exterritorial autonomy options, together with all their voluntary followers. One cannot rightly ask for more. – Nor should one be satisfied with anything less. – J.Z., 1. 9. 97, 10.1.99. 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: It means that no one is to be tied, against his will, to a mess of old or newly imposed territorial laws, constitutions, jurisdictions, to territorial rulers and their bureaucrats and institutions or to go and fight, wound or cripple others, become wounded or crippled himself, kill and become killed - upon the monopolized decision-making powers and commands of territorial States, given for their purposes, aims, powers and profits, rather than for any quite rightful, because merely defensive or liberating war- and peace aims. All adults are to enjoy freedom of choice, freedom to experiment in every sphere, freedom to associate or to disassociate (secede), in the pursuit of their own rightful and self-responsible aims and purposes, actions, associations, all this under personal laws and constitutions, in governance systems, societies and communities, all of and for volunteers only, all doing only their own things and this at their own expense and risk, i.e. leaving all other associations free to do their own things among their like-minded people. No one can rightfully demand anything more or should anyone demand anything less for his or her life. - J.Z., 2.6. & 19.8.11, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: It means: The possibility of a separate “Declaration of Independence” – for every individual and voluntary group or community! Also the practical possibility and framework to realize it, self-responsibly, on the basis of personal law, a-territorial autonomy and quite voluntary membership, which also implies freedom for voluntary disassociation or secession, or renunciation of membership, or discontinuance of a subscription to a previously chosen or imposed public service package deal and this even for individuals and, naturally, for groups of volunteers or dissenting minorities. It also means, in essence, voluntary taxation and quite free, peaceful and tolerant competition in the provision of all kinds of public services and public service package deals. - There are numerous historical and contemporary precedents for this freedom option, although its principles and practices are still widely unknown or unappreciated. - J.Z., Dec. 04.

PANARCHISM: It provides a just and common sense framework for both, all kinds of governmentalists and all kinds of anarchists and libertarians. Thus it is much more useful that any framework that suits only statists or freedom lovers. Anarchists especially, as a minority greatly outnumbered for a long time, should thus take a strong interest in it rather than going on to insist upon their particular type of anarchism not only for themselves but for all other anarchists and even for all people in a territory, who are not anarchists, even while most of them are still likely to remain statists for a long time. - J.Z., 25.6.99, 27.6.01, 8.9.04.

PANARCHISM: It would mean, especially, for our times: a) No conscription into armed forces. b) No conscription into state membership. c) No dictatorship - unless it is wanted by the individuals involved. d) No economic or political monopoly or privilege any longer. Only those would remain, which are based on the unanimous consent of volunteers and also practised at their expense only. e) No tax tributes, soldiers, targets, motives and enemies for nuclear war but, rather, friends and allies everywhere - against a few remaining criminal regimes, enemies of man. f) No majority votes - except among volunteers and applying only to them. g) No national borders and national enemies any longer. h) No nuclear targets any longer. i.) No taxation without individual consent. (Replacement of taxes by prices, fees and subscriptions.) – J.Z., n.d. & 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: It would realize full autonomy everywhere, on a voluntary and exterritorial basis, replacing territorial, coercive and monopolistic governments by voluntary, exterritorial and optional ones of a great variety, including the great variety of free societies that would be individually chosen. Does it merely describe a utopia? Nothing could be further from the truth. A more fitting term is that by Nozick: A “meta-utopia”, i.e. a framework for all kinds of utopias. - That exterritorially autonomous actions and voluntary cooperation work best is proven thousands of times every day, every hour, although on a much smaller scale, in private decision-making spheres, some of which remained to some extent even under totalitarian regimes. Otherwise they would have collapsed almost immediately. "The only effective control is self-control", as Rose Wilder Lane pointed out, not necessarily using the same words. – J.Z., n.d., 10.1.99, 8.9.04. – SELF-OWNERSHIP, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONTROLS, LIBERATION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, UTOPISM

PANARCHISM: It would, largely peacefully, turn territorial, monopolistic and coercive governments into freely competing or cooperating self-help organizations or volunteer communities that are only exterritorially autonomous rather than territorially sovereign. – J.Z., 9.11.97, 10.1.99.

PANARCHISM: Its relatively new and practical, progressive and rightful utopism does recognize the individual’s primary role, his rights and liberties to decide his own future, at his own risk and expense, independent of the beliefs and convictions of others, their preferred constitutions, laws and institutions. – J.Z., 1.4.96, 9.1.99. - Others called it "the right of private judgment". - J.Z., 8.9.04.

PANARCHISM: Jedem das Weltbild und die Umwelt seiner Traeme, aber nur auf eigene Kosten, auf Einsatz der eigenen Arbeit, Energie, Opfer, Beitraege und Investitionen und auf eigenes Risiko. – (To each the world view and environment of his dreams, but only at the own expense, resting upon his own labor and energies, his own sacrifices, investments and at his own risk.) – J.Z., 23.11.97, 10.1.99. – Perhaps one or the other of the wordings or definitions or explanations or slogans of panarchism will "take off" or reach the "break-through point" and cause a chain reaction in political thinking and practices. Anyhow, the very possibility makes it worthwhile to bet on this, to the extent of engaging in the compilation of a collection of such wordings. I would rather engage in this kind of betting than betting on horses or dogs or a lottery number or card or roulette choice. “An idea whose time has come is mightier than all the great armies!” J.Z., n.d. – A remark ascribed to Napoleon I. Others ascribed it to Victor Hugo. Napoleon I has certainly made similar remarks and, probably, this one, or a similar one as well. - J.Z., 8.12.03, 8.9.04. - Alas, his guiding idea was power for himself and even in this, like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao, he had too many followers. - J.Z., 8.9.0?.

PANARCHISM: Laissez Faire not only in lifestyles, arts, literature, hobbies, recreation, sports, choice of jobs and profession, free enterprise, free trade, but also in politics, economics and social system, in the same way as it has long been realized in many countries in the sphere of religion – or of anti-religious commitments. – J.Z., 20.9.97, 10.1.99.

PANARCHISM: Let him make his own bed and lie in it!" - This old proverb should be applied to exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers as well. - J.Z., 28.4.95. - So often a minor freedom insight or analogy does already embody panarchism - but is not expanded to the extent it should be, to lead to the flowering of full-scale panarchism in all spheres. - J.Z., 8.9.04.

PANARCHISM: Let madmen do their things to themselves, while wise men gain the freedom to liberate themselves in their own particular fashion. - J.Z., 9 Feb. 87, 10.10.89.

PANARCHISM: Libertarianism for libertarians, statism for statists. - Wayne Wallace Woodward, TC 129 of 28 July 85, p. 54.

PANARCHISM: Make State membership voluntary and reduce all territorial and collectivist sovereignty to mere exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. Then all reforms, even radical ones, will be taken care of by those most interested in them for themselves, and at their own risk and expense only. Anyone genuinely interested in freedom, justice, tolerance, progress, independence and individual rights would not oppose that. – J.Z., 30.4.93, 14.1.99, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - J. S. Mill. - Panarchism tries merely to apply this principle to every sphere instead of merely some limited private spheres like hair styles and clothing, eating and reading habits, travel and entertainment choices, arts and crafts etc. or to economics alone - J.Z., 8.4.89, 30.6.12. – TOLERANCE, INDIVIDUALISM, FREE CHOICE FOR ALL IN EVERY SPHERE

PANARCHISM: No aspiration, movement, ideology, party or utopia is quite rightful unless it is based merely upon the aim of voluntary and exterritorial autonomy for itself as well as for all others, who do disagree with it. – J.Z., 25.3.96, 9.1.99.

PANARCHISM: No question is ever settled until it is settled right. When people act within their own rights and liberties then, between them, even the wrong solutions, they do believe in and do apply to themselves, are, for the time being, right for them, since they are freely chosen and accepted by voluntary members. Any old or new ism or “reform”, like any religious faith, is right for its believers and the believers should be free to practise it among themselves – at their own risk and expense. – J.Z., 24.3.86, 9.1.99, 22.1.12

PANARCHISM: No taxes, no government laws, jurisdiction, or other territorial governmental services or disservices and no government administration or controls, inspections or permits over a whole territorial  population. Instead, each contracts and pays for the services and controls he wants over himself - and against aggressors. - J.Z., 19.3.88.

PANARCHISM: On 10.9.10, searching with Google for "panarchism", I got about 48,200 results. Naturally, as with all such searches, not all of them refer to the kind of panarchism that I have in mind, that of P. E. de Puydt, in favor of full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of communities and societies of volunteers, doing their own things under personal laws. - It will take collaborators to extract all useful material from that mass. - J.Z., 25.9.11, 22.1.12. – Today I got 87,800 search results, with several references new to me already on the first few pages. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchies are beautiful mechanisms for the assumption of responsibility. - J.Z., 6.4.89. – PANARCHISM, RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

PANARCHISM: Panarchies provide an action and experimentation framework or testing ground or laboratory for all utopias and ideologies. It would make election campaigns and reform attempts, resistance and agitation, rebellion, revolution, freedom fighting and terrorism obviously unnecessary for gaining adherents and freedom of action for one's ideals. It would reduce verbal, legal, juridical and bureaucratic obstructionism to a minimum and release most creative and constructive energies in fields so far preempted by territorialism. It would prepare for a peaceful, tolerant and harmonious world without violent clashes, for rapid progress and enlightenment, for wide-spread riches and personal satisfaction. People would become free to do all their things for and to themselves, at their expense and risk, paying their own bills, instead of submitting them, indirectly, to taxpayers, who are not free to refuse to pay them. It would end the inbuilt coercive, monopolistic and hierarchical collectivism, communism and state socialism of territorial States even of the otherwise most limited kind. People would become, finally, "the smiths of their own fate". Amen! - J.Z., 4.6.93 & 26.6.01, 9.12.03, 30.6.12. – EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE VS. COMPULSION

PANARCHISM: Panarchies, competing one, in every country, provide xyz blueprints and a general framework for a free society, one that creatively combines the principles of voluntarism, mutualism, pluralism, consent, free choice, freedom of contract, freedom of association, individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, freedom of action, freedom to experiment, freedom to dissociate, freedom to give notice, free enterprise, competition, consumer sovereignty, self-rule, self-government, self-determination, self-reliance, self-help, exterritorialism, autonomy etc. - J.Z., 21.4.89, 3.7.89, 12.12.03.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism aims not only at liberating only literate libertarians, to live as autonomously as they want to, without having to leave a country and having to establish their life in another one. Instead, it tries to provide them with that liberty precisely by offering every other dissatisfied minority or majority the same kind of free choice for their kind of non-libertarian ideal. Thus it can turn enemies into friends and allies - although they will proceed on different paths. - J.Z. 21.4.89, 3.7.89, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism allows several communities of volunteers to coexist peacefully in the same territory, with each operating under its own constitution, laws, jurisdiction, administration, faiths, ideology, principles, membership selectivity etc., or any other common traits or preferences. - J.Z., 16.12.94, 27.6.01, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism applies voluntary associationism and voluntary disassociationism to all of politics, economics, social relations and their institutions, not just to parties and those associations and degrees of limited pluralism which coercive, exclusive and territorial politics has so far permitted. – J.Z., 17.7.93, 10.1.99.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism includes all the rights, liberties, opportunities and benefits that can be provided e.g. by full monetary and financial freedom, free enterprise, free productive coops and free trade and this without forcing them upon any dissenter. - Respect for these rights and liberties in others, who do claim them, is obligatory but their realization among the own kind of volunteers is to be optional. - J.Z., 04-11, 22.1.12. - LIBERTIES, RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, OPTIONALITY

PANARCHISM: Panarchism introduces voluntarism experimental freedom or laissez- faire, laissez-passer into politics and it does so on the basis of individual secessionism, and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities under personal laws. - J.Z., 1.8.99, 27.6.01.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism is a revival and extension of the old tradition of personal law, consular jurisdiction and of "capitulations". - J.Z. 1.4.89, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism is perhaps the only practicable road towards full self-government or individual sovereignty, individualist anarchism, libertarianism and another variation of them that volunteers prefer for themselves, at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism is simply a just, radical and consistent form of liberalism, democracy, libertarianism, anarchism, and voluntaryism. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 8.4.89.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism is the ideology that favors the voluntary establishment and maintenance of panarchies of all kinds, all under self-management and confined to exterritorial autonomy, voluntary membership and individual as well as group secessionism. It means an end to all private and official criminal turfs and territories and will provide a more efficient protection of all genuine individual rights and liberties as well, e.g. through ideal militia forces of volunteers. Under panarchism they will have much less actual fighting to do than under any form of territorialism, once the best experiences with militias and the best proposals regarding them are fully applied. – A panacea for all panaceas, a utopia for all utopias that can be practised among volunteers. - J.Z., n.d. & 30.6.12. – MILITIA, DEFENCE, PROTECTION

PANARCHISM: Panarchism is the political, economic and social equivalent to religious liberty and religious tolerance, as well as to private lifestyle alternatives and choices, to experimental freedom in technology, the sciences, in agriculture and horticulture. It would permit for everyone the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams or free choice, thus providing a framework for the establishment of a permanent peace in freedom and justice, of wealth for all, based upon the own rightful and productive efforts and it would provide all its benefits as fast as is possible, at least for the first pioneers of them. – J.Z., 1997, 10.1.99, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism may be defined as a radical and voluntary stand for individual rights against collectivist and coercive and unified and territorial decision-making. It supports and is supported by individual secessionism and individual sovereignty and by exterritorial autonomy for groups of volunteers under personal law. - J.Z. 6.10.92, 4.1.93, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism means also Polyarchy, Multiarchy, Multigovernment, Competing Government, Voluntary Communities, Voluntary State Membership, Individual Secessionism, Personal Laws, A-territorial Autonomy, Individual Sovereignty, Non-geographical Organizations, Free Choice of Governments and Societies, One-Man-Revolutions, Free Competition in the Supply of Governmental Services and Full Consumer Sovereignty towards them or the option to boycott any or all of them. They can cater to all kinds of anarchists, individualists and libertarians as well as to all kinds of statists, collectivists, ideologues, racists and nationalists – excepting only those insisting upon and trying to retain or impose territorial and totalitarian models. It means, finally, an end to all territorial nations and State-run and country-wide land monopolies, territorial constitutions, laws and court systems. Thus it makes possible and likely the peacefully coexistence of freely competing governments, societies, and communities, whatever ism, or faith or system they may be subscribing to. People and individuals will then no longer be property, owned, exploited and abused by territorial politicians and bureaucrats but own and use or abuse only themselves and will be free to use their own talents, knowledge, skills, ideas, opinions and own resources as they please, but always only at the own expense and risk. More they cannot rightly demand. Less they should never be content with. – J.Z., 04-11, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism means an end to monopolized, centralized and collectivized decision-making, to the extent that any individuals are dissatisfied with it and rather opt, individually, for alternatives for themselves. - J.Z. 3.7.89.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism means no more exclusive “holy lands” and “holy cities” for any religious, ethnic, national, ideological or other community. (Holy temples etc. would remain, in private or cooperative ownership. - J.Z., 8.9.04.) Instead, it would offer full exterritorial autonomy to all volunteer communities, of whatever kind and shade, conviction or other common feature. Only intolerant and aggressive communities or any territorial ones would not be tolerated, to the extent that they would become intolerant and aggressive towards non-members. Individual secessionism, combined with the attractive examples set by other panarchies and greatly increased freedom of expression and information opportunities, would reduce the number and membership of internally intolerant communities, finally, to almost insignificant proportions. – J.Z., 29.12.1996, 9.1.99. – All such predictions sound like utopias or castles in the air – if one has not persistently applied the changed conditions under exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities to one’s preconceived and all too popular political, economic and social errors and prejudices. A revolution in one’s head has to take place before one can fully subscribe to panarchism. – J.Z., 9.1.99. – Many people find that still very hard to do as one can see from the many “arguments” and opinions uttered on this subject online. A compilation of all of them, each confronted with the best refutations, remains to be compiled or published. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism means politics reformed as if human beings, even individuals, mattered and could become the masters of their own fate. - J.Z., 18.11.88, 3.4.89.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism means the competitive supply of government services, even if they do objectively amount to government disservices, to voluntary subscribers only, either in comprehensive alternative package deals or only in the small deviations from the existing "normal" package deals, which individuals usually desire, at least for the time being. - J.Z., 30.6.89, 3.7.89. – Let them rearrange or renew their “furniture” in their own wider living spaces as well, each for himself and for like-minded people only. Let them adopt the “medicines”, “fashions”, “diets”, “competitive games sports, entertainment, tourist & learning options” in these spheres as well, under personal laws, constitutions and jurisdiction etc. free contracts. – J.Z., 30.6.12. – VOLUNTARISM, CONTRACTARIANISM

PANARCHISM: Panarchism offers experimental freedom to all, not any particular ideology or constitution for all, except that, which is involved in the panarchistic framework for tolerant experimentation and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. It has thus more to offer and does so more tolerantly, than any other ism does and can. It does not require “a new leader” or a “new people” but is designed for people as they are now and as they can be if they want to be. For anarchists and libertarians it offers nothing more than a relatively easy road to their kind of anarchism or libertarianism for themselves, and minimal friction on the way to their ideal and once they have arrived at it, with the members of other panarchies. What more could they rightly ask for? Can they rightfully demand that all others follow the anarchist or libertarian dream as well? Well, they can ask or invite them, politely and individually, but they will have to be prepared, as they are now, for many rejections. To achieve their ideals for themselves, they need not try to force them upon others or to try to succeed in persuading or educating the majority first. Nor would they, once they are in charge of their own and exterritorially fully autonomous affairs, have to keep down any dissenting minorities of the remaining archists. To each only the archism or anarchism or libertarianism or ism which he wants and can stand.  – That should, finally, become attractive enough to almost everyone. - J.Z., 15.1.95, 12.1.99, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism offers to individuals free enterprise and consumer sovereignty or voluntary associationism, going to full exterritorial autonomy, in the sphere of politics, social and economic systems, as well as of any other kind of ism. It recognizes individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, the possibility for exterritorial organization and personal law and for experimental freedom and minority autonomy in spheres in which it was so far constitutionally and legally excluded. In other words, it teaches that in "public affairs", too, each could and should be the master of his own fate. - J.Z., 20.3.88. 3.4.89, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism replaces the majority-dependent voter by the autonomous individual decision-maker, who realizes his preferred governmental or non-governmental society, together with like-minded volunteers, for himself and them, or who simply makes do with all the private, cooperative and mutual services that are offered on a free market. Each a king, emperor or prince, prime minister or president, law-maker or judge regarding all his own affairs only or as a collaborator in voluntary communities. - J.Z., 04-11, 22.1.12. - VOTING, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & ITS CHOICES FOR ALL PEACEFUL, I.E. NON-AGGRESSIVE & NON-CRIMINAL PEOPLE.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism says that we can have all the alternatives we want, for ourselves, if we are willing to pay, work and take risks for them. - J.Z., 6.4.89.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism stands for an ancient as well as modern lawful and just freedom condition, that of personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. "To each his own!" To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams. How many dissatisfactions and disappointments could then remain for long in the political, economic and social spheres? - J.Z., 30.7.98, 26.6.01, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism, i.e., exterritoriality, voluntarism and full autonomy for all or: competing governments and personal laws, rather than any territorial democracy, anarchy or other ideological system imposed upon any people via majority or minority voting or decision-making monopolies. - J.Z., 21.3.96, 27.6.01, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchism, rather than minority or majority despotism. - J.Z., 04-11. - DEMOCRACY OR MAJORITY DESPOTISM

PANARCHISM: Panarchism, with its exterritorial autonomy, voluntarism, individual secessionism, personal law and maximization of individual choice would be the opposite and so far largely ignored alternative to territorial politics. - J.Z., n.d. & 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchistic innovations, status quo preservations and reactionary efforts, all by volunteers and on the basis of exterritorial autonomy, are all to be likewise tolerated. To preserve what is still wanted, to go back to what is still in demand, to advance towards what at least some already aspire to, to achieve satisfactory societal arrangements for all the different individuals and groups in society, in the same territory, to achieve progress, justice, peace, freedom and prosperity for all, to the extent that they desire them, all as a matter of individual rights and of the duty to respect the different uses which others make of these rights and liberties among themselves. - J.Z., 20.6.93, 6.1.93, 22.1.12.  – HARMONY THROUGH VOLUNTARISM, PROTECTED BY QUITE RIGHTFUL MILITIAS, SELF-INTEREST, GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

PANARCHISM: Panarchists are engaged in an attempt to rediscover and re-establish individuals as members of free, voluntary, autonomous and exterritorial groups that together would form a free, just, peaceful and prosperous society. This kind of free society is now buried under the petrified and accumulated deposits, during thousands of years, of more or less exclusive and coercive territorial statism. They are involved in finding and applying the best method to "mine" this "natural resource" or to liberate individuals and their free associations from the present depths of and numerous instances of oppression and exploitation at every level of territorial governments. - J.Z., 11.9.87, 1.4.89, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchists like everybody to be happy in his own way, even totalitarians, aggressors, cheats and meddlers, provided only that they restrict their actions to volunteers, i.e. like-minded, victims. Even sado-masochism should be permissible in the political sphere and, naturally, also all more rightful, rational, dignified and promising options would be realized under it. - J.Z., 9.9.91, 14.1.93, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Panarchists want to dissolve territorial, monopolistic and coercive States into voluntary, exterritorially autonomous and competitive personal law associations for the protection of the rights of their members. - J.Z., 9.10.88.

PANARCHISM: Panarchy "sightings" (views, or insights) are so far still much rarer than UFO sightings - and thus not yet taken serious by most people. - J.Z., 2.1.88. – Out of sight – out of mind.

PANARCHISM: Peace, freedom, justice, wealth, progress - through the expropriation of all bureaucrats and politicians and the abolition of all their powers not based upon individual consent and voluntary taxation. - J.Z., 13.3.95.

PANARCHISM: Personally Preferred “Paradises” for everyone, according to his or her own free choice! - J.Z., n.d. & 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Politicians and bureaucrats to lord it only over their remaining own volunteers and at the expense and risk of these volunteers, as long as they voluntarily submit to this feudalistic lordship, domination and exploitation. There will always be fools and this will remain their best chance to finally learn enough about their own lives, rights and liberties. - J.Z., 21.1.04, 24.3.04, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Progress, stagnation or regression: To each his own. - J.Z., 15.4.92. And his or her own road, personal law, ism and institutions to it. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Radical liberties and rights as well as restrictions of them to be entirely optional within exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers. For all relations between them, the full range of individual rights and liberties is to apply - unless, for particular dealings with each other, two or more panarchies can agree with each other upon the same degree of restrictions upon them. C cannot rightly or effectively force A and B to trade or not to trade freely with each other. - J.Z. 15.1.93. – Except when it comes e.g. to ABC mass murder devices. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: STILL OUT OF SIGHT & MIND FOR MOST PEOPLE, ALTHOUGH THEY PRACTISE IT DAILY – BUT ONLY FRACTIONALLY: People who see and appreciate only a small segment, like panarchistic freedom in entertainment and religion, do not see and appreciate the whole picture of it and its potential. On the contrary, our kind of "society" will tend to prejudice them against it, in many ways. - (In the same way as most people are e.g. prejudiced in favor of central banking vs. free banking and in favor of coercive protectionism vs. free trade. The Red Indians left oil in the ground and moved only with the speed of horses. Only a full vision of a consistent panarchy will be persuasive and effective, will become widely self-realizing. The written record of panarchistic options has so far been much too small and out of sight to have been able to change public option in favor of panarchism. My "PEACE PLANS" series, with its limited means, attempts to change that situation. Reprints and scanning are free and invited, sell them if you can.  Also more contributions to this ABC compilation and to my PEACE PLANS sub-series "On Panarchy", of which the first 24 issues are now out, on 24 microfiche.) – J.Z., 1986, 2004. By now ON PANARCHY is also offered digitized by me, until it appears on a website or on a disc. – I would enter on such a disc of my own: Copy this disc and distribute it free of charge or for whatever price you want to charge for it. Good ideas must circulate as fast as possible and as unobstructed as possible. Mankind’s very survival may depend upon this. - J.Z., 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: The choice is yours - perpetual war among territorial warfare States, finally leading to the general holocaust, the extermination of man, or the establishment and perpetuation of a peaceful society through the establishment of exterritorial and autonomous volunteer groups for all the existing and future variations preferred by individuals. - J.Z., 19.4.89, 4.7.89, 22.1.12. - For some details consult e.g. PEACE PLANS 16-18 & 61-63: 

PANARCHISM: The main rule is that all the rules for all your productive and peaceful actions should be your own or self-chosen ones, i.e. the rules of your exterritorially autonomous volunteer community. If you breached these rules, negligently or aggressively or fraudulently, against its members or outsiders, then you would be subjected to its criminal law and law enforcement, if not to the still more severe penalties that outsiders have for such aggressive and criminal actions. - J.Z., 28.12.92, 3.1.93, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: The most rightful and rational option to end most conflicts caused and maintained by territorialism. For those who have clearly seen it, it becomes obvious. What remains hard to understand is how mankind could have overlooked this solution for as long. It is almost as if one had only been able to conceive, in mathematics, the existence of a minus sign but not of a plus sign, or only the multiplication symbol and function but not of those for divisions. In almost every other respect people are aware that there are at least 2 sides to every story - but here, territorialism considered as one side of a coin, they have widely refused to look at the other side of that coin. And this among as contrary and argumentative beings as human beings are – on most other subjects. After hundreds of millions of victims of territorialist institutions, one should have expected that enough people among the survivors would finally have shown sufficient curiosity for and interest in exterritorialist institutions and individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 30.4.93, 14.1.99, 8.9.04, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: The right not to join, to ignore, to refuse to associate with others, to deny membership or admission to others, to deny them access to your property, are all aspects of the right to associate and to disassociate. If some groups do not welcome you in their ranks, then you cannot rightly complain. But you do have the right to set up or join another society, one operating on the same or somewhat similar or different principles and practices and to run it, if you can, so well, that you could come to compete the other society out of existence, which refused to accept you as a member. You may refuse or discount their money and they may refuse or discount yours - but both of you have the right to issue your own money (exchange media and value standards) and to seek voluntary acceptors for it. You have the right to practise and develop your own code of morality or ethics, as far as you can, among like-minded people, your own constitutions, laws, regulations and juridical decisions etc., but not the right to force them upon any peaceful non-members, who have left you alone. 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, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: They let war, taxes, inflation, unemployment, bureaucracy, millions of laws and territorial despotism be imposed upon them, even anti-people ABC mass murder devices as "defensive weapons", and still do not see or seek individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities as rightful and sound alternatives. This stance is self-defeating, may even lead to a general holocaust. - J.Z., 25.6.01. - STATISM, SUBORDINATION, PASSIVITY, PEOPLE, THE AVERAGE MAN, INDIFFERENCE, INDIGNATION, SHEEPISHNESS, HERD OR SLAVE MENTALITY, WAR, TAXES, INFLATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, LAWS, CITIZENSHIP, VOTERS, STATISM, DEMOCRACY, APATHY, PEOPLE, SUBJECTS, SHEEPLE, STATISM, CITIZENS, NATIONALS, TERRITORIALISM

PANARCHISM: Through panarchism finally an end to all wars, civil wars, revolutions and terrorism, despotism, tyrannies and totalitarian regimes. It means a new and radically reformed political science and practice. A tolerant framework for all tolerant people that fundamentally promotes peace, justice, prosperity, progress and enlightenment, while strengthening and combining them against the remaining private and official criminals. - J.Z., 04-11. – And yet most people still rather argue against it than for it – if they do consider it at all. Many instances for this can now be found online. – J.Z., 30.6.12. - TOLERANCE FOR DIVERSITY, ON THE EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY MODEL. EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PEACE, WAR, JUSTICE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

PANARCHISM: To each his own fashion and political system, his own diet and economic system, his own faith and religious or social system, his on personal life style and personal law, his personal philosophy and personal system of justice, his on artistic and public service preferences, all at his own expense and risk. - J.Z., 8.1.88.

PANARCHISM: To each his own preference: Future shocks for those who do like them, reversals to old traditions for those in love with them and preservation of the status quo for conservatives and retreatists, all at their expense and risk. They could all be practised rightfully, peacefully and in the same territory and at the same time - by practising panarchists. - J.Z., 24.1.87, 1.4.89, 11.12.03.

PANARCHISM: To each his own system or experiment, at his own risk and expense. - J.Z., 23.7.96, 26.6.01. - SYSTEMS, EXPERIMENTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, UTOPIAS, FREEDOM OF ACTION

PANARCHISM: To each the government-, money- and justice system of his or her dreams. – J.Z., 8.4.1996. – Better: choice instead of dreams, as GPdP suggested. – J.Z., 23.1.12.

PANARCHISM: Unanimity is the best fortress. - Danish proverb. - No, freedom in diversity is the best fortress - because it prevents enemies from arising or remaining very active. - J.Z., 5.7.87, 9.12.03. - Even inherently nonsensical and wrongful systems can gain unanimous consent among millions of voluntary followers, for years to centuries, as the history of religious groups and movements and that of many pop ideologies proves. They are not strong in the long run but do tend to finally collapse from their inherent flaws and contradictions. Only those based upon freedom and diversity, i.e., individual choice, free contracts, voluntary membership, individual secessionism, all genuine individual rights and liberties, do have a permanent strength and superiority over all their enemies, the more so, the more numerous and consistent their pro-freedom aspects are and the more consciously they are applied. A community, which does not limit the freedom of its members can (no guaranty!) prevail over all its enemies, by liberating most of their victims, as its secret allies, no matter how small it may be initially and how numerous its enemies may be. Once established, then, by the very dispersal of its members, under exterritorial autonomy, it is largely protected even from ABC mass murder devices, which are "weapons" only against territorial States and their victims, not against their war criminals and tyrants. - J.Z., 24.6.01, 30.6.12. - STRENGTH, DEFENCE, UNANIMITY, VOLUNTARISM

PANARCHISM: Under full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities only aggressive actions towards non-members would have to be suppressed and penalized. Experimental freedom implies that there are no involuntary victims of experiments, for that would restrict their freedom to experiment or to be left alone. Panarchism would also imply full publicity for all its panarchist experiments and would lead to scientific surveys of all of them. The social sciences could finally be established on a sound scientific and experimental basis. There would be no more involuntary victims. All creative energies would be released and destructive energies would be confined to their voluntary victims. Alas, in decades of SF reading I have not yet come across a single story or book that fully developed and envisioned the practice and results of panarchism, of many diverse panarchies peacefully coexisting in one country or on one planet, because all of them are exterritorially autonomous and have only voluntary members. Most envision diverse societies only for whole planets or their territorial nations or societies. None of the SF stories, novels and utopias are fully based upon freedom for one-man revolutions, based upon individual sovereignty and individual secessionism and voluntary associationism, which requires full exterritorial autonomy. Elementary prejudices, errors and wrong assumptions, predictions and expectations prevail even in SF on such matters. To the extent that diverse volunteer groups are envisioned upon a single planet, all are still presumed to have unlimited power or imperialistic ambitions, quite ignoring the experience with voluntary associations. - - J.Z., n.d. & 24.6.01, 28.6.01, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISM: Volenti no fiat injuria." (What one does voluntarily, does not do injustice to oneself or: the volunteer does not do injustice to himself - although he may harm himself ). – VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM

PANARCHISM: we consider the various worlds as gene pools, sources of teachings and teachers, sources of the possible. Our goal is not to rule, but to tap these gene pools, to learn and to free ourselves from all restraints imposed by dependency and government." - Frank Herbert's formula, in "Dune Messiah", page 97. With some omissions and changes I come to my version of it: We consider the various panarchies as sources of teachings and teachers, sources of the possible. Our goal is not to rule, but to tap these resources, to learn and free ourselves from all unjustified restraints and, especially, from territorial governments. - J.Z., 19.9.04. – Compare Leonard E. Read’s: Release all creative energies.

PANARCHISM: We do not have to live and die like e.g. territorial hunting dogs or wolves or other beasts of prey. We can, instead, come to live exterritorially free, without borders, like the birds. - J.Z., 6.1.95. - Like all analogies, this one limps, too, since most birds do establish their own hunting and food gathering areas as well, and, naturally, do try to protect their nests. However, in the same territory one can find different species of birds that are, mostly (apart from birds of prey), peacefully coexisting and thus set an example that most people still have to learn from. They do also manage to live without governments. For them a mere pecking order suffices. - J.Z., 6.1.95, 24.6.01. - Apart from micro- to macro life-forms preying upon each other, i.e., not being, to a large extent, self-supporting by productive efforts, the coexistence of a great diversity of life forms in an ecology in any territory, is not a bad example for the coexistence of very varied panarchies under panarchism. - J.Z., 28.6.01.

PANARCHISM: We have handicapped ourselves by choosing, too often and territorially, what is nothing but one of two or more false alternatives. E.g. the propertarian stand vs. the anti-property stand, the anti-egalitarian vs. the egalitarian stand, the non-violent vs. the aggressive position. The most extreme opposites could peacefully coexist in the same territory, and to a considerable degree they already do, once they are all confined to their voluntary supporters and practised quite tolerantly among their believers only, and tolerantly towards all outsiders. Only full exterritorial autonomy and voluntary membership are required for this and could lead to a wide-spread and lasting peace, at least to a situation in which aggressive violence is reduced to a minimum, that inherent in flawed human characters and their crimes with victims. But under territorial rule, whichever system is adopted, by the currently ruling minority or majority, may be constitutional, legal and approved by its courts but is, nevertheless, criminally and despotically imposed upon all those non-aggressive people, who happen to disagree with it. Such a "system", if it really deserves the term "system", does, inevitably, lead to dissatisfactions, frustration, resentment, hatred, rebellions, terrorism, even revolutions, civil wars and wars. It has no cure for its own wrongs and evils, which are inherent in its very structure. Those obsessed by this model, as most voters and politicians and their victims are, do not see a way out of this mess. - J.Z., 22.11.99, 28.6.01. – Indeed, there is no territorial way out of the many messes caused by territorialism. – J.Z., 21.1.12, 30.6.12. -

PANARCHISM: WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Panarchism is the equivalent to freedom of expression and information, freedom of speech and press - but this in the sphere of tolerant actions and experiments and not as prescribed actions and experiments for whole "nations" or "peoples" or populations or territorial governments but for only for individuals and their voluntary associations, especially those of the dissenting and freedom-seeking minorities, for all who would prefer individually chosen personal law systems to territorially imposed laws, imposed by ruling majorities or minorities. All dissenters could then have their preferred political, economic and social system for themselves, although only among themselves and only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. Only the pretended shepherds would have lost their involuntary and imprisoned flocks, their fleece, their meat, their blood and bones from their involuntary victims. Only voluntary victims or slaves would remain and those who get their kicks out of ruling over them.  But fools will always find some greater fools still and both deserve the lessons they would get from their relationships while surrounded by the more free or quite relations among people who formed better voluntary communities. The great and almost generally accepted precedent in another sphere is religious tolerance or religious freedom. - J.Z., 15.10.04. - DEFINITIONS, EXPLANATIONS, ANALOGIES, STATISM, CONSENT OF THE VICTIMS

PANARCHISM: What is odd and hard to understand about panarchism is that this just and simple freedom alternative, which on all essential points is just the opposite of the systems we have been suffering under for many centuries, has so far been more or less clearly seen and appreciated by only a very small minority, usually only by a few isolated individuals, many of them largely unaware still of how closely their relevant thoughts resemble each other, and unaware of the all of the writings they had already produced between them and of all the historical precedents. On the other hand, territorial authoritarianism and even totalitarianism, have become and remained relatively popular in spite of their numerous wrongs and defects and the harm they cause to almost everybody most of the time. Please explain me that riddle. – J.Z., 16.7.98, 14.1.99, 8.9.04. – EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY VS. COLLECTIVE OR GOVERNMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONTRACTS VS. LEGISLATION, AUTONOMY VS. DOMINATION, CHOICE VS. IMPOSITIONS, NON-INTERFERENCE VS. INTERFERENCES, SECESSIONISM VS. IMPOSED UNITY, CONSUMER- & ENTERPRISE SOVEREIGNTY VS. GOVERNMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY, PRIVATE VS. CENTRALIZED PLANNING, INDIVIDUALISM VS. FEUDALISM & STATISM, CONTINUOUS CHOICE VS. IMPOSED TRADITIONS, TOLERANCE VS. INTOLERANCE, PEACEFULLY COMPETING SOCIETIES VS. WARFARE STATE, GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES VS. GOVERNMENTAL BILLS OF RIGHTS, SOCIAL CONTRACTS BETWEEN VOLUNTEERS ONLY VS. SOCIAL CONTRACTS & CONSTITUTIONS IMPOSED BY GOVERNMENTS UPON WHOLE POPULATIONS, SELF-OWNERSHIP & SELF-DETERMINATION VS. POLITICAL “REPRESENTATION”, GENUINE VOTING ON THE OWN AFFAIRS THAN PRETENDED FREE VOTING ON THE AFFAIRS OF ALL OTHERS, ETC. – A full listing of these opposites might become much longer still. – J.Z., 22.1.12.

PANARCHISM: where you choose everything. - A remark from the ABC radio requests program, heard on 4.12.04. - J.Z., 04-11. – Just for yourself or in your self-chosen community of like-minded people, under personal law and always at the own expense and risk. – J.Z., 30.6.12. - FREE CHOICE, FULLY FREE, EVEN WHEN IT COMES TO WHOLE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS

PANARCHIST & POLYARCHIC OR TOLERANCE IDEAS: Please recycle, re-word, duplicate and spread, as widely as possible, all panarchist ideas, opinions and proposals. You and your friends and family members need them much more than any new little luxuries, games and toys and they cost you almost nothing except some re-thinking. “Peace and Good Will on Earth” will come, not through “love” but through the peace, justice and freedom of panarchism, polyarchism, voluntarism, experimental freedom, freedom of action etc. As diverse critters as human beings are will be satisfied with nothing less. - J.Z., 04-11.

PANARCHIST A-TERRITORIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS, INSTEAD OF TERRITORIALIST PARTIES, POLITICIANS, THEIR LAWS, INSTITUTIONS & POLITICS & THEIR POWERS OVER YOU: Plan and construct your own system to achieve and preserve freedom, individual rights, peace, progress, justice, enlightenmen and prosperity, exterritorially quite autonomous, together with all like-minded people – and let all others do their own things for or to themselves. - J.Z., 04-11, 30.6.12.

PANARCHIST ABSTRACTS & REVIEWS, AS WELL AS A COMPREHENSIVE INDEX, Q & A COLLECTION & REFUTATIONS OF THE USUAL OBJECTIONS: To compile them much teamwork would be needed. So far no one has access to all the relevant writings or the time and energy to read all of them. - J.Z., n.d., 30.6.12.

PANARCHIST ALTERNATIVES: Examine the alternatives of Panarchist Peace, Panarchist People, Panarchist Popularity, Panarchist Power, Panarchist Progress and Panarchist Prosperity or Panarchist Peace and Plenty. All choices should be yours, as a sovereign consumer or entrepreneur or co-producer. – J.Z., 29.12.04.

PANARCHIST BIBLIOGRAPHY, ABSTRACTS, REVIEW COMPILATIONS & INDEXES: They still "shine" by their absence! - Whatever bibliographical hints I got are, mostly, already included here and may have to be extracted in the future. - J.Z., 5.11.11.

PANARCHIST BODIES & INDIVIDUAL CELLS: Under panarchism all individual cells of the body of a society or of a competing government or exterritorially autonomous State are at liberty and capable of leaving that body, as sovereign individuals, to join or form the beginnings of another body. In that respect panarchies are always potent, fertile and pregnant. - Both the separation and the new joining will also tend to be joyful rather than painful happenings. - Mankind and any population, “nation” or ethnic or ideological group are not just a single body to be manipulated by a single brain or a few of them, especially since the intellectual, oral capacities and the genuine knowledge of the territorial leadership types are very rarely in the top bracket and even there overpowered by their power urges and all the jobs and crimes required to gain and maintain territorial power. – History is full of cases in which they murdered even close family members. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHIST CD: A primitive start was made with my first CD on free banking and panarchism, back in 2004. - J.Z. - Since then, alas, no progress has been achieved in compiling all such information on one or two properly edited discs. Do not expect me to do it all but do form one or several common interest groups for this purpose. We should not leave as important information as thinly and widely spread, as unordered and insufficiently criticized as it still is. – J.Z., 22.1.12, 30.6.12. – CD PROJECT, PANARCHIST ENCYCLOPEDIA, PANARCHIST LIBRARY, FREE BANKING ENCYCLOPEDIA, FREE BANKING HANDBOOK.

PANARCHIST CENTRE OF THE WORLD: Judging merely by the amount of information gathered (has anyone gathered, so far, more on this subject?) my address amounts to the panarchist centre of the world. - J.Z. 5.7.89, 10.1.93. - How could I contribute to the spread of these ideas, facts, experiences and opinions, apart from publishing them on microfiche and on the Internet and on CD-ROMs and not subjecting my parts of this collection to copyrights restrictions and by striving towards an Ideas Archive, as a world-wide market for ideas? - J.Z., 9.12.03. – Now there are several centers for such information  - but all their riches have not yet been brought effectively together, easily accessible to all in any desired part. – J.Z., 22.1.12. – By now the Internet offers more search results on panarchy, panarchism and all related terms than an individual would be able to handle. The pearls in this sphere, too, have still to be separated from the mud and effectively combined. – J.Z., 30.6.12. - PANARCHIST WEBSITES

PANARCHIST CHOICE: We either stay territorially un-free, mostly in at least some crisis situation, always misled and exploited by people we disagree with or we do, finally, manage to establish exterritorial autonomy for ourselves and like-minded people, living with them in as much freedom as we want for ourselves, closeby or widely separated, also in peace with other communities, which have made other exterritorial autonomy choices for themselves. Then each could progress, regress or stagnate according to the own preferences and only at the own cost and risk. For any moral and rational being, fully informed on the panarchistic alternative, the choice is easy. - J.Z., n.d. & 30.6.12.

PANARCHIST DECLARATIONS, BELIEFS & PRACTICES, TOLERANTLY COEXISTING: The following could all be truthful and peace-, order-, security-, freedom-, harmony- and prosperity promoting public and simultaneous declarations, in the same territory, by friends, relatives, neighbors or strangers, all converted to the minimum agreement required by panarchism: I am a sovereign individual - by my own free choice, - - I am a loyal subject of an absolute monarch - by my own free choice, - - I am a majoritarian and direct democracy practitioner - ...., - -  I am a cosmopolitan or citizen of the world - ...., - - I am a European - ....., - - I am a sovereign Red Indian, not subject to any white men's constitutions or laws - ...., - - I am a sovereign Australian Aboriginal - .... - - I am a sovereign communist (of the Marxian, Leninist, Trotskyite, Stalinist or any other shade) - .... - - I am a sovereign socialist (of definition No.347 among so far counted e.g. 988.) - ... - - I am a sovereign communist anarchist - .... - - I am a sovereign individualist anarchist - ... - - I am a sovereign anarcho-capitalist - .... - - And so on and on. We have ca. 7,000, according to some even 30,000 religions on earth and enough imagination to form even more different voluntary, exterritorial and autonomous groupings of a political, economic and social kind, each minding its own business and looking after the own members as best as they can, at their own expense and risk. This variety, too, will be the spice of life. What dullness to have for a day only, every few years, the choice of among a few governments (federal, State and local ones) and then for years  almost no other option than to obey them! - J.Z. 14.5.89, 4.7.89, 22.1.12D. - - Public declarations of what would be one's own preference, once one were given the panarchist choice, could be among the first efficient steps towards the realization of panarchism. Among the most significant public declarations of this kind would be those of soldiers and officers in already somewhat free countries and of the various governments in exile, which would also be multiplied by panarchism and would, for the first time, be put on a quite rightful basis. - J.Z. 4.7.89. – TERRITORIALISM, CHOICE, GOVERNMENTALISM, OBEDIENCE, PUBLICITY FOR INDIVIDUAL CHOICES

PANARCHIST DIRECTORY: Panarchists of the world - unite your diverse aspirations under the banner of panarchism, which allows to each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice. You have only your territorial chains to lose and the personal laws of your choice to gain - as long as you do want them for yourself. - However, even the remnants of all present territorial institutions, when all dissenters have seceded from them, can be continued for their believers. Then, for the first time, these people would be enjoying the benefits of unanimous consent to their kind of ideal. – If they were aware of this, then most of them, except their power addicts, would become panarchists and some of their power addicts as well, because it would provide for them a long-term sinecure among their remaining voluntary followers. - J.Z., 2.9.04, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHIST ENCYCLOPEDIA: The beginnings of it exist in my ON PANARCHY series, so far out in 24 volumes, on microfiche only. - This compilation constitutes also something like an encyclopedia, so does the project of Klaus Falke, to produce a proper panarchist databank. - J.Z., 5.11.11. – ON PANARCHY has been digitized in the meantime but is not yet online. – J.Z., 22.1.12. – ON PANARCHY

PANARCHIST EXTERRITORIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS, INSTEAD OF TERRITORIALIST PARTIES, POLITICIANS, THEIR LAWS & POLITICS & THEIR POWERS OVER YOU: Plan and construct your own peace, progress, justice, freedom and prosperity, exterritorially quite autonomous, together with all like-minded and tolerant people, all in free and autonomous societies – and let all others do their own things for or to themselves. – J.Z., 29.12.04. – Questions of peace and war, production and exchange, education, healthy, science, art, progress and innovation, money and finance, credit and clearing, are much too important to be entrusted to any territorial government. – J.Z., 22.1.12.



PANARCHIST PARTY: A Panarchist Party? As a party for ALL parties? - J.Z., 5.11.11. - PARTIES, LIBERTARIAN PARTY, PARTY POLITICS & PANARCHISM.



PANARCHIST PERIODICALS: Does any other than PEACE PLANS exist by now? Only an occasional article on panarchism, like in FORMULATIONS of the New Nations Foundation, does not yet turn them into panarchistic periodicals. - J.Z., 5.11.11. – Actually, the last issue of PEACE PLANS on microfiche was PP 1779, back in 2002. I have not yet got around to compile one or several others in only digitized form. - J.Z., 22.1.12.

PANARCHIST PROPAGANDA & EDUCATION EFFORTS: The truth must be repeated for ever and ever in a thousand forms." - Hermann Hesse, War and Peace, Spring 1918; If the War Goes On. - This applies not only to ideas, thoughts and slogans but also to free alternative, creative and self-concerned, self-responsible or tolerant actions and institutions. Panarchism does not demand anything more but does not require anything less, either. - J.Z., 8.4.89, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHIST PROPAGANDA: Until the ideal panarchistic formulas are found or constructed, we will have to suffer and even produce much verbal diarrhoea on this subject, like in this compilation. All in a good cause. You are invited to submit your catchphrases and slogans. I feel certain that you could outdo me in many of my own - if you really tried. And if you have a better launching platform for them than I have, with my microfiche, e-mail, websites and CD’s, all the better for you - and for me. Ideas are inherently panarchistic in that they know no frontiers and become strong and valuable for and fully realized only among volunteers. - J.Z. 13.1.93, 11.12.03. - Compare my 2010 digitized book manuscript, still only called NEW DRAFT, not yet online but available from me via a zipped email attachment. A review of it by Gian Piero de Bellis is online at Title? Something like Plans for Action. - J.Z., .5.11.11. - PUBLICITY OPTIONS STILL UN-USED OR UNDER-USED. - Compare: SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY.

PANARCHIST PUBLISHING: Adam Knott has put a few printed booklets out, via LULU, an on-demand printing business.                                        

PANARCHIST REVIEWS: They still remain to be collected and published together.


PANARCHIST VARIETY IS IMPORTANT FOR PROGRESS IN E.G. THE FOLLOWING SPHERES: 1.) Alternative enlightenment and educational efforts, including optimal utilization of alternative media. 2.) Monetary experiments with alternative exchange media, value standards, clearing and credit systems. 3.) Financial freedom with various capital certificates and markets for them and various voluntary taxation and contribution systems as opposed to various compulsory taxation systems. 4.) Alternative defence and liberation systems to the territorial statist ones. Ideal militia forces, separate peace treaties, unilateral declaration of peace, military jiu-jit-su against dictatorships, using their military forces against them, declaration of quite rightful war and peace aims, appeals and declarations as weapons, e.g. improved individual rights codes, recognition of alternative governments in exile for volunteers, tyrannicide, volunteer forces vs. conscripts, proper financing of defence, utilizing the assets of the despotic enemy regime and monetary and financial freedom methods. 5.) The territorialist clashes between Protectionists and Free Traders. 6.) The antagonism even among libertarians regarding abortion and right to life. 7.) The antagonism between the limited government advocates and the no-government advocates. 8.) The arguments upon the merits or demerits of the diverse voting systems. 9.) The arguments between the monopoly advocates and those favouring free competition. 10.) The clashes between the pro-capitalists and the anti-capitalists. 11.) The disagreements between nationalists and internationalists, centralists and decentralists. 12.) The clashes between all kinds of other ideologies. 13.) The clashes between the greenies and developers, the technologist and scientists vs. the back to nature people. (*) 14.) Energy resources will be fully developed only under that freedom, not under political and bureaucratic decision-making and finance. 15.) Peaceful international relations, when no longer handled by territorial power-addicts and monopolistic decision-makers. 16.) Free migration can only be achieved in the panarchistic way. And yet isolationists, racists and religious fanatics could voluntarily segregate themselves as much as they like. But none of them could claim a territorial monopoly any longer. - J.Z., 15.10.04. – (*) Forward with natural forces, including genuine individual human rights and liberties is my ideal. Obviously, most of them are not meant for irrational beings, like e.g. animals, birds, insects, plants, microbes, fish, shells etc. – because they do not correspond to their nature. – J.Z., 22.1.12. – To make a faster skimming possible through this alphabet soup, perhaps all longer entries should be colored like this one or in their background. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHIST WEBSITES: - - - - Alas, only a fraction of all panarchist writings are published there, so far. - All would easily fit onto a CD or DVD. - Who will help in this? - J.Z., 5.11.11. - LINKS LIST, DIRECTORY, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PANARCHIST LIBRARY

PANARCHISTIC ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS & PANARCHISTIC ALTERNATIVE MEDIA USE: What freedom goal could not be attained, by those who want it, if we fully utilized existing alternative freedom of expression and information opportunities and this in combination with exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, to explore, and publicize and practise freedom of action and experimentation and individual sovereignty and free choice in the political, economic and social sphere? - J.Z. 23.7.89, 10 Oct. 89, 11.12.03. – Q.

PANARCHISTIC DAILY PRACTICES & FACTS ARE ALL AROUND US & EVERYONE ENGAGES IN THEM, TAKING THEM FOR GRANTED: There are so many instances of panarchistic beliefs and practices outside the political, social and economic system spheres, which are now, largely, monopolized by territorial governments and some limited applications even in these spheres, so that it takes the usual blindness towards customary sights and practices in order not to realize their panarchistic nature and implications. This part-blindness is comparable e.g. to that of censorious people who claim for themselves the very freedoms they want to deny to others and to anti-market, anti-property, anti-contract and anti-profit minded people who, nevertheless, use these social achievements frequently, almost every day and could not survive without them. Rousseau described this part-blindness beautifully when he said : "Il faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer ce qu'on voit tous les jours!" - J.Z., 1.4.89. (It requires much philosophy to observe the facts which are all around us.) (*) Panarchism has merely to be expanded into those spheres which are so far mostly pre-empted by territorial governments. - J.Z., 12.12.03, 22.1.12. – (*) This is also quoted in another version: "Il faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer les faits qui sont trop pres de nous." - Rousseau. (It requires much philosophy to observe the facts which are plentiful among us.)

PANARCHISTIC PERSUASION ATTEMPTS? Members of an audience quickly form an impression of three possible relationships they can have to the presenter: He is trying to dominate them, treats them as equals, or is submissive. They rightly sense that the dominating and submissive are both actually motivated by fear and their desire for participation in a subsequent dialogue (the clinching part of any presentation) is diminished. The dominant fears discussion; the submissive fears for his reputation. When the audience senses that they are treated as equals, all working together in the search for the right course of action, they eagerly join in discussion with good will, even if your ideas are, at least initially, repellent to them. Individuals dislike being dominated. It implies that they are not as free to choose, or as independent, as they need to believe in order to preserve their dignity as human beings. If the domination is based solely on higher status or rank, true persuasion cannot take place, even though everyone may say "aye" at the end. (J.Z.: One motto of Bob Cowin, is: "Communication takes place only between equals." - Source unknown to me.) The raw form of this approach was used by a high-ranking presenter who said at the end of his proposal, 'All in favour say aye; all opposed say I quit.'" - Henry M. Boettinger, "Moving Mountains", 133. - The shortest route to the right course of action may be very different for different people, even if there is only one optimal right course of action for quite moral and rational people. However, how many do fall into this category? I am not such a person and have never met such a human being. Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, came closest to this ideal in my limited experience. Most people will pick the route, which is right for them, only after having travelled on at least one wrong route but one chosen by themselves. As yet there is no satellite guidance gadget for them. Not even the automatic search engines of the Internet can point out the optimal route for each of as diverse critters as we are. At least slightly different solutions will also tend to be optimal for different kinds of people. That applies even to seemingly simple manipulations of objects, materials and processes. - J.Z. 13.1.93, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISTIC PRECEDENTS: I would like to see a chronological table of panarchist precedents and proposals in political and other writings. Who will help me compile it? Less worthy causes have their historians. Even most panarchists are still insufficiently informed on all of these precedents, while opponents imagine that whenever they have, seemingly, effectively countered one panarchist speaker in his imperfect knowledge and exposition, then they would, thereby, have sufficiently answered all panarchist writings and experiences. - J.Z. 4.7.89, 22.1.12, 30.6.12.

PANARCHISTIC SHOPPING CARTS & CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Panarchism does not offer to all territorial subjects the same assorted rations in their "shopping carts", which the serfs of all territorial governments receive in form of equal "public services" for all, at fixed monopoly prices, or “free” of direct charges, via huge direct and indirect taxes or the inflation tax or huge government debts but, instead, its sovereign consumers or customers or members in particular panarchies would receive only those goods and services, at competitive prices, which they really do want for themselves and are willing and able to pay for, at free market prices or agreed-upon subscription prices or insurance premiums. Public affairs and public services would then have to become hawked or advertised or sold or marketed like any other goods or services are at present, or would have to be provided within volunteer communities as their self-help measures. The consumers of "government services" would then be sovereign rather than the governmental decision-makers, the "always honest" and "never selfish" politicians and bureaucrats. The volunteer communities of panarchism would be only exterritorially autonomous and individuals would remain free to secede from them - as they should now be free to secede from all territorial States, obviously from the worst of them but also from the best of them. Freedom of action, freedom to experiment, freedom of choice, for all and in all spheres. No monopoly to be granted any longer to any politicians and bureaucrats - except by individual consent, in corresponding voluntary communities under personal laws. - J.Z., 15.10.04

PANARCHISTISCHE VERFASSUNGSSTELLE: Der Mensch ist nur wirklich Mensch, wenn er sich seiner Freiheit und seiner Verantwortung bewusst ist. Die Firma für soziale Plastik lädt deshalb Besucherinnen und Besucher ein, ihre Unabhängigkeit auszurufen. - Die panarchistische Verfassungsstelle ist eine - mobile Interventionseinheit der Firma für soziale Plastik. Von ihrem Vespacar aus fördert, unterstützt und begleitet sie panarchistische Unabhängigkeitsbestrebungen in der Bevölkerung. - Das Formulieren der eigenen Verfassung ist der erste Schritt auf diesem Weg. Hier können die Fragen nach dem Was, dem Wie, dem Mit-Wem und dem gestellt und Grundsästze formuliert werden. - Hintergründe: - - - La Panarchie: Les idées panarchistes ont fasciné les penseurs dès le 16ème siècle. Au milieu du 19ème, face à un re-nouvellement de la pensée politique, les reflexions furent approfondies et discutées plus largement. - L’idée selon laquelle les questions politiques et sociales peuvent être résolues en Europe de l’Ouest de la même façon que les problèmes religieux a constitué la pierre angulaire: l’Etat n’est pas seul souverain sur le territoire, l’individu est libre et responsable, crée des alliances au-delà de toute frontière territoriale selon ses souhaits et objectifs. - Les conséquences et possibilités qu’ouvre cette façon de considérer l’individu et la société réveillent encore et toujours un intérêt! - - La Panarchie se défini par: la fin du pouvoir exclusif des états sur un certain territoire (monopole territoriale) - - le libre choix de son propre gouvernement ou, à l’extrème, la décision de s’autogouverner - - la tolérance envers tous les idées et pratiques politiques volontaires. - - La Panarchie n’est pas: une nouvelle idéologie ou philosophie politique une nouvelle organisation ou parti politique. - - Pour des informations plus approfondis: - - - Elements de la Constitution: La constitution est le permier pas conscient vers l’indépendance. Elle n’est soumise à aucune contrainte formelle, ne doit être porteuse de sens et de direction que pour l’indépendant lui-même. - Une trame de questions fondamentales auxquelles le texte de la Constitution peut se réferer est néanmoins donnée ici. - Comment la nouvelle unité panarchiste s’appelle-t-elle? - Quelle est la motivation de cet acte d’indépendance? - Qu’est-ce qu’il veut transformer? - Quelle manière de fonctionner est favourable à l’indépendance? - Est-ce que la nouvelle unité panarchiste veut et peut se lier à d’autres? - Comment se présente la nouvelle unité à l’extérieur? Suit-elle des règles, lesquelles? - Comment la nouvelle unité est organisée à l’intérieure, y a-t-il des règles? Lesquelles? - Toute unité panarchiste est soumise aux lois de la vie, c’est-à-dire: elle se transforme, bouge et fait bouger. La Constitiution aussi en est touchée, elle existe aussi longtemps qu’elle n’est pas reformulée!

PANARCHISTS: Panarchists do not care about your religion, race, habits or ideology – as long as you do not try to force them upon others. – J.Z., 12.3.05, 22.1.12.

PANARCHISTS: The Right to Choose your Government. - Panarchists. The right to choose your government July 2009. - See also: Viklund, Andreas.

PANARCHY - POLYARCHY – PERSONARCHY (2005) - - Note: A group of individuals, deeply dissatisfied with the dominant mental attitudes and material practices based on compulsory conformity to the majority and the restriction of personal choices, have drafted a series of principles that they intend to present to everybody interested in finding a way out of the present individual subjection and apathy.
The principles are presented under the name of Panarchy – Polyarchy – Personarchy - - Panarchy, Polyarchy and Personarchy indicate that, what is aimed at is
- a worldwide open framework free from territorial sovereignties.
- a variety of voluntary systems of personal and social organization, like parallel autonomous societies, even within the same territory.
- full freedom of association, circulation and action for each and every human being.

The principles have been sketched under the following headings:

1. Aterritorialism
2. Self-rule
3. Freedom of association - freedom of disassociation
4. Voluntary engagements - voluntary contributions
5. Personal liberties - personal responsibilities
6. Freedom to act (enterprise)
7. Freedom to interact (exchange)
8. Choices (utilities – services -- agencies)
9. Variety - optionality - discretionarity
10. Cosmopolitanism - localism – personalism.

PANARCHY & FIOT (FREEDOM IN OUR TIME), AN EXTRACT FROM PEACE PLANS 671: PANARCHY AND FIOT - - - Panarchists are idealistic enough to want FIOT (Freedom In Our Time) but realistic enough to realize that mere words, no matter how skillfully combined, do not, as a rule, have a sufficient persuasive power over most other people. They have not had this verbal persuasion or enlightenment power, fully or to a sufficient degree, over the last few hundred years and are unlikely to gain it during the next few hundred years. They cannot persuade all people to subscribe e.g. to one particular form of anarchism or libertarianism. (How often have they tried, in vain?) - Thus panarchists favor a kind of "uncompromising compromise" to get them out of their dilemma, an agreement or armistice with their enemies: Each gets his own way in his own affairs but does not get his ideal practiced by others, unless they happen to accept it INDIVIDUALLY. - This kind of freedom to live one's own preferred lifestyle in every way, among likeminded people, quite independent from the preferences of others, which they could then also realize, immediately, among themselves, is already an achievement, e.g. for anarchists and all others interested in realizing their own ideals a.s.a.p. - Moreover, in such a new social relationship, they do not only have verbal freedom (to make more converts, and a, however small, chance to one day persuade everybody to accept anarchism or libertarianism for himself), but they are free to demonstrate their kind of freedom ideal to their neighbors and all other observers close-by. - Actions do speak louder than words. Actions in other countries etc., do not have the same persuasive powers (in spite of the modern mass media and translations), cannot make alternative ways of living, working, enjoying and ruling oneself appear as attractive as such actions are or can be when undertaken next door. - - Compare how rapidly curious passers-by do accumulate when something unusual happens visible to them. Even when such actions are frowned upon or even despised by the observers, they do have, in this situation, nothing to fear from the despised actions, since there is no institutionalized attempt to impose them upon dissenters, to force them to participate or to contribute. - For themselves they remain free to reject all practices they dislike and may even use these practices as deterrent examples - among people who think like they do. - John Bright once said, in 1885: "I must follow my own judgment and conscience, and not the voice of any party leader." - I would add: "unless I am prepared to allow each to follow his own party leader, but only in all his internal affairs with him, while I freely follow my own chosen party leader or set up my own standard, which may be followed by others." - And my own leader or guru might well be an anarchist. - A consistent anarchist would demand freedom for all political, economic and social sado-masochists to suffer under the leaders of their choice, as long as they can stand them. - - - Capitalist as well as communist relationships – but all confined to consenting adults! - - - Panarchy amounts to justice in political, economic and social relationships. It realizes "to each his own". And justice, according to John Bright, 1868, is "the miracle worker among men". - Consequently, we should demand: Conservatism only for conservatives, reformism only for reformers, revolutions only for revolutionaries and anarchism only for anarchists or, whatever others might consider to be merely a fool's paradise, or a castle in the air, for everybody who chooses it. - No one is to be territorially organized any longer as a threat to others, with ballots or bullets but merely as an attractive, deterrent or indifferent example.- - Draft of 1986, then ca. 528 words. Here slightly revised: J.Z., 10.12.04, 22.1.12. – At the end I might introduce colors to all long entries. – J.Z., 22.1.12. – Just to make it easier for you to ignore them! – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHY & PANARCHISM: A panarchy is one of many panarchies “under” the “rule” of panarchism - which makes these organizations possible, via the realization of individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and voluntary associationism into exterritorially autonomous communities. - J.Z., 18.9.04, 22.1.12.

PANARCHY ALTERNATIVES: Examine the alternatives of Panarchist Peace, Panarchist People, Panarchist Popularity, Panarchist Power, Panarchist Progress & Panarchist Prosperity or Panarchist Peace and Plenty. All choices should be yours, as a sovereign consumer or entrepreneur or co-producer. – J.Z., 29.12.04.

PANARCHY AT UTOPICS: Panarchy at UTOPICS (11th Swiss Sculpture Exhibition, Biel/Bienne, August 30 to October 25, 2009) September 2009. - Martin Beutler's experiment with a "Panarchistische Verfassungsstelle". Interviewing people at a public exhibition and getting and recording some short freedom statements from them. - I suppose that most of them were ill prepared to make such statements, suddenly, upon request. - Had they been given enough time to ponder the questions … - GPdB., a friend of M. B. was also interviewed and filmed in the process. - J.Z., 19.9.11.

PANARCHY IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: We are already to a large extent practising panarchists in our interpersonal relationships, to the extent that these remain unregulated by constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and customs. What has to be achieved is the extension of this practice into community and State relationships as well as international relationships. - J.Z., n.d. & 18.9.04. - "How much of the life of the ordinary person is devoted to 'politics' ... and how much to problems of interpersonal relationships? To ask the question is already to provide an answer." - Maurice Brinton, The Irrational in Politics, 50.

PANARCHY INTERNATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL PANARCHISM, MINORITIES UNITED IN UPHOLDING MINORITY AUTONOMY:  The most diverse minorities could and should unite in their efforts to achieve and maintain full exterritorial autonomy for all of them and to maintain it, i.e., for all peaceful and non-criminal minorities, allowing them to do everything for and to themselves and nothing against the lives, liberties and properties of the members or other minority groups or of majority groups. – J.Z., 15.8.98, 10.1.99. - An international federation of minority groups with such a platform, and also upholding individual rights and liberties for their international relations, could become the most powerful political force in the world and it would be backed by ideal militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 15.8.98, 10.1.99.

PANARCHY SOUTH JERSEY, Panarchy South Jersey July 2009. – DWIGHT JOHNSON

PANARCHY, A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY: Panarchy. - The originator, at least in modern times, of the term "Panarchy" was a Belgian botanist, expert in orchids, by the name of Paul-Emile de Puydt. In 1860 he wrote an article published in the Revue Trimestrielle (Brussels) bearing the title "Panarchie." In that article de Puydt advanced the proposal of finishing with territorialism (state territorial sovereignty) and introducing political tolerance (on the model of religious tolerance) whereby everyone could associate himself to a chosen government and various governments co-existed on the same territory, vying for the political and financial support of the public (like many providers of public services or clubs and associations in competition for customers or members). - For the English translation of "Panarchie" see: Paul-Emile de Puydt (1860) Panarchy - - That brilliant essay went practically unnoticed until the historian of the anarchist movement, Max Nettlau, rediscovered it and wrote an article that appeared in 1909 in the German review "Der Sozialist." - Max Nettlau (1909) Panarchy. A forgotten idea of 1860: - After that there is little debate to be found about De Puydt's very original idea until John Zube resurrected the notion of Panarchy in our contemporary age. [I merely inherited appreciation of this important idea from my best friend, Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969. Later I developed it somewhat in my two peace books, which are also largely merely the result of numerous discussions with Ulrich von Beckerath. In Ayn Rand's terms, I am merely a second-hander and somewhat jealous of those few who managed to develop this idea quite on their own, like e.g. Gian Piero de Bellis and Adam Knott did. A complete list of these "independent" and original thinkers on panarchism, polyarchism etc. may still have to be compiled! - J.Z., 26.8.11.] - He is the one who has done more than any other to promote the idea of Panarchy through his writings and various activities. - For a clarification of the concept see some of his texts like: John Zube (1986) Some Notes for a Talk on Panarchism to Anarchists - - John Zube (n.d.) Further Notes on Panarchism and Anarchism - - John Zube, (1996) Some Panarchistic Notions. - - [Some of my writings on panarchism were written only upon an appeal and very welcome pressure by Gian Piero de Bellis, who wanted, especially, some really short representations of this idea. - By now, I believe, the attention span for panarchistic ideas and opinions is expanding. The Internet has greatly helped in this - and the great website that Gian Piero de Bellis produced. - J.Z., 26.8.11.] - Other authors, who have expressed ideas in tune with Panarchy are: Anonymous (1962) Democracy with a small "d" - - An enlightening view of what democracy should be, once we stop thinking and acting in terms of majorities and minorities. - Grand E. Day (1969-1977), The Theory of Multigovernment - - Roderick T. Long (1993) Virtual Cantons. A New Path to Freedom? - - For the topic concerning many legal systems present within the same territory see: Richard CB Johnsson (2005) Non-Territorial Governance - Mankind's Forgotten Legacy. - - Richard CB Johnsson (2005) To the Monopolists of All Parties - - James Leroy Wilson (2005) One State, Many Legal Systems - - For an interesting essay about globalism and post-territorialism see: Bruno S. Frey (2001) A Utopia? Government without Territorial Monopoly. - - Gian Piero de Bellis in: "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb?

PANARCHY, by P. E. de Puydt, 1860, pages 72ff, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. Also in PP 4 & 16-17. - In several languages on

PANARCHY, DEFINITIONS: A Google search for "Panarchy + definitions" brought me 28,000 results, i.e. more than I can cope with. - J.Z., 24.9.11.

PANARCHY, DIALECTIC: No. 3, 8pp, 27-34, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PEACE PLANS 833. - I would like to obtain all the other issues of this magazine published by Le Grand E. Day. - J.Z., 18.9.04. - Good photocopies  or scans would be satisfactory. - J.Z., 5.11.11. –

PANARCHY, ESSAYS: On 2.11.09, on searching with Google for "panarchy + essays", I got 16,200 results. On my own I can't explore all these results. - J.Z., 2.9.11.

PANARCHY, EXTERRITORIALITY, TERRITORIALISM, STATE: Ferner ist mit aller Absicht vom Gebiet nicht die Rede. Die Forderung, dass dem Begriff Staat auch das Vorhandensein eines Gebietes einzuverleiben sei, ist abzulehnen. Sehr viele wohlgeschaffene Urzeit-, ja noch selbst maechtige Alterstumsstaaten sind nachzuweisen, die des dauernden Landbesitzes durchaus entbehrten." - (Furthermore, and quite intentionally, territory is not dealt with. The demand that the concept of the State has to include the existence of a territory is to be rejected. Very many well established States of the primeval period, indeed even powerful ancient States can be shown that did not permanently own any territory.) -  Kurt Breysig, Die Geschichte der Menschheit, 1. Band, Berlin, 1907, Georg Bondi, S. 531. – TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALITY

PANARCHY, LEVITATION, GRAVITY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION: Exterritorial autonomy, upon individual choice, and individual secession, would be somewhat like self-managed levitation away from the power of gravity. - J.Z., 26.6.01.


PANARCHY, PRIVATE PRACTICE: Panarchy as unconscious but wide-spread practices in limited spheres, 57, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505.

PANARCHY, SHOPPING AROUND, COMPETITION, CONSUMER CHOICE & CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, BUYING GOVERNMENT SERVICES “OVER THE COUNTER”: One should be able to shop around for government services – and desired disservices – as one can now shop around e.g. for food items, furniture, clothing, travel options and home as well as city entertainments. – J.Z., 26.11.93, 9.1.99.


PANARCHY: A Google search of 31.10.09 brought me 278,000 references, i.e. many more than I can cope with on my own. I feel sure that some, still unknown to me, would be worth including here but most others are, most likely, on a different track. - J.Z., 2.10.11. – Alas, lately, the term has been widely used in a quite different meaning by several writers. More relevant results can be found in searches for “panarchism”. – J.Z., 30.6.12.

PANARCHY: An extract from PEACE PLANS 671: ON PANARCHY OR THE GOSPEL OF PANARCHY ACCORDING TO SINNER ST. JOHN Z. - - - PANARCHY: The realization of as many different and autonomous communities as are wanted by volunteers for themselves, all non-territorially coexisting, side by side and intermingled as their members are, in the same territory or even world-wide and yet separated from each other by personal laws, administrations and jurisdiction, as different churches are or ought to be. - - - PANARCHISM: The body of knowledge and thought regarding the theories and practices of such voluntaristic non-territorial and autonomous communities (panarchies), considered as the rightful, peace-, freedom-, property and reform-promoting alternatives to any attempt to set up or continue coercive, exclusive, uniform, territorial, more or less centralized and supposedly ideal or best possible communities for all, whether their subjects agree or disagree. - - - Panarchism teaches that panarchies form the ideal society for as diverse beings as human beings are, that they would speed up the development and progress of man and his institutions to the utmost, in a peaceful and peace-promoting way; that panarchies, while permitting and institutionalizing one-man revolutions, would reduce the incidence of violent revolutions and wars to a minimum, while retaining and even increasing the capacity of peace loving people to resist and defeat violent aggressors. - - - Some principles of panarchists which might be considered as amounting to The Gospel  of Panarchy - at least once they have been fully collected and expressed more attractively than is here the case in a first draft: 1.) You do not have to love your neighbour - but you do owe him justice. 2.) People are different, prefer different things, even in the sphere of laws and social, economic and political institutions and are entitled to have them, in accordance with their own individual  choices. 3.) If you can't agree with them, do not join them or stay a member. Secede from them and do your own things. 4.) Each has the equal right and liberty to live differently. 5.) Each has the right to do his own thing, to live within his own system, quite undisturbed by others, even by leaders, majorities and people considered to be professionals and experts. 6.) Let your actions be free and let them take you where your thoughts take you - as long as you respect the same right in others. 7.) Be tolerant towards all tolerant persons, peaceful towards all peaceful persons and leave them alone - while they leave you alone. 8.) Act only within and up to the limits set by yourself, as long as you let others set their own limits and respect the limits set by others for their own and self-concerned actions. 9.) Agree only to disagree with dissenters and leave them alone and induce them to leave you alone. 10.) Agree only and insist only upon agreement among people who are agreeable to you and your ideas, opinions and institutions. Between you and at your expense and risk - anything goes. 11.) Everyone has the right to make mistakes and to act foolishly at his own expense and risk and among like-minded people. 12.) Everyone has the right to make experiments among like-minded people, even in the political, economic and social spheres. 13.) Freedom of action for all who respect freedom of action in others. 14.)Tolerance for all tolerant actions among tolerant people. 15.) Find, grow, develop and realize yourself, your aims, your methods, your institutions and systems and principles, but only alone or among like-minded people who, with you, volunteered to do so, shutting out all politicians, bureaucrats and experts that are not wanted by you and your voluntary associates for your own internal affairs. 16.) To each his own, no more, no less. 17.) Each to be the master of his or her own “fate”. 18.) Each to be free to pick his or her ideology, social organization and cooperators and to experiment together with them, at their own risk and expense, in the same way that they may now pick their own friends or religious associates. 19.) Each to be free to pick the own international allies and enemies, make treaties with them or resist their aggressive acts, in self-chosen ways, provided only that this is done within the framework of individual rights and liberties, which would reduce indiscriminate warfare and revolutionary actions to rightful and limited self-defence and policing actions against aggressors. - - - In other words, people to become free to decide for themselves whether and to what extent they want to be at war with each other or at peace and for what rightful aims they are to fight, if they are to fight at all. - - They may even conclude "treasonable" separate peace treaties with victims of oppression on the other side or may proclaim a unilateral peace towards them, while continuing their resistance against despotic aggressors. - (More details for such a resistance can be found in PEACE PLANS 16-18 and 61-63, now accessible on ) - - Non-enumeration of similar principles, commandments or articles of faith in this first declaration does not mean that they are meant to be excluded. - On the contrary, an appeal is hereby made to help find, formulate and include, in their proper position, all other formulas and wordings and to edit and improve the present ones, for a panarchistic “gospel” or party platform or agreement between all minority groups striving for and being content with full  autonomy on a non-territorial  basis. - Draft only. John Zube, 10.3.1986. - Slightly edited: J.Z., 10.12.04, 23.1.12.

PANARCHY: By P. E. de Puydt, 1860, pages 72ff, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. Also in PP 4 & 16-17. - In several languages: German, English, French, Italian, Greek, Portuguese & Spanish on: - The original and, possibly, still the best article on the subject. – J.Z., 23.1.12.

PANARCHY: Do not let territorialist parties, politicians, parliaments and their power politics, ideologies and bureaucracies or their justice system restrict your rightful power over your own lives and your own affairs. Your own individual and free choices are bound to be better, in most cases, than those they make for you, with your money and expecting your humble obedience to their legalized decrees, abuses and wasteful actions. If not, you will learn from your mistakes and make a new start with new associates, or other voluntary communities. -  – J.Z., 29.12.04, 22.1.12.

PANARCHY: On 7.4.11, GOOGLE results were panarchy: 59,400, panarchism: 38,100, panarchy books: 17,200 results. - It would need considerable teamwork and division of labor to examine all these references and pick out the ones suitable for panarchy and panarchism in the meaning of de Puydt. - J.Z., 18.4.11. - PANARCHISM

PANARCHY: Panarchy offers a new and easier way to realize what each considers to be the common good, namely the option to realize it exterritorially and autonomously between volunteers. - J.Z., 20.12.87.

PANARCHY: Panarchy? It means: The possibility of a separate “Declaration of Independence” – for every individual and voluntary group or community! - Also the practical possibility and framework to realize it, self-responsibly, on the basis of personal law, exterritorial autonomy and quite voluntary membership, which also implies freedom for voluntary disassociation or secession, or renunciation of membership, or discontinuance of subscription to previously chosen or imposed public service package deals and this even for individuals and, naturally, groups of volunteers or dissenting minorities. - It also means, in essence, voluntary taxation and quite free, peaceful and tolerant competition in the provision of all kinds of public services and public service package deals. - There are numerous historical and contemporary precedents for this freedom option, although its principles and practices are still widely unknown or unappreciated. - J.Z.

PANARCHY: exists to promote the discussion of Panarchy: complexity and networked governance in the information age, including economics, sociology, culture, political science, commons, etc. - A new form of anarchy has evolved in the current period - one that involves not only the absence of a highest authority but that also encompasses such an extensive disaggregation of authority as to allow for much greater flexibility, innovation, and experimentation (Rosenau, 1995). - Panarchy is a nifty coinage. I wish it was around earlier so I could have used it. — Kevin Kelly. - Hello, and welcome to It has been said that you can't change the world by putting up a website. I disagree. - To get around the site you can read the Help, or you can dive right into the content by going straight to the Writings. - Or you might really want to know first: What is Panarchy


PANARQUIA, UNA IDEA GENIAL, Panarquia, una idea genial [Libertarios Mexicanos] July 2009.

PANCOMMUNITIES: Voluntary communities under personal laws, not confined by territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and institutions, covering all countries, continents and the world, intermixed, overlapping and yet separate from each other, like the various churches and sects are. - J.Z., 19.9.04.

PARADISE, SAL: On Panarchy, 20, in PEACE PLANS No. 505.

PARADISE: It belongs to the definition of paradise that one is free to leave it gain.” – Eschmann (“Zur Definition des Paradieses: dass man es wieder verlassen kann.”) – FREE EMIGRATION, FREE IMMIGRATION, INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY GROUP SECESSIONISM

PARADISE: Pick or Plot and Produce your Proprietary Paradise with your Party People – but only among People Pleased with it and Prepared to Pay its Price. – J.Z., n.d. – Being exterritorially autonomous or under personal law, with your kind of people, you would then cease to be a mere party, a part of a fictitious and enforce territorial “whole”, of a very diverse populations, trying to haggle about your territorial chances for genuine self-government and self-determination, but would, instead, be a wholly independent governance system, society, community or “nation” of volunteers only, by itself, just doing its own things for or to itself, with no enemies except territorial totalitarians and authoritarians [and even they would be gradually diminished through the attractive examples you and other panarchists or polyarchists would set], no scapegoats to blame but only the own errors, prejudices and mistakes. Whatever worthwhile ideas you have for improving the life of your community you could then realized with like-minded volunteers among yourself. No more endless party struggles and strife. What more could you rightly ask for and what less should you strive for? – J.Z., 25.6.12. - PERSONAL CHOICES FOR PARADISE

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: A term used first either by Dick Gregory or Staughton Lynd, to my knowledge: page 70, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. See also page 23 in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: a voluntarist would do well to visualize the parallel institutions as valuable constituents of a new voluntary society, wherein human existence would be independent of the Welfare-Warfare State.” – Lysander, in THE DAILY CALIFORNIAN, “Toward a Voluntary Society”, Jan. 17, 1967. – PANARCHISM, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, VOLUNTARISM

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: Gene Sharp discusses at least parallel institutions on pages 423-433 of his “The Politics of Nonviolent Action”, Part Two. Peter Sargent Publishers, Boston, 1973. – Alas, he is altogether committed all too much to total non-violence, which does not often work well, safely or fast enough against dictatorial, tyrannical and totalitarian regimes. – J.Z., 30.12.11, 25.6.12.

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: Parallel for Profits! – Memon slogan. Also for resistance, liberation, international alliances, e.g. via governments in exile. – An international federation of local militias of volunteers, for the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties, well informed, trained and armed for this purpose, may be one of the most important parallel institutions - but non-violence advocates shy away from this option, like they do even of tyrannicide, even though every further day of a tyrant’s rule may cost dozens of lives. – J.Z., 30.12.11. - BLACK MARKETS, UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, TYRANNICIDE, NONVIOLENCE

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: Parallel institutions is not a bad alternative term for the diverse panarchies of volunteers, all exterritorially autonomous, i.e. under personal law, i.e. under panarchism. – J.Z., 9.3.09, 2.1.12.

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: Parallel ventures, differing greatly in kind perhaps but fitting the needs of the different component traditions, might be put up by others. – Les Murray, QUADRANT, 4/76.

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: plan 141, a suggestion by Staughton Lynd, 23, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: The underlying aim has always been central to Communist strategy. It is to create a system of ‘dual power’; in other words, while the elected government appears to be sovereign, a parallel Communist administration is built up, working both through existing administrative and trade union structures, through a clandestine network, and through the newly-created workers’ councils. – Robert Moss, Parallel Institutions, in 1985, p. 115. – Parallel institutions could also become tools for us, for our kind of liberation and to liberate all others as far as they want to be liberated. – J.Z., 11/76, 15.2.08. But the aim of the totalitarian communists aim was always not peaceful coexistence between various communities of volunteers but, instead, total territorial domination for their ideology and their system. – J.Z., 15.2.08. – COMMUNISM, STATE SOCIALISM, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, PANARCHISM, LIBERATION

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: Uniform territorial States are without parallel in causing or preparing slaughter and destruction via conventional weapons and now ABC mass murder devices. They can be competed out of existence by the establishment and protection of parallel institutions, or competing governments, or panarchies, to take over all their desired activities ‑ at the expense and risk of those desiring them. Via individual and minority group secessionism voluntary associationism all people could come to escape those territorial States and societies they do not want and could drive them into bankruptcy and thus make them disappear, for lack of followers or customers or they could reduce them to the size determined by their remaining voluntary followers. - All revolutions are started and promoted by parallel institutions. To institutionalize these institutions means making revolution permanent, but doing this in a quite rightful, peaceful and individualistic way, by allowing the realization of any degree of progress, stagnation or regress desired by some, without motivating anyone to resort to inherently despotic territorial legislation or other oppression or terrorist means to overcome a dissenting majority or one or several dissenting minorities. In the panarchist practice even one-man revolutions would become possible and they would be confined to the individuals who made their revolutions for themselves. - ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, AUTONOMY, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, LIQUIDATION OF GOVERNMENTS, MINORITY AUTONOMY, MAJORITY, PANARCHY, PERSONAL LAW, POWER, RULERS, SECESSION, SOVEREIGNTY, STATES, VOLUNTARY  TAXATION, VOLUNTARISM, WELFARE STATES. - J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS Nos. 16 & 17, on - Revised: 23.1.11, 2.1.12, 25.6.12. - PANARCHIES, ONE-MAN REVOLUTION

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: While the war was raging in Bosnia, Greater Serbianism was proceeding to the same goal by other means in Kosovo. In April 1995 - shortly before the Serb defeats that led to the Dayton Accords - I had the opportunity to learn from the self-styled President of Kosova, Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, about the systematic intimidation of the ethnic Albanians there. Deprived of employment, education and access to medical care by a policy of racial discrimination in favour of the Serb minority, the Albanians - who constitute 90 per cent of the population - had eschewed violence and instead set up a whole system of parallel institutions. They had even elected their own 'President". Dr. Rugova, a moderate, mild-mannered and highly civilised intellectual, had become the centre of this resistance movement. Although demanding full independence (*), he would probably at that time have been prepared to settle in the medium term at least for a return of Kosovo’s lost autonomy – crushed by Milosevics thugs – and guaranties of basic human rights. …” - Margaret Thatcher in "Statecraft, 2002, Strategies for a Changing World", HarperCollinsPublishers (77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB,, ISBN 0 00 710752 8), 2002, page 310/11. – (*) Alas, he and all his opponents and the foreign interventionists were still, otherwise, territorialists and thus violence escalated, as reported by M. T. – J.Z., 8.10.07: - Otherwise, so far, this book is mainly concerned with the "Statecraft" of territorialism. – J.Z., n.d. – BOSNIA, PANARCHISM, PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS, MARGARET THATCHER

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: Black Power & Parallel Institutions, Ideological and Theoretical Considerations, by RELYEA, HAROLD C., in JOURNAL OF HUMAN RELATIONS, Second Quarter, 1969, Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio, pp. 208-223, bibl. 221-223. - See also the introduction, pp.VI and VII. - BLACK POWER.


PARALLEL STATES PROJECT: Parallel States Project. A proposal to solve the Palestinian problem. - Home - The Parallel States Project is an academic project aiming at provoking new thinking on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by formulating: - an attempt to think outside the box and look at the issues in a different way than both the traditional two-state solution and the one state solution - a way to address basic issues of the conflict such as security, identity and access to the land, as well as end of conflict - a scenario with two states, Israel and Palestine, sharing sovereignty over the whole area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The project is conducted by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in cooperation with a group of Israeli and Palestinian academics and experts. To read more, see About PSP and Outline of the Project. - The Parallel States Project presented its final report at the concluding conference ”One Land Two States – an Alternative Scenario for Israeli-Palestinian Accommodation” in Lund, Sweden, October 26-27 2010. Read more about it under Conference 2010. – One land and xyz governance systems, societies and communities, all only for their volunteers, would be even better. – J.Z., 1.7.12. - ISRAEL, PALESTINE, BIARCHY

PARALLEL STATES: Parallel States: A New Vision for Peace

PARALLELGESELLSCHAFT: BLANKERTZ, STEFAN, Parallelgesellschaft: Keine Toleranz für die Intoleranz - von Stefan Blankertz - Wann wird der „Staat im Staat“ ein Problem? - Ob es „Parallelgesellschaft“, „Sub-“ oder „Gegenkultur“, „gesellschaftliche Minderheit“ oder „Staat im Staat“ genannt wird, es stellt sich unter politischem Blickwinkel immer die gleiche Frage: Was kann, soll und darf von der Kultur sowie von der Sozial- und Rechtsstruktur der Mehrheit auf die Minderheit übertragen werden („Integration“)? Und umgekehrt: Wieviel Eigentümlichkeit darf die Minderheit beibehalten? Besonders drängend wird die Frage, wenn tatsächlich (oder zumindest anscheinend) aus dem Umfeld der Parallelgesellschaft Kriminalität ausgeht. - In der Diskussion wird oft ein Zusammenhang übersehen: Viele der bedrängendsten Probleme gehen auf den Wohlfahrtsstaat zurück oder werden von ihm verstärkt. Auseinandersetzungen über Sprachen oder Bildungsinhalte sind ebenso klar hier zu verorten wie das Gefühl der steuerzahlenden Mehrheit, zur Unterstützung von Projekten oder Personen herangezogen zu werden, die ihr gegen den Strich gehen. Bildungs-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik führen dazu, dass der Arbeitsmarkt die „Fremden“, „Migranten“ oder schlicht die schlechter ausgebildeten „Integrationsverweigerer“ nicht aufnehmen kann. Manchmal werden gut ausgebildete Migranten durch Nichtanerkennung ihrer Abschlüsse zu schlecht ausgebildeten. Oder umgekehrt: Schlecht ausgebildete Migranten werden durch die Anerkennung ihrer Abschlüsse zu Scheingleichen. Beides verschärft Probleme, die zweifellos auch ohne den Staat vorhanden, aber leichter lösbar wären. - Während der Staat also viele Dinge tut, um die wirkliche Integration zu verhindern und stattdessen mit Sozialhilfe von der Bürokratie abhängig macht, schützt er bemerkenswert lasch die individuelle Freiheit, wenn es um Probleme innerhalb der Parallelgesellschaften geht. Dies ist durchaus nachvollziehbar, denn dabei geht es um das Austrittsrecht: Genauso, wie es das Recht gibt, sich einer Gruppe, Religion oder Kultur, in die man hineingeboren wurde oder die man sich ausgewählt hat, zugehörig zu fühlen, muss es ein Recht geben, auszutreten. Das eine Recht bedingt das andere. Eine Gruppe, die das Austrittsrecht verweigert, darf (muss?) gezwungen werden, den Austrittswilligen gehen zu lassen. Ein türkisches Mädchen, das sich der Zwangsverheiratung widersetzt oder das sich den Umgang mit Freunden nicht untersagen lässt, tritt aus ihrer Parallelgesellschaft aus (wenn es keine andere, gütliche Einigung gibt). Da der Staat kein Austrittsrecht garantiert, kommt er in ideologische Bedrängnis, wenn er es von anderen Organisationen einfordert. Private Sicherheitsagenturen sind die bessere Lösung. - Die Behauptung, die Toleranz gegenüber anderen Kulturen oder Religionen sei zumindest indirekt an den sogenannten Ehrenmorden oder an Terroranschlägen schuld, entbehrt der Grundlage. Toleranz ist der einzige Wert, der universell aufgezwungen werden darf: Er gehört nicht zu einer speziellen „Kultur“, sondern ist die Bedingung der Möglichkeit eines friedlichen Zusammenlebens. Wer gegen den Wert der Toleranz verstößt, provoziert Konflikt und Krieg. Die Toleranz ist insbesondere kein gleichsam natürlicher Ausfluss aus dem real existierenden Christentum, wie es manche Propagandisten mit schlecht funktionierendem historischem Gedächtnis in der Frontstellung gegen den Islam behaupten. Der Toleranzgedanke (und mit ihm das Austrittsrecht) ist dem Christentum durch Aufklärung und die nachfolgenden Auseinandersetzungen abgerungen worden. In gleicher Weise muss er dem Islam abgerungen werden (von dem die Minderheit der christlichen Theologen, die in der „ersten Aufklärung“ des 13. Jahrhunderts für Toleranz eintrat, den Gedanken übernahm). Das ist die notwendige Integration. Nicht weniger, aber auch nicht mehr. Mehr Integration zu verlangen, ist im Prinzip das gleiche Unrecht, das von den Islamisten ausgeht. - 21. Oktober 2009. - offers many comments by readers, but not up the high standard of S. B. - J.Z., 25.8.11.

PARASITISM: The greatest obstacle to progress is not man’s inherited pugnacity, but his incorrigible tendency to parasitism.” – William Ralph Inge, “Patriotism”, Outspoken Essays: First Series, 1919. - This strong tendency is closely related to territorialism, which provides all the needed opportunities for it. Without these opportunities, within communities of like-minded volunteers only, few, if any, privileges will be granted by these volunteers and these only to those who, in their opinion, do deserve them. Because of individual secessionism involved in communities of volunteers no privileges can be usurped and imposed upon dissenters. – J.Z., 2.4.08, 24.1.11. - MONOPOLISM, PRIVILEGES; PROGRESS, DEVELOPMENT, AGGRESSIVENESS, MAN, PANARCHISM, DIS., PRIVILEGES, EXPLOITATION, DOMINATION, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

PARDESSUS, Collection de lois maritime antérieures ut XXVIIIe siécle (Paris, 1828-45), vol. i, p. 21 & 52. Liu quotes him twice on conditions in ancient Egypt, on page 24.

PARKER, TERRY, 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 Parker in email of 21.3.05.

PARLIAMENT: All the world is fed up with parliaments but no one has anything better to propose. The knowledge of having to drag this discredited institution as a necessary evil into the next century is depressing the emotions of the best people.” – J.Z. tr.of: “Alle Welt ist parlamentsueberdruessig, aber niemand weiss etwas Besseres vorzuschlagen, und das Bewusstsein, diese missachtete Einrichting als notwendiges Uebel ins neue Jahrhundert mit hinueberschleppen zu muessen, lasted drueckend auf den Gemuetern der Besten.” – Hartmann, Zur Zeitgeschichte, S.39. – - To each and everyone of the voters, tax payers and other subjects of the territorial State at first the right to secede and then the right to choose or form the kind of parliament or other governmental or societal management institution, including direct democracies, participatory democracies, monarchies, diverse anarchies or libertarian societies of any kind - except any with any territorial monopoly or any compulsory members or subjects – criminals with victims and other aggressors excepted. - As much freedom in this sphere as exists already in most countries in the sphere of religions. – J.Z., 11.12.85, 23.3.08, 23.1.11, 2.1.12, 1.7.12. [Odd computer behavior: When I started it this morning, it still indicated as the date 30.6.12 for a while. Only some hours later did it indicate the correct date: 1.7.12. – J.Z.]

PARLIAMENT: Just another temple for the compulsory “representation” of a whole population, a place of worship and practice of immoral and irrational power, ideas and opinions, the passing of intolerant and unjust laws, the establishment of institutions based upon ignorance, errors and prejudices, in stupid attempts to provide improvements to natural laws and individual human rights and liberties. If all their laws and all their institutions applied only to volunteers, i.e., if they renounced their territorial domination powers, this would be quite another matter. They could then not wrong their own volunteers, since they volunteered, but merely harm them. And their volunteers would be free to opt out from under them, when they had finally learnt their lessons. – J.Z., 14.4.95, 23.3.08. – If any parliaments at all, in any country, then as many of them as there are diverse dissenting groups in that country, provided each is satisfied with its parliamentary representation. They should all have to compete, like e.g. insurance companies and protective agencies, for subscribers, transport companies for passengers and supermarkets for buyers. – J.Z., 23.3.08. – No territorial privileges to any parliament, either! – J.Z., 1.7.12.

PARLIAMENT: Parliament is nothing but 2 minutes of illusory power.” – Joe Toscana, 20.1.95. – Obviously, from the point of view of the voter, whose vote, usually, is only one among many and as such it counts for very little, while individual secessionism could count very much for him and that permanently. – J.Z., 23.3.08. – VOTING, REPRESENTATION, DEMOCRACY

PARLIAMENT: parliament takes very little heed of petitions.” – M. Beer, History of British Socialism, p. 39. – It also pays very little heed to many other individual rights and liberties as well. Among them the right to petition anyone is, possibly, the least important one. The unarmed and militarily unorganized and untrained voter can usually be safely ignored. As Ulrich von Beckerath used to remark: In the eyes of the rulers he is merely a comical figure. – Once the voters got the full franchise, including to vote themselves out of this subordination, then many would, at least by and by and one by one, opt out, so that, finally, these defections would be greatly felt e.g. in the fall of revenues. – Further, the competition from successful competitors, practising their alternatives exterritorially, i.e. in the same countries but only among their volunteers, would also make itself felt. – Territorial, centralistic, coercive and monopolistic politics as usual could no longer go on and on. – Then each voter would also have THE decisive vote on his own future and conditions. – So far we are all disfranchised in this respect and only got “their” “free” “vote”, a territorial, collectivist, coercive and sometimes even compulsory one, rather useless, in most cases, for anything quite rightful and rational for oneself and others. – There might even occur a sudden rush of secessionists, who simply want to get rid of their tax burden, or who do not wish to be conscripted. - J.Z., 23.3.08, 23.1.11, 2.1.12, 1.7.12. – VOTING, OPTING OUT, IGNORING THE STATE, WITHDRAWING FROM IT, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM.

PARLIAMENT: Parliamentarism, voting, territorial legislation, and xyz government offices and services are not sufficient substitutes for genuine self-government, including freedom to experiment or freedom to act for all groups, communities and societies of volunteers, under their own personal laws and under full exterritorial autonomy, always only at their own risk and expense and without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 30.7.98. - Then the belief in progress would become rekindled and rapidly backed up by successful experiments of this kind. Each group could then advance at its own speed, in its desired direction. Or stagnate or even go backwards, if its members desired that. – However, in the average progress would be achieved as fast as possible, or so I do believe. – J.Z., 23.3.08. – Pioneers would be free to race ahead of all others with their schemes, unhindered by the ignorance and prejudices of the others. – J.Z., 1.7.12. - GENUINE DEMOCRACY & SELF-DETERMINATION, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PROGRESS, PIONEERS, PREJUDICES, IGNORANCE

PARLIAMENT: The apparently paradoxical fast is that a nominally all-powerful assembly – whose authority is not limited to, or rests on it committing itself to, general rules, - is necessarily exceedingly weak and wholly dependent on the support of those splinter groups which are bound to hold out for gifts which are in the government’s command. The picture of the majority of such an assembly united by common moral convictions evaluating the merits of the claims of particular groups is of course a fantasy; it is a majority only because it has pledged itself, not to a principle but to satisfying particular claims.” – F. A. Hayek, Whither Democracy? – QUADRANT, 11/76, page 75. – Hayek did not see or declare that this behavior is one of the inevitable consequences of territorialism. Voluntary communities, that are only exterritorially autonomous, would have common principles and beliefs holding them together, making their decisions practically unanimous on all fundamental matters. – J.Z., 15.2.08. – LOBBIES, PRESSURE GROUPS, SPECIAL INTERESTS, LEGISLATION, CORRUPTION, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES VS. POWER & COMPULSION

PARLIAMENT: There are few positions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperate passions, and regulate the fluctuations of the a popular assembly.” – Alexander Hamilton, Speech in the Convention in New York, June 24, 1788. – Why should there be only one such body? And why should anyone have to be dependent upon a popular assembly, if it is not popular with him? – J.Z., 23.8.08. – The public discussion and decision-making power on most important matters should certainly not monopolized in any territorial body for all of the population, not even if all the elected representatives were really “angel” and not all too fallible and power-addicted humans – J.Z., 1.7.12. - Q., TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISM, POWER, REPRESENTATION

PARLIAMENT: Why not a legislative house whose sole duty is to repeal laws? – Suggestion by Robert Heinlein in “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress”. – But I for one would prefer the option for individuals and minorities to simply opt out of all present laws and other territorialist institutions. – J.Z., 23.3.08. No one and no group ever knows what is best, rightful, liberating, encouraging and suitable for all other individually sovereign people in a whole population. Most of their legislative output and its consequences to clearly prove that. Good intentions are not good enough in that sphere, either. Diverse talk-shops and full experitmental freedom for all! – J.Z., 1.7.12.

PARLIAMENTARISM: Not by speeches and decisions of majorities will the greatest problems of the time be decided - that was the mistake of 1848-49 - but by iron and blood.” - Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, impromptu speech to several ministers and deputies of the Prussian House of Delegates, September 29, 1862. - Rather, by tolerance for self-concerned and diverse actions of volunteers, i.e. by experimental freedom in the political, economic and social spheres. Let the good solutions drive out the bad ones. Do no longer enforce the realization and maintenance of the usually pretentious and territorial non-solutions upon whole populations. Finally do recognize individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. The more you do so, the less you will have to fight to protect your genuine rights and liberties. - J.Z., 13.10.02, 2.1.12. - Not that there were many States, Kingdoms and Principalities in Germany was the problem but that they were territorially organized and practised e.g. protectionism, restricted migration and did not permit individual and group secession and voluntary exterritorial autonomy. Bismarck's unified Germany, established by wars, led straight to WW I & WW II. - "It's not all brute strength and stupidity!" - said a captain to his rowers. Alas, for territorialist regimes it largely is. Add to this its wrongfulness. - J.Z., 27.11.02, 24.1.12. – Which great questions was really positively solved by Bismarck’s method? I do not know of a single one. – J.Z., 7.3.09, 23.1.11. – One anvil under one hammer, united will Germany stand. The cries of joy will be followed by the wailing of despair. – My rough translation of a part of a poem by George Herwegh, long before WWI, WWII, the Soviet- and the Nazi regime. – J.Z., 1.7.12. - DIS., MAJORITIES, DECISION-MAKING, UNITY, TERRITORIALISM, PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS, VIOLENCE, FORCE, COERCION, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, UNITY, UNIFICATION

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM: We need quite fundamental reforms of citizenship and State organization much more so than we need piddling parliamentary reforms. The latter are only as significant as "reforms" at the court of absolutist monarchs could be. Confining all reforms to reforms of and through parliaments, to the extent that they are possible and desirable, may take years to decades and has in some cases (e.g. the corn- and truck laws) taken centuries of largely wasted efforts. Moreover, even the best reforms are then usually incomplete and temporary, i.e. all to soon reversed, with the same mistakes repeated over and over again, sometimes for thousands of years. (E.g.: monopolism, protectionism, price and wage controls, slavery. It has even sanctioned mass extermination devices, i.e., anti-people "weapons" in the hands of "democrats".) Through this kind of experimentation, limited by the number of territorial governments existing at any time, we cannot rapidly enough evaluate and reject wrongful and false experiments, at least the enlightened individuals and minorities cannot do so for themselves. In this way the more or less prejudiced, ignorant and misled majorities cannot become fast enough enlightened by a few enlightened and liberated pioneers and their free actions and experiments. (The conventional and territorial political process largely merely institutionalizes and legalizes popular errors and prejudices. - J.Z., 19.9.04.) Reforms and even revolutions via tolerant, because exterritorially autonomous experiments among volunteers only, can be realized (apart from contrary constitutions, laws, jurisdiction, popular errors and spleens and the self-interest of the territorial power-holders) almost instantly, risking only a minimum or resources, and manpower, those of the volunteers, and they could also, in case of successes, be copied almost instantly and would tend to be widely and soon imitated, for success convinces better than arguments do. If quite rightful and beneficent, then they would also tend to last forever, at least among the volunteers, who would have to be exterritorially autonomous. No lesser autonomy is rightful or sufficient. - J.Z., 21.7.91, 13.1.93, 8.9.04, 19.9.04, 2.1.12, 1.7.12. - DEMOCRACIES, REFORMS, REPRESENTATION, TERRITORIALISM

PARLIAMENTS, REFERENDUM, SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY: We need a much better control of government taxation and spending than parliaments can provide. Referenda on such questions should be a minimal first steps and individual secessionism and associationism would be the ideal. - J.Z., 9.9.88. - Referenda, ideally, should apply the majority's decision ONLY to the majority, leaving the minorities free to do their things to themselves - or for themselves. - J.Z., 8.9.04. - Individual consumer sovereignty towards all decisions, services and institutions of territorial governments! No enforced consumption of and payment for territorial government services and disservices! - J.Z., 19.9.04. – REFERENDUM, DIRECT DEMOCRACY & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

PARLIAMENTS: A constitutionally, legally and juridically sanctified band or robbers, despots and con-men, serving their own ends while pretending to act for the common good. – J.Z., 22.11.93. – People like Ron Paul in the USA are rare exceptions among them and, to the extent that he is still a territorialist, he is also still part of the problem rather than part of the solution. – J.Z., 15.2.08. – I was glad to find, recently, a second opinion of his in favor of individual secessionism or consumer sovereignty when it comes to governmental “services”. – J.Z., 1.7.12. - REPRESENTATIVES, DESPOTISM, DEMOCRACY, REPUBLICANISM, POLITICIANS, RON PAUL

PARLIAMENTS: All parliaments, democracies, republics and other governments should rule only their own volunteers, with personal laws and institutions rather than territorial ones. Everything else is, basically, still despotic, even authoritarian, absolutistic and totalitarian in its territorial character. – J.Z., 13.9.07, 1.7.12. - & DEMOCRACIES

PARLIAMENTS: Are there any affairs really within the competence, as opposed to the power, of parliaments while States and laws are territorial and State membership or subordination to a State is compulsory? – J.Z., 30.10.93. Isn't the belief in this the same kind of spleen that upheld monopolistic and absolute monarchism, pretending also to be divinely inspired or imposed? Was there ever even a single ruler or genius, who was competent in every sphere an all-knowing one or one that was sufficiently informed on all the affairs, rights and liberties of his subjects? - J.Z., n.d. & 2.1.12. – Q.

PARLIAMENTS: Australia needs an anti-parties party. – J.Z., 17.10.74. – A party that opposes territorial rule by any party or coalition of parties, while it would advocate full exterritorial autonomy for any party and all its voluntary members. – J.Z., 17.2.08. - TERRITORIALISM, PARTIES, PANARCHISM

PARLIAMENTS: I found me a place where I can do good without doing any harm. – Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan, p. 132. (? – Edge cut off.) – That is certainly not a parliament. – J.Z., n.d. – A panarchy could do harm at most to its volunteers who favored its aims and methods, but not to outsiders. – J.Z., 17.2.08. – If parliaments were free to wrong and harm only their members and their followers … J.Z., 2.1.12. - PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, LAWS, TAXATION

PARLIAMENTS: Parliamentarians, too, whether left, right or centrist, democrats or republicans, even libertarians, do, as a rule, oppose every fundamental solution to the problems caused by territorialism, including the laws they had previously passed. Instead, they merely strive for more or less of the same exclusive territorial power to the State and be it only in the sphere of courts, police and defence. These ”freedom lovers”, too, not only the obvious political criminals in power, and their statist followers, provide the justification and the necessity for peaceful, constitutional and legal individual and group secessionism, based upon genuine individual rights and liberties, to escape their territorial rule. – J.Z., 7.4.04, 19.10.07, 1.7.12. - REPRESENTATIVES, TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY & SECESSIONISM, POLITICIANS, LIMITED GOVERNMENTS, REFORMS, REPRESENTATION.

PARLIAMENTS: Parliaments are a conspiracy against the people, manacling them with territorial laws and institutions, under the false pretence of representing all their subjects, protecting them and promoting their welfare, liberty, rights and security. - J.Z., 77, 25.1.11, 2.1.12, 1.7.12.

PARLIAMENTS: Parliaments are often worse than school-boy debating clubs. They are also much worse in their consequences - because they can territorially enact their ignorance, prejudices, confusion and malicious and exploitative intentions into laws, under fancy and misleading terms, which are territorially imposed on everyone in “their” country, treating their subjects more or less as children or even as property, while pretending to be their public representatives and servants, protectors and providers. – All of them could rightfully represent only their volunteers – as long as they still have any. - J.Z., 73, 25.1.11, 30.12.11, 2.1.12, 1.7.12. – GOVERNMENTS, RULERS, PARTIES, REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS BUREAUCRATS, LAWS, WELFARE STATE

PARLIAMENTS: Private parliaments, discussion and debating clubs, without any legislative power, are more useful, more productive and less destructive and immoral than are the official parliaments, territorially established for whole populations. – J.Z., 26.7.93, 18.2.08. - However, even private "juntas" in South America, as mere discussion clubs of the discontented, reformers and revolutionaries, tended to develop into territorial parliaments and governments, probably because their members knew of nothing better and quite rightful. - J.Z., 2.1.12.

PARLIAMENTS: The difference between death and taxes is, death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets. – Will Rogers. – But it might occur more frequently and all too early - because of parliamentary sanctioned laws, prohibitions, monopolies, decisions and orders, legalized and imposed poisons: fluoridation, xyz vaccinations, chlorides in the public water supply, their treatment of a natural foods like milk, gene modifications, dumping of radioactive materials and the use and spread of thousands of poisons they have allowed, always with the “best intentions”, overwork through tax burdens, meddling bureaucratic institutions (leading e.g. to long waiting lists for operations) and the often brutal police State actions, their wars and civil wars, their terrorism (e.g. more or less indiscriminate bombing), the violent revolutions and private terrorist acts, which they do also cause, with their wrongful territorial interventions and, ultimately, by e.g. a general nuclear war, all too well prepared by them. – All their interferences go far beyond a joke. – J.Z., 1.7.12. - CONGRESS, DEATH, TAXES, JOKES

PARLIAMENTS: The salaries of all parliamentarians should rise and fall in inverse proportion to government spending and all their financial deals should be subject to public scrutiny. – J.Z., 14.8.87. - The more they spend of our monies or future earnings, via government debt certificate issues, to be redeemed in the future, out of future taxes, or repayable only in greatly inflated governmental monopoly money, the less they should get in salaries, expenses and perks. However, most importantly, we should be free to secede from them, their laws and other institutions. – Proper incentives have not even been institutionalized, so far, in most private corporations either - for their managers or, rather, their mismanages. Power corrupts the powerful - there, too. We should be quite free to establish other institutions and communities, societies or competing governments for ourselves, also other corporations, more to our liking, regardless how different they are from the present ones, all of them, naturally, without any territorial monopoly and no longer recognizing the territorial monopoly States of parliaments or open despotisms. - J.Z., 22.2.08, 2.1.12, 1.7.12. - POVERTY & TAXATION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

PARLIAMENTS: We need a much better control of government taxation and spending than parliaments can provide. Referenda on such questions should be a minimal first steps and individual secessionism and associationism would be the ideal. - J.Z., 9.9.88. - Referenda, ideally, should apply the majority's decision ONLY to the majority, leaving the minorities free to do their things to themselves - or for themselves. - J.Z., 8.9.04. - Individual consumer sovereignty towards all decisions, services and institutions of territorial parliaments and governments! No enforced consumption of and payment for territorial government services and disservices! - J.Z., 19.9.04, 1.7.12. - REFERENDUM, SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

PARLIAMENTS. We all wish to see the due investigation of abuses by Parliament. But there are limits to the omniscience and omnipotence even of Parliament; and if its myriad-faceted eye is to be turned sleeplessly on every act of the entire human and animal race, if every fact recorded in the daily newspapers is the fit subject of a night’s debate, we need a thousand Parliaments all sitting simultaneously and in permanence to get through the work.” - Frederic Harrison, in Goodwin’s anthology “Nineteenth-century Opinion”, p.252. - Reforms and experiments in political, social and economic matters are everybody's affairs and can best be practised among volunteers only and at their expense and risk. Confining decisions on such affairs to a few dozen or a few hundred "representatives" in any parliament is as absurd as confining progress in the arts, in literature, in technology and natural sciences to decisions in parliaments. The absolute and territorial "monarchism" or territorial autocracy of parliaments over the population of whole countries must be ended as well - if freedom, justice, peace, progress, prosperity and security are to be achieved. - J.Z., 24.1.11, 24.1.12, 1.7.12. - PROGRESS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, REPRESENTATION

PARSONS, THEOPHILIUS, The personal law & property rights of a citizen of the U.S. How to exercise and how to preserve them..., Hartford, S.S. Scranton, Hillsdale, Michigan, 1878. T. P.: 1797-1882. -  For the book title, without quotation marks, I get today 7.69 million Google search results. The first one: The Political, Personal, and Property Rights of a Citizen of the ... - Google Books Result - - Theophilus Parsons - 2004 - History - 744 pages. - How to Exercise and How to Preserve Them Theophilus Parsons ... But as naturalization made a man a citizen, and a citizen of one State was a citizen ... was made to giving to the United States the exclusive power of naturalization. ... But as citizenship of itself gives no right of suffrage, that must depend upon the law of the ... – Putting the title in quotation marks, I get only two results: my own hints. But “Theophilus Parsons” brings me 40,800 results! – Does it offer personal law information of interest to panarchists? - J.Z., 1.7.12.

PARTICIPATION, SEPARATISM, ABSTENTION, INITIATION, INFLUENCE: Only by taking part in events can we hope to exercise any influence." - Poul Anderson, "Iron, II", "NEW DESTINIES", Spring 87. - Should we, therefore, all participate in preparations for a nuclear holocaust or one with biological or chemical mass murder devices? Should we participate in alcoholism, smoking and other drug abuses, in over-eating, in causing inflations and deflations etc.? - Only by freedom to initiate alternatives and to escape territorialist decisions, actions, institutions and events can we hope to exercise any positive and significant influence. - Participation or submission to them cannot help us much or not enough, in many to most cases. - J.Z. 20.6.89, 10.12.03, 2.1.12. - Abstention can be as powerful, especially in case of massive desertions of individual soldiers and of individual secessionism from warlike or oppressive regimes and through separate peace treaty or individual neutrality declarations. - J.Z., 5.4.91, 12.1.93. - Any compromise with evil is a step away from the good. One cannot achieve the good or the best for all but one can and should try to realize it for oneself and achieve a framework that would allow everyone to make that choice for himself. - J.Z., 12.1.93, 8.9.04, 19.9.04.  – Participation in victimization should be distinguished from participating as a victim or as part of the resistance against victimization. – J.Z., 21.4.08. – However, bad experiences by oneself or others CAN convey valuable lessons. There should be freedom for volunteers to engage in them. – J.Z., 1.7.12. - DIS. - SEPARATISM, ABSTENTION, INITIATION, INFLUENCE, PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY, DESERTION, DEFECTION, DISOBEDIENCE, REVOLUTIONS, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, SECESSIONISM, DIS., LOYALTY, OBEDIENCE, SUBMISSIVENESS, RESISTANCE, LIBERATION, VOLUNTARISM, FAILURES, SUCCESS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

PARTICIPATION: The cumbersome, inefficient and enfeebling bureaucratic ‘welfare’ state should also come under the surgeon’s knife. True participation means entrenching the rights of ordinary citizens to free choice in the education of their children, in the home they live in, and in their pension, insurance and health provision.” – Dr. Rhodes Boyson, 1985, VII. - And in the government and legislation that they live under. While this cannot be realized territorially, it can be realized exterritorially, for personal law communities and societies and governance systems of volunteers. – Welfare States, too, but only for their volunteers! - J.Z., 17.2.08, 25.1.11, 1.7.12. – PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, PERSONAL LAW

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY & AUTONOMY: My own position is in favor of participatory democracy. ... None of this, of course, means that I would deny any other non-aggressive group of dopes the right to go ahead and have their own theocracy, representative democracy, monarchy, or what have you. It should be a matter of choice in a free society, and a free society, in turn, seems to me only possible in discrete units, communities, where a society is possible as opposed to a corporate state." - Karl Hess, undated letter to Martin Shepard. - Here he appears as a panarchist, after all, but still somewhat confused as to ends and means and closer to the collectivist anarchist than to the individualist anarchist position, i.e. without recognizing the right to individual sovereignty and to individual secession and of individuals to form new communities of volunteers. Nor does he seem to see clearly the exterritorial requirement and option. - J.Z., 15.6.92. - But then one should not judge a man by a single paragraph, far less an as important libertarian thinker as Karl Hess. - J.Z. 15.6.92, 13.1.93. – I met him only once, all too shortly, over 20 years ago. At that stage he had even forgotten that he had once advocated the use of microfilm for libertarian publishing. – J.Z., 22.1.12. – Here he may have had only small and decentralized utopian communities or intentional communities in mind, i.e. still territorial ones, on the basis of private or cooperative real estate ownership for a considerable number of people. Did he go clearly beyond that in others of his writings? – J.Z., 1.7.12. - EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, DECENTRALIZATION

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: Don't monopolize the power to prepare, start, end or prevent nuclear war! Don't make nuclear power a nationalized industry or a government option. Destroy all such powers and preparations. Allow everyone freely to act to prevent nuclear war and thus to help preserve his life and that of his beloved. To work towards a just, free and peaceful society is not only a right, but a duty - for every sufficiently reasonable being. - Any "democracy" or "republic" in which decision-making on war and peace, armament and disarmament as well as on international treaties and on war and peace aims is monopolized, in a few hands, instead of such affairs being decided by the people, by individuals, for themselves, is in reality an authoritarian, even a despotic regime. (This was already pointed out by Kant, in his “Eternal Peace”, ca. 1795.) Never mind its democratic or republican trappings and pretences. - - We have been so conditioned by statist education systems that hardly anyone questions the wrongfulness of centralizing these excess powers and rendering all others powerless in these respects. - Self-defence, survival preparations, self-determination, cannot be rightfully and effectively delegated. Attempts to do so have always led to disasters and man-made catastrophes can be all the greater while ABC mass murder are available to anyone. No one has the right to determine whether mankind is going to survive or not. All such powers must be destroyed - together will all means and "weapons" for them. - See: APPEALS, CONSENT, DECISION, FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREE MIGRATION, FREE TRADE, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUALISM, MILITIA, MINORITY AUTONOMY, NEGOTIATIONS, PEOPLE, PEACE DECLARATIONS, REFERENDUM, REPRESENTATION, RESPONSIBILITY, SECESSION, SELF-HELP, SEPARATE PEACE, VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, VOTING, WAR AIMS, WEAPONS.  – J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS Nos. 16 & 17, on 1.7.12. - - J.Z.,

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” – Plato. - Governments are almost always manned by inferiors. Superior men would not want to dominate others. They would anyhow not be voted-in by inferiors and the superiors never almost never have the voting majority. Resistance to territorial politics should be distinguished from participation in it. Mass murders or mass murder preparations should be resisted and not participated in, if humanly possible. - Only participation in developing and applying the new science of the politics of exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of voluntary communities can here be considered even as a duty for a rational and moral being or, at least, as a good advice. - Should one also participate in wars or, rather, as far as possible, in measures to prevent or end them? - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. IN TERRITORIAL POLITICS AS USUAL? WARS, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, RESISTANCE, DIS.

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: Participation of the people in the government means, under territorialism, participation in the continuance of their own suppression. A coercive and oppressive system – which a territorial government with involuntary members inevitably is – leaves no other option. – J.Z., 23.6.87. - Participation in territorial governments is participation in one’s own enslavement. – J.Z., 7.12.93. - It means also participation in an official and country-wide robber band. – J.Z., 30.12.11.Only voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy can provide all the rightful participatory options with no one being territorially victimized. – J.Z., 1.4.08, 2.1.12. – DIS.

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has not right to complain.” - Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, p.189. – To make anything work properly it should be undertaken only by volunteers and merely under full exterritorial autonomy, i.e., under full experimental freedom. The participants in any voluntary organization or project should not have to depend upon the votes of outsiders, especially when these experiment e.g. with nuclear weapons or reactors, which would endanger other people as well. Only the voluntary participants in a project or community should have voting or other decision rights in it, as long as they remain within their sphere of genuine individual rights and liberties. Different interests and inclinations should be only voluntarily and exterritorially organized, either integrated or segregated, not by territorial compulsion. We do, as dissenters, have a good cause to complain about all territorial voting and other centralized decision-making and organizations and their actions. A compulsory participation in what we consider to be wrong or irrational is a great wrong in itself. – J.Z., 13.8.07, 1.7.12. - VOTING, TERRITORIALISM, DIS., DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: While better than the representative democracy, it is not yet the ideal form of government or society. Participation in any domination or collectivist coercive scheme, based on compulsory subjection to territorial laws and taxes, is not the equivalent to genuine self-government based upon individual sovereignty and voluntary membership. – J.Z., 21.11.82, 17.2.08.

PARTIES & PANARCHISM, BUDGETS & TAXES, SELF-RULE FOR EACH PARTY: Let party members and their voters tax themselves and spend the proceeds on their programs. Each group to autonomously run its own taxing and spending program, its own budget for its own purposes, its own system for itself, just like a church or sect, independent of the views of other believers or supposed experts and independent of the votes of others. If party leaders, followers and voters really believed in what their party supposedly has to offer, then they would explore and apply this system, for with it they could always win, as long as their party still has any followers, the exclusive rule over their own affairs. How ignorant and prejudiced they really are is demonstrated by their lack of interest in this freedom option. Like barbarians, they seem to prefer domination over dissenters, even at the bloody price of civil wars or of resistance through terrorism. - J.Z. 10.10.91, 13.1.93, 11.12.03.

PARTIES & PANARCHISM: Each party ought to get to rule and misrule, to tax or leave unmolested, to serve or abuse - all those of the citizens of a country and of the world who want to be ruled by it - and as long as they can stand it, i.e., do not secede from it, its constitution, laws, regulations, jurisdiction and other governmental institutions. - J.Z., 1.3.00, 26.6.01.

PARTIES & PANARCHISM: Parties to act only for and at the expense and risk of their voluntary members and voters. Each to establish a one-party State or society, quite autonomous, but this only exterritorially. Then they would become something like secular, voluntaristic, autonomous and exterritorial churches, each with its on voluntaristic constitution, laws, jurisdiction, administration, taxation and policing and penal system. - J.Z. 18.12.92, 4.1.93. - More freedom and opportunities for political parties - but no longer any tyrannical - because territorial, monopolistic and coercive options - for them. - J.Z., 8.12.03, 8.9.04, 19.9.04. – They would cease to be mere parts and become whole, in a healthy way. A new term might have to be invented for their new form and limited as well as quite rightful powers. – One party States – for volunteers only – to maximize their learning curve and minimize their criminality! - J.Z., 1.7.12. -  PARTY POLITICS & MONOPOLISM UNDER TERRITORIALISM, QUITE FREELY COMPETING PARTIES & THEIR FOLLOWERS

PARTIES TO RULE ONLY OVER THEIR FOLLOWERS: All parties do wrong - until they rule only over volunteers. - J.Z. 29.6.87. - That is the only way in which "party-rule" could ever become quite rightful. - J.Z., 12.12.03, 22.1.12.

PARTIES UNDER PANARCHISM: Under individual secessionism EVERY PARTY WOULD WIN, at the same time and in the same country, but only dominance, a non-territorial one, over its own members and voters, subject, again, to individual secessionism. - J.Z. 4 Sep. 89, 10.10.89.

PARTIES, EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS: Each party is only good enough ONLY for its followers and supporters and should have power only over them – limited by voluntary membership, exterritorial autonomy and individual secessionism. - J.Z. 17.6.87, 22.1.12, 1.7.12.

PARTIES, PARLIAMENTS & POLITICIANS: The whorehouses and prostitutes of territorial politics. But do they even succeed in making their customers at least temporarily sufficiently happy? And if they were bought, do they stay bought? Are they good enough substitute for free love and good marriage relationships? – At least the bought sex is bought under free individual contracts, by volunteers, while political “services” and disservices are country-wide imposed and financed out of compulsory tribute payments, called taxes. – So which is worse, from a moral point of view? – Territorial politics amounts, in my opinion, to country-wide gang rapes, all quite legalized. - J.Z., 31.12.11, 1.7.12. – DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION, VOTING, HAPPINESS, CONTENTMENT, FREE LOVE & GOOD MARRIAGES, Q., MAJORITY RULE

PARTIES, PARTY RULE, DEMOCRACY: Rather than splitting a country and its population into parties and their wards, their civil wars, their log-rolling and unsatisfactory compromises, let each party have an exterritorially autonomous "country" or, rather, protective association or community of its own, with voluntary members only and living under their own personal laws etc. - J.Z. 21.8.92, 4.1.93.

PARTIES, POLITICIANS & PANARCHIES: Panarchism means that all politicians and all parties could be in office, elected permanently into office - unless they blundered too much, even in the eyes of their own previous voluntary followers. - J.Z. 3.11.90, 1.7.12.

PARTIES, TERRITORIAL, VS. EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS PARTIES: Parties at most benefit their members and voters - at the expense of all others. They do prevent all the progress that could have occurred without territorial party rule. Their dependence upon numbers of votes assures that the most wide-spread errors and prejudices do largely determine their platforms, legislation, actions and institutions. - J.Z., 14.7.87, 2.4.89, 1.7.12. - Territorial parties could become rightful and useful parties only by becoming exterritorially autonomous parties for all their followers. - J.Z., 12.12.03. - Just look at the "intellectual" level of their electioneering slogans. To entrust any powers over dissenters to people wooing the majority of voters with as wrongful, primitive, flawed and incomplete notions, is quite immoral, irrational and irresponsible. - J.Z., 19.9.04, 22.1.12.  – VOTING, ELECTIONS

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

PARTIES, VOTING, ELECTIONS, POLITICIANS & PANARCHISM: Think about the reams of press reports on the recent Florida election fiasco. I doubt that a single one considered the possibility of letting BOTH of the major candidates win - although only rule over their voluntary followers and their tax contributions - and doing the same for all the minority candidates and also for all those minorities, which did not even bother to run any candidates. They should all have won complete exterritorial autonomy - upon request or declaration that they desired it for themselves. (That would also have removed any motive to cheat at elections. – J.Z., 22.1.12.) From then on they would have to foot their own bills in public affairs and negotiate e.g. their contribution to some facilities that they would at least temporarily still use together with members of other communities of volunteers and for some facilities that they would continue to use together, like roads. - Here the NRMA, National Road Motors Associations, many years ago, in criticizing the quality of the roads, modestly demanded that the government should allocate an extra 2% of its petrol tax take and add this to the amount it spent on roads, coming to only 5% of the petrol tax take. That slight increase in road spending, with a tiny fraction of the burden imposed upon road users, would suffice already, so the NRMA believed, to offer a satisfactory road supply and maintenance service! In the meantime, the official highwaymen still take much more in all kinds of taxes from motorists and their socialistic road supply and maintenance is still rather unsatisfactory in many to most cases. One exception: Federal politicians spent much upon the roads from Canberra to Sydney - because they often travel on it themselves! - J.Z., in email to GPdB., 25.1.01, slightly revised: 22.1.12.

PARTIES:  Party victories for all parties and without the need for election campaigns and majority approval. - Party Power – over Party People only! - Party Programs – for all their Party People only! - Pick your Party but for your life only! – J.Z., n.d. & 22.1.12.  Or for as long as you are willing to put up with it. – J.Z., 1.7.12.

PARTIES: A country with several, even dozens of political parties, all striving for territorial domination, is not a sufficient substitute for a one-party State or despotism. Only a country with dozens of even hundreds of different panarchies would be, because all of them would govern or manage only themselves while leaving all non-members alone, to do their own things under their own personal laws – J.Z., 12.5.08, 25.1.11.

PARTIES: A party is only a part. It should never rule the whole, a territory, country or continent and their whole populations but instead only itself and its voluntary members. This can be done as it often was in history, under exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 74, 2.1.12.

PARTIES: A political party gives birth to a party line as naturally as a cat has kittens.” – J. Neil Schulman, NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, Aug. 15, 1977. – Only as long as exterritorial autonomy for volunteers is not one of their options. Then they would split often enough to achieve finally, within the remaining factions of volunteers, almost unanimity on all subjects really important to them. – Under territorialism they have mostly of necessity (in their self-interest, to retain the approval of the majority of the least informed and most prejudice part of the population) to uphold the lowest common denominator among their members and voters. Otherwise they will not be reelected into power. - J.Z., 21.11.82, 17.2.08, 2.1.12, 1.7.12. - PARTY DISCIPLINE, CONFORMISM, LEADERSHIP, PARTY LINE

PARTIES: After political party memberships have already shrunk to a tiny percentage of the population, while their leaders have usurped, as law makers and party leaders, more and more legalized but wrongful and irrational powers to themselves, why don't we begin to ignore them altogether, opting out of their expensive and restrictive, wrongful and harmful circus performances and do our own things for and to ourselves, at our own expense and risk? We have driven them already, to a large extent, out of our private lives. Why not, likewise, out of the political, economic and social spheres which they have territorially preempted and then wrongly and irrationally mismanaged to an enormous extent, all at our own expense and risk? - J.Z., 24.5.00, 2.1.12, 1.7.12. - PANARCHISM, SECESSION, SELF-GOVERNMENT, OPTING OUT, POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, Q.

PARTIES: All common property on a compulsory basis has this inherent defect, that two parties tend to be formed, and to intrigue against each other for the management of it. Under a perfectly free system this defect is reduced to its smallest proportions; under a compulsory system it becomes an evil of the first magnitude.” – Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p.159. - TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY COLLECTIVISM, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, FACTION STRIFE, PROPERTY, SCHISMS, PARTY POLITICS AS USUAL, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

PARTIES: All parties do wrong - until they rule only over volunteers. - J.Z. 29.6.87. - That is the only way in which "party-rule" could become quite rightful. - J.Z., 12.12.03. – PARTIES TO RULE ONLY OVER THEIR FOLLOWERS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

PARTIES: All parties to act in future only for and at the expense and risk of their voluntary members and voters. Each to establish a one-party State or society or community but this only under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws like secular churches or sects, but quite autonomous in their own affairs, with all the secular institutions that they consider to be necessary for themselves. – J.Z., 18.11.92, 19.2.08. – This kind of one-party rule would be tolerable – for their volunteers and would not bother the others. – J.Z., 19.2.08. - PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SELF-GOVERNMENT

PARTIES: All parties, presently, want to retain or get into territorial power. Personally, I want none of them to keep or gain any power over me. But individualists like me might, perhaps, use the power urge of parties by advising one of them, a libertarian or panarchist party, to win, independence for its own members and followers, on the following platform: Refund to the taxpayers, collectively, tenfold to a hundredfold their voluntary and involuntary (as taxpayers) campaign contributions – in the form of reducing government expenditures and taxes correspondingly. To do so a party would naturally have to break the law on election contributions and expenditures until it can repeal this law. But the existing parties break it anyhow. This one might be honest about it and publicly declare that it will break this law. – This party might further declare that its functionaries would serve only part-time and honorary. – How could it reduce taxes? By liquidating all unnecessary and unjustified government expenditures and at the same time removing all restrictions and tax penalties on all activities which achieve the desired aims much better than subsidies out of tax revenues would and could: (1.) The housing subsidies to young couples instead of being increased should be cancelled. The young married couples would benefit more by the removal of interest rate restrictions (as lenders and as depositors), by an end to the forced loans (Up to 60 %) from their savings bank accounts, going into government insecurities, which they have later to repay to themselves in form of taxes!), by the removal of zoning restrictions, the sale of all crown land, the ending of inflation by permitting free choice of value standards and exchange media, i.e., the repeal of legal tender laws and all laws establishing the money issue monopoly, the repeat of fair rent laws and landlord and tenant acts. (2.) If the import duty on pre-fabricated housing and xyz other restrictions and burdens upon house constructions were removed, then housing could be achieved much more cheaply, perhaps, as Buckminster Fuller suggested, at the price of a new car. (3.) Full employment could be achieved through the methods of free banking and monetary freedom. (4.) If no death duties, company taxes, land taxes etc. were raised any longer then these and other financial freedom steps would promote private productive investments, especially since inflation, deflation and stagflation or economic crises would no longer occur - in the absence of financial despotism, legal tender paper money and of the money issue monopoly and of compulsory taxation. Good monies and value standards would be able to drive out the bad ones. (5.) No subsidies to airports (and other public works). Free enterprise airlines with rates to cover such costs. All public works to pay for themselves under free competition or to disappear. No subsidies to any enterprise. Sale of all nationalized enterprises to make further subsidies to them unnecessary. Shares in them to be distributed free of charge, apart from brokerage fees, to all citizens or taxpayers, as the real owners. No more subsidized public bus services. Instead, competitive better and cheaper private and cooperative transport services. (6.) No handouts to unemployed and other needy people. Instead, loans to be guaranteed by their next of kin, and right to work for old people and young people at a freely agreed upon wages and salaries. (Payable in agreed-upon alternative exchange media, clearing certificates or accounts and in alternative and self-chosen or agreed upon value standards.) Under conditions of full monetary freedom the transformation of ready for sale goods and services into sound monetary demand for them would become possible, sufficient for the employment of millions of additional employees and self-employed within days. (7.) No subsidies to education instead: freedom in education at a fraction of the cost. Half of the State revenues goe at present down this drain - with less and less real education as a result. (8) No subsidized immigration but free private migration. Then, under full employment due to full monetary, financial and other economic liberties, everyone would be benefit from it. (9.) No health and old age subsidies or taxes but also no interferences with private insurance and the investment of insurance funds. (10.) No ABC subsidies but freedom in broadcasting, commercial and cultural on a subscription or advertisement basis. (11.) If this party added the promise: We will not prosecute any tax evaders, and also offered the free distribution of all remaining governmental capital assets, it would become unbeatable at the polls. (12) However, it should claim no territorial monopoly or any privilege for the compulsorily introduction its program for the whole territory and all of its population but, instead, insist merely on individual and group secessionism for itself and all other parties, while favoring also peaceful coexistence with the tolerant realization of the programs of all other parties. All these changes are to take place only among voluntary members and at their expense and risk only. In other words, it should advocate different panarchies or polyarchies for all kinds of societies and communities of volunteers, all under their own personal laws and full exterritorially autonomous and federated only to the extent that they wish to be. – No imposed territorial unity but individual and group free choice, however diverse, as long as it is tolerant towards other tolerant individuals and groups. - J.Z., in notes from the middle 70’s, somewhat revised 16.4.08, 25.1.11, 2.1.11, 1.7.12. – TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, LIBERTARIAN PARTY

PARTIES: All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies. – John Arbuthnot, quoted in Richard Garnett’s Life of Emerson, 1887, p.165. - Do they really swallow all their own lies or do they merely mass-produce them, as long as they are widely accepted and, even later on, in the memoirs of their misleaders? - J.Z., 26.11.02, 1.7.12. - Alas, it takes them often all too long to disappear. – J.Z., 18.2.08. On the other hand, they readily adopt some other flawed and misleading platform point and political action, especially a new tax, as a supposed solution, sometimes even for a merely asserted problem, like global warming, supposed to be due to excess CO2 production by human activities. –J.Z., 1.7.12.  Lies will not be endlessly believed, even when they are endlessly repeated. - Perhaps they finally fade away as they can no longer cover the messes made by politicians. Alas, they will tend to be replaced by others, made up by territorial politicians trying to hold on to power or to gain it. – How could one accelerate their death as territorial parties and revive them only as exterritorial ones for volunteers? – (*) Then their governments would actually be one-party States, societies or communities – as long as they still had any volunteers. - J.Z., 20.11.85, 24.3.08, 25.1.11. - (*) On the other, hand, some of the lies on economics, of Stalin's and of Mao's regime, did, finally, die away. But think of the price to be paid for this in millions of lives and in liberties and rights, sometimes for decades. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 1.7.12. - POLITICIANS, LIES, LIARS, LYING, TERRITORIALISM, CONFINING EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM TO RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, PARLIAMENTS, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, “REPRESENTATIVES”.

PARTIES: All territorial parties are involved in endless power-struggles, rather than in free competition. – J.Z., 30.12.11. - Territorial monopoly claims are the opposite to free competition. - J.Z., 2.1.12.

PARTIES: All territorialist political parties act on “principle” in accordance with the slogan, not openly announced: “We like to spend your money our way!” – J.Z., 12/86. - TAXATION, SPENDING, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, POLITICIANS

PARTIES: Almost every political party is wrong on most points of its platform. All are wrong in wanting to realize their platforms territorially, over whole populations, including all kinds of dissenting minorities. – J.Z., 12.1. 00, 1.2.08. – POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, FACTIONS

PARTIES: An anarchist party? A party which, when in power, will pass a law cancelling all laws? Such a law will cancel itself. Anarchy is not available in the context of political activity, directly. – Moshe Kroy, free enterprise, 7.8.76. – But a panarchist party seems possible to me and it could gain the support of all other parties, with its program: Full exterritorial autonomy for the volunteers of all parties, under their own personal laws and institutions. – J.Z., 26.2.08. – ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM

PARTIES: As soon as a cause becomes organized it becomes corrupted. As soon as it becomes successful it becomes intolerable. Revolutions devour their best children.” – Eric Lambert, Glory Thrown In, p.16. - While this certainly applies to territorial organizations and movements with territorial ambitions, it does, I believe, much less apply to voluntary associations from which members can freely secede and which are only exterritorially autonomous, i.e. the members have to make contributions to all their expenses and cannot put their costs upon the shoulders of non-members, as happens with territorial taxation and legislation. – J.Z., 17.9.07. – Am I wrong? Please, check it out! J.Z., 1.7.12. - MOVEMENTS, POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, REVOLUTIONS BY TERRITORIAL STATISTS

PARTIES: At each election all parties should win – each of them: full autonomous rule over its voters. – J.Z. 7.10.78, 25.1.11. – Rather: At the last general election in any country, each party should win … - J.Z., 18.2.08, 2.1.12. – AUTONOMY, VOTING, PANARCHISM, ELECTIONS, WIN-WIN INSTEAD OF WIN OR LOSE.

PARTIES: Being fed up with conventional party politics does not necessarily mean that one should condemn all parties and their potential. Perhaps we need at least one new political party, one that would represent the producers and consumers as opposed to those, which represent only the looters and monopolists, e.g. the debtors at the expense of the creditors, just because the debtors are more numerous. Such a party would not extend the franchise to those who do not produce (or do not pay taxes) but instead merely hold their hands out to be filled by the more or less tribute-enslaved others. It would not grant handouts or subsidies to anyone, not even to old age pensioners. Let them sue the government into bankruptcy and liquidate all remaining government assets by forced sales, also for the pensioners’ benefit. - This party, different from all others, would represent the rights of owners and creditors as against those of tenants and debtors, the rights of taxpayers instead of the immoral claims of the tax gatherers. In short, it would attempt to replace status by contract, subordination by self-help. Compare the Libertarian Party. - Moreover, this new party should opt out of immoral party politicking by stating categorically that it does not claim and intend to represent and gain all individual liberties and rights for anyone but its members and voters. It would leave all others free to muddle through or fail at their own expense and risk – in their own kind of panarchies, even statist and State socialist ones. – In other words: Full exterritorial autonomy for the voluntary members of all parties. No more, but also not anything less. – Each group, society, community or governance system would then form an independent panarchy, with members not only in in one country but, possibly, spread out all over the world, if it wants to and people want to associate with it. – Only parties which raise territorial monopoly claims are quite wrong - to that extent. - J.Z., notes in middle 70’s, when there was an attempt to establish a libertarian party in Australia, under the name of Workers Party, later Progress Party. Somewhat revised: 16.4.08, 25.1.11, 30.12.11, 2.1.12, 2.7.12.

PARTIES: Both parties are corpses; the country needs a live one.” – Thomas F. Bayard, quoted in Lysander Spooner, Works I, introduction to his A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard. – The more alive, active and energetic a political territorialist party is, the more wrongs will it commit and the more harm will it do and the more its programs will cost. – J.Z., 26.2.08. – The country and the people do not need anything - just like ghosts or gods. They are only fictitious entities. – J.Z., 21.4.08, 25.1.11, 2.1.12. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM, POLITICAL MYTHOLOGY

PARTIES: both parties were wrong, each in endeavoring to compel the other party to do what they considered the right thing.” – D. W. Brookhouse, quoted in Bob James, Australian Anarchism, p.9. – This kind of stand is the almost inevitable consequence of territorialism. – Let each party opt out and do its own things only to or for its own volunteers, on the only basis that makes this freedom possible: full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. Then they would, like businessmen, strive, more or less sensibly, to attract more customers to their system and services and to lose less of those they already have, simply by trying their best not disappoint but, rather, to satisfy them. Any disasters they would still cause by their actions would then be confined to their volunteers, their investors, customers, and subscribers. – J.Z., 25.2.08, 25.1.11, 2.1.12, 2.7.12.

PARTIES: Divide and rule.” – (Divide et impera.) - Anonymous Latin ancient political maxim, cited by Machiavelli. - Let people, down to individuals, divide themselves up as much as they please, into groups volunteers only, via free choices by individuals, then no one will any longer be able to rule all of them imperialistically. Only then will they come to genuinely rule themselves or become ruled according to their own individual preferences. - J.Z. 11.10.02, 2.7.12. – Exterritorially, under personal law and for volunteers only, that is possible, practicable, just, rational and economic. – J.Z., 30.12.11. - FACTIONS, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, DECENTRALIZATION, POLITICS, DEMOCRACY, POLITICIANS, RULERS, STATES, PLURALISM, IMPERIALISM

PARTIES: do not attempt any new political organization; …” - Garrison, quoted in Sprading, p.156. – He should have said: do not attempt any new territorial political organization. – J.Z., 18.2.08. – But do explore and try out all the exterritorial autonomy options that you do find attractive rather than repellent, until you find one that is quite satisfactory for you at your stage of enlightenment and experience. – J.Z., 2.7.12.

PARTIES: Each and every man’s “rights” being consistent and harmonious with each other and every other man’s “rights”; and all men’s rights being immutably fixed and easily ascertained, by a science that is open to be learned and known by all; a government that does nothing but “equal and exact justice to all men” (*) – that simply gives to every man his own, and noting more to say – has no cause and no occasion for any “political parties”. What are these “political parties” but standing armies of robbers, each trying to rob the other, and to prevent being itself robbed by the other? (**) A government that seeks to “do equal and exact justice to all men,” has no cause and no occasion to enlist all the fighting men in the nation in two hostile ranks, to keep them always in battle array, and burning with hatred towards each other. It has no cause and no occasion for any “political warfare,” any “political hostility”, any “political campaign”, any “political contests”, any “political fights”, any political defeats”, and any “political triumphs”. – Lysander Spooner. - How I wish that he left us a complete private draft of a declaration of individual rights and liberties! Perhaps he had, but it was burnt, together with others of his manuscripts, with Tucker’s library. – So it is up to us to attempt to produce such a declaration. - (*) As if any territorial government could do this, seeing, e.g., that there are a variety of justice systems, of which Spooner mainly advocated only one, the free jury system. – (**) They are allies in robbing the general population, taking alternatively leading positions in this common campaign. – Ideals or pretences of ideals do differ and under territorialism only one or the other can be realized. Thus parties are inevitably associated with territorialism or vice versa: territorialism is inevitably associated with political parties. – Territorially even the limited government ideal can’t be realized. It is suitable only for some kinds of freedom lovers, who want to at least reduce their statism to a few powers, which they still think to be justified, and not turn them into general “Welfare States” or one or the other form of open territorial authoritarianism or despotism for whole populations. - Underlining by me. - J.Z., 18.2.80, 2.1.12, 2.7.12. – LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY.

PARTIES: Each party is only good enough for its followers and supporters and should have power only over them. - J.Z. 17.6.87. - EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

PARTIES: Each party ought to get to rule or misrule, to tax or leave unmolested, to serve or abuse - only all those of the citizens of a country and of the world, who do want to be ruled by it - and as long as they are willing to put up with it, i.e., do not secede from it, its constitution, laws, regulations, jurisdiction and other governmental institutions and this either individually or in groups of like-minded dissenters, according to their own ideas, decisions and choices. - J.Z., 1.3.00, 26.6.01, 2.1.12, 2.7.12. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREE CHOICE AMONG GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

PARTIES: Each party should only be free to attempt to rule itself and the affairs of all its voluntary members. It should no longer be given the chance to rule territorially and by majority voting over all other parties and their followers and the rest of the whole population of a country. Then it would soon become clear how much or how little they can do with their own limited knowledge and ideas and at their own risk and expense. They would either learn fast from their own failures or more and more of their members and subjects would simply leave them. Then they would either disappear altogether or become quite insignificant political sects. For their present platforms they deserve nothing better. – J.Z., 12.5.08, 20.12.11. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT

PARTIES: EACH POLITICAL PARTY TO BECOME EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS FOR ITS OWN MEMBERSHIP & VOTERS: The Labor people deserve a Labor government, the Liberals a Liberal government. Exterritorially both could have the government of their choice at the same time and in the same country. That should be enough and a just punishment for both of them. – J.Z., 15.3.93. - Self-government should even be applied to the defeated i.e. outvoted parties. They should not just be given a minor role as "loyal" and obedient opposition. - Why should the defeated parties be deprived of self-government? - J.Z., 13.10.04. – Q., SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION – FOR ALL PARTIES

PARTIES: Each to get only the party he deserves in power over him – because he voted for it. Each and everyone to get only the government or society that he deserves, because he voted for it. Just as he “voted” for any particular insurance, business or marriage partner or any particular job on offer to him. – J.Z., 1985 & 24.3.08. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREE CHOICE AMONG GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES

PARTIES: Every party is unfit to govern anyone but the own members and voters. – Then all would get what they deserve: their own choice. - J.Z., 13.9.75. – When thus reduced in power, but quite independent in their own affairs, then only might they really do their best, rather than their worst, as exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, under personal law, by either setting shiny examples for others to follow – or deterrent ones. Both kindsare needed for their own enlightenment and that of outsiders. – J.Z., 26.2.08, 2.7.12.

PARTIES: Every party’s platform is a scaffold. – Bob Black, THE CONNECTION, 147, p.48. – Multiple and freely competing panarchies would offer scaffolds only as one suicide option. To other people they would offer springboards of the kind they prefer, into the waters or vulcanos they like. To some of them even the sky would be no limit. They would systematically strive for complete freedom, life extension to immortality and the stars. No longer being taxed by the ignorant and prejudiced, exterritorially quite autonomous, they could, between them, afford to finance their dreams. E.g., the technology exists to cheaply combine and duplicate all freedom writings on a single HDD of 1 to 3 TBs. Only much voluntary scanning and proof-reading input is required, apart from copyrights restrictions, which could be bypassed e.g. via summaries, reviews, and indexes or simply ignored by some panarchies, as not being part of their personal law. – J.Z., 22.2.08, 2.7.12. – TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS, STATES, PANARCHISM, CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PROGRESS, COPYRIGHTS

PARTIES: Finally, the polls show that people are at last beginning to understand that there really is no distinction between the two major parties. Doesn’t every candidate urge you to vote? Doesn’t every candidate urge you to pay your taxes? Doesn’t every candidate talk about helping the “poor”? Doesn’t every candidate endorse obeying laws, regardless of whether those laws are moral? It is rarely a matter of different principles; it is virtually always a case of debating over the degree to which each candidate exhorts you to adhere to traditional government doctrine. – If half the people in this country are not voting, it is fairly obvious that they are trying to tell the government something. But the government, instead of being responsive to the people whom it supposedly represents, retaliates with an endless barrage of slogans, the essence of which are, “It’s your duty to vote.” To say the least, the politician has a closed mind when it comes to the nonvoting phenomenon.” – Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.59. – As for the last sentence: Not quite. A number of States, including Australia, have introduced the absurdity of compulsory voting. So far only informal voting is a way out of this compulsion. Maybe the next step of politicians will be to do away with secret voting? – With regard to our exterritorial autonomy choices all of us remain disfranchised. “The” vote does not include that individual vote and choice. - J.Z., 17.2.08. – To the extent that some panarchies of volunteers do still engage in one form of voting, then at least for them there would be no good reason to keep the votes secret. – J.Z., 2.7.12.

PARTIES: Football and soccer games remind me of party politics. No matter which team wins or loses – it’s all the same silly, time- and energy wasting game. But – at least in sports – there are only voluntary victims. – J.Z., 31.12.??, 2.7.12. (Illegible!) - SPORTS, GAMES, VOLUNTARISM, ELECTIONS, VOTING, SPORTS GAMES, CAMPAIGNS, POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM

PARTIES: For years, the Republican response to Democratic spending initiatives has been to do the “fiscally responsible” thing and vote tax increases to pay the bills. Democrats spend, Republicans tax, and those who are not too impressed with either the spending or the taxes have left both parties in droves. It wasn’t always so, and the greatest political and economic successes of each party have been the periods when the pattern was broken. The Coolidge prosperity combined drastic tax cuts with a freeze on federal spending; John Kennedy did the same in fiscal 1965. Recent events suggest that we are once again entering an era in which good economics will also be good politics.” – Alan Reynolds, reason, 12/78. - Territorial statists remain every hopeful, no matter how small their chances. – Ayn Rand imagined that good economics could be combined with territorialism. – Economics is always a matter for individuals and competing firms. – All governmental territorial interventions, including taxation and government budget spending, amount to anti-economics. - J.Z., 18.2.08. – They are interferences with free exchange among free people. – J.Z., 2.7.12.

PARTIES: Full exterritorial autonomy for your party - and for mine! - J.Z., 74, 25.1.11. - PANARCHISM

PARTIES: Governments of the parties, through the parties and for the parties. – J.Z., 4.10.92. - REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, RULERS

PARTIES: Helen Boyle, a Sydney Aboriginal activist, said trying to reform the ALP was ‘like trying to reform a crocodile from the inside.” …” - HONI SOIT, 3.6.86. – WORKING FROM THE INSIDE, FABIANISM, INFILTRATION, SUBVERSION

PARTIES: I am not opposed to all parties. On the contrary, I wish full exterritorial autonomy for all of them. I am only opposed to any territorial monopoly for any of them. - J.Z., 5.11.02.

PARTIES: I lay my bets against all parties except the one which will do away with all parties by offering all of them full exterritorial autonomy and then abdicating itself from all territorial rule, once this, its main aim has been achieved. – J.Z., 8.11.75, 2.1.12, 2.7.12.

PARTIES: If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance to keep the public functionaries within the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends.” - William Henry Harrison. - They, and the territorial system upon which they are based, have made possible the powerful and destructive careers of many bad men. Because men are flawed we cannot risk giving any of them TERRITORIAL power over others. Exterritorial powers given to them must be by volunteers prepared to be used and abused by their self-chosen leaders or gurus, as long as their victims are individually prepared to put up with them. - J.Z., 11.10.02, 24.11.02, 7.3.09, 2.7.12. - & TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

PARTIES: In short, the players change but the game is always the same. … The choice is never between complete freedom and restriction of freedom. Political debates, when stripped of politicalese, always boil down to discussions of whose freedom should be increased or decreased and to what extent.” - Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.63. – That should always be subject to individual decision-making on the own affairs only. – J.Z., 17.2.08.

PARTIES: It is in America that we see best how there takes place this process of the state power making itself independent in relation to society … we find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternatively take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends – the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate and plunder it.” – Engels, in his 1891 preface to The Civil War in France, quoted by Ralph Raico, JLS, Summer 77, p.180. - Such a trend is inevitably connected with territorialism. – However, even the worst two-party State is usually much better than any one-party State. - J.Z., 17.2.08. - Unless, of course, this is an exterritorially autonomous government for its own volunteers only. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 2.7.12. - POWER, STATE & SOCIETY, POLITICIANS, CITIZENS, PEOPLE, TERRITORIALISM.

PARTIES: it is of no consequence what the principles of any party, or what their pretensions are; the spirit which actuates all parties is the same, - the spirit of ambition, of self-interest, of oppression, and (of in another version! - J.Z.)  treachery. This spirit entirely reverses all the principles, which a benevolent nature has erected within us; all honesty, all equal justice, and even the ties of natural society, the natural affections. – Parties in religion and politics make sufficient discoveries concerning each other to give a sober man a proper caution against them all.” – Edmund Burke, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.66. – Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society, p.57.  - Only once they are confined to exterritorial autonomy, each for all its volunteers only, would they cease to be essentially wrongful political parties and become rightful and self-governing institutions. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM

PARTIES: Let each party struggle only for the benefit of its own members and voters - and exclusively at their expense and risk. This would end all party struggles and replace them by peaceful and non-coercive competition. - J.Z., On Tolerance.

PARTIES: Let parties rule - over their own followers - but never over even a single non-aggressive and non-criminal dissenter. - J.Z., 74, 30.12.11.

PARTIES: Let party members and their voters tax themselves and spend the proceeds on their programs. Each group to autonomously run its own taxing and spending program, its own budget for its own purposes, its own system for itself, just like a church or sect, independent of the views of other believers or supposed experts and independent of the votes of others. If party leaders, followers and voters really believed in what their party, supposedly, has to offer, then they would explore and apply this panarchist system, for with it they could always win, as long as their party still has any followers, the exclusive rule over their own affairs. How ignorant and prejudiced they really are is demonstrated by their lack of interest in this freedom option. Like barbarians, they seem to prefer domination over dissenters, even at the bloody price of civil wars or of "resistance" through terrorism. - J.Z. 10.10.91, 13.1.93, 11.12.03, 1.1.12. - PANARCHISM, BUDGETS & TAXES, SELF-RULE FOR EACH PARTY

PARTIES: Let the Labor people have a Labor Party government, exclusively to themselves, and let the Liberal people have a Liberal Party government exclusively to themselves. - J.Z., 74.

PARTIES: Let us then, who have the [made or suffer under the? – J.Z.] great mistake, let us try to redeem it; let us show the people that there is a nobler, happier form of life than to live as two scrambling, quarrelling crowds, mad for their own immediate interests, void of all scruple or restraint. Let us shake ourselves free from this miserable party fighting; let us speak only in the name of the great rights, the great all-guiding, ever enduring principles; let us oppose the power of some men over other men, as a thing that is in itself morally untrue, untrue from every higher point of view, that is lese-majesté as regards all the best and noblest conceptions of what we are – being gifted with free responsible souls – as the source of hopeless confusion and scramble and injustice; …” - Auberon Herbert, Spencer and The Great Machine. - - Alas, A. H., too, did not leave us his draft of a declaration of all the great individual rights and liberties and still believed in the possibility of a single territorial free nation, united by ideals that he had but that the statists do not share, at their stage of development. – That scramble and injustice is inseparately connected to territorialism. – If A. H. had attempted his own draft, he would have noticed some disagreements even between him and H. S. - J.Z., 18.2.08. – HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, LIMITED GOVERNMENT

PARTIES: Let's turn the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, and all other parties into something like political churches, i.e., organizations for voluntary members and voluntary tax payers only. - J.Z., 74.

PARTIES: Look at the picture that you may see today in every country in Europe. Nations divided into two or three parties (*), which are again divided into several groups, facing each other like hostile armies, each party intent on humbling and conquering its rivals, in treading them under their feet, as a conquering nation crushes and tramples on the nation that it has conquered. What good, what happiness, what permanent progress of true kind can come out of that unnatural, denationalizing, miserable warfare? Why should you desire to compel others; why should you seek to have power – that evil, bitter, mocking thing, which has been from of old, as it is today, the sorrow and curse of the world – over your fellow-men and fellow women? Why should you desire to take from any man or woman their own will and intelligence, their free choice, their self-guidance, their inalienable rights over themselves; why should you desire to make of them mere tools and instruments for your own advantage and interest; …” – Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p. 315/16. – (*) Actually, in most countries the members of their political parties form only a very small part of the whole population. The voters for them do, usually, form a much larger part. – J.Z., 2.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, SUPPRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, COLLECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY, POWER, NATIONALISM, NATIONAL UNITY

PARTIES: More freedom and opportunities for political parties - but no longer any tyrannical - because territorial, monopolistic and coercive power and domination options for them. - J.Z., 8.12.03, 8.9.04, 19.9.04, 13.2.08. - PANARCHISM

PARTIES: Most of "party politics" and faction strife and personality cults will end once all parties and movements can freely become exterritorially autonomous. - J.Z., 5.11.02.

PARTIES: No more parties, no more authority, absolute liberty of man and citizen – that is my political and social confession of faith.” – P. J. Proudhon, Confessions d’un révolutionaire, 1849. – No more party politics except party rule over party members only. No more authority except that unanimously supported by volunteers. Absolute liberty of men and citizens – if they want it or only as many liberties and rights as they do want for themselves - that is the political faith that I have adopted from much greater thinkers than myself. – J.Z., 2.11.85, 24.3.08.

PARTIES: No more party coalitions, leading to mutually compromised platforms and principles. Instead, exterritorial autonomy for all parties, all their factions and all their voluntary followers. – J.Z., 4.9.87, 21.2.08 – Perhaps this overly large collection should be broken up, by major topics, into a number of gradually growing electronic books, compiled by Internet readers adding their quotes and comments? In this fashion a few dozen subjects could become covered rather fast. Each a WIKIPEDIA on its subject! – J.Z., 14.3.09. If only we did apply sufficient division of labor between ourselves, in exploring, stating, discussing and clarifying all issues of liberty, justice, peace, progress and enlightenment and this with modern means, which are cheap, fast and powerful. Tens of thousands more or less separate libertarian and anarchist websites are not a sufficient substitute but, rather, attempts to set up and maintain numerous little principalities or even empires in the sphere of information. Thereby not even the providers of these websites, blogs and discussion groups do sufficiently enlighten themselves, in all too many cases. Digitally, we have here the same vain attempt to enlighten people as existed before via extensive personal correspondence, snail mailed, numerous books, all too limited libraries, a great number of newspapers, newsletters and broadcasting stations, all of which were and are quite insufficient to enlighten public opinion and even themselves. - J.Z., 2.1.12.

PARTIES: No more party coalitions, party strife, party conspiracies, party compromises or bending of principles in the interest of unity and power. Instead, exterritorial autonomy for all parties and all their followers. - J.Z. 4.9.87, 2.4.89.

PARTIES: No party does or can represent the whole population At best it can only represent and act for its voluntary members and voters, at their expense and risk only, while leaving all others alone. No present territorialist party is prepared to do that. They all want to dominate the rest of the population of a territory as well. To that extent all present political parties are wrong. – Trying to force a limited territorial government or any kind of anarchy upon statists is wrong, too. – J.Z., 4.10.98, 24.3.08, 2.1.12. - REPRESENTATION, LIBERTARIAN PARTY

PARTIES: No party is good enough to be granted any powers over others than its own members and voters and their tax contributions - and over those, who committed criminally aggressive acts against it or against any of its voluntary members and voters or any of its institutions and services. - J.Z., 20.6.92, 14.1.93, 8.9.04, 2.1.12. -  PANARCHISM

PARTIES: No party or majority has the mandate to deprive any minority or any individual of any of their rights - and vice versa. - J.Z., 75.

PARTIES: No sooner has one party discovered or invented an amelioration of the condition of man, or the order of society, than the opposing party belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it and persecutes it.” – John Adams: Letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 9, 1813. – Thus make each party exterritorially autonomous. – J.Z., 3.11.85. – Then it need not argue any longer but could let its successes speak for themselves. – One should imagine that all parties would rush for this better “mouse trap”. But they are still foolish and prejudiced enough not to do so. If they have no real improvement platform then that is understandable. But if they really believe in certain reforms, then that behavior is incomprehensible, for this method would be the fastest way for them to become successful for all their present and future supporters. They would only have to sacrifice their faith in territorialism, which only led them into permanent struggles, at great costs of money, time and energy to themselves, with never a chance for a permanent victory for themselves. – Their own territorialism is a Berlin Wall or even an Iron Curtain against their better options. - J.Z., 24.3.08, 2.1.12. - PANARCHISM

PARTIES: Nor am I about to suggest that a third party offers anything in the way of a solution. What we have in America are competing groups of organized brigands, each with its own favourites and each with its own bete noir, engaged in sacking and looting the property and income of all for the benefit of some, and most notably for the benefit of those who hold office.” – Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress. - All the problems of territorialism would remain. – Under the exterritorial autonomy and personal laws of voluntary communities there would at least always be the sanction of the victims. They would always have only satisfied customers. - J.Z., 18.2.08. – The unsatisfied ones would leave it in droves. – J.Z., 2.7.12. - THIRD PARTIES, POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM & EXTERRITORIALITY, TAXATION, POLITICIANS

PARTIES: Only parties striving for exterritorial autonomy for their members and supporters do promote freedom and rights for all. – J.Z., 3.11.85, 10.7.86, 24.3.08. – PANARCHISM

PARTIES: Panarchism means that all politicians and all parties could be in office, elected permanently into office - unless they blundered too much, even in the eyes of their own previous followers. - J.Z. 3.11.90. - POLITICIANS & PANARCHIES

PARTIES: Parallel governments with labor politicians for labor voters and liberal politicians for liberal voters – J.Z., 12.10.74. – And to all others their own choices as well! – This way everybody would win genuine self-government options for himself. - J.Z., 17.2.08. – PANARCHISM, PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, VOTING, ELECTIONS.

PARTIES: Parties allowed to command others than their own members and voters are as wrong and absurd as e.g. the allowing majority of consumers to command all the rest what to consume, how much of each item and when and where to consume it. – J.Z., 25.8.98, 24.3.08, 21.4.08, 25.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM & ITS COMPULSION VS. EXTERRITORIAL VOLUNTARISM & INDIVIDUAL CHOICES

PARTIES: Parties are not the answer and cannot be. They just continue in the internal sphere what externally leads to nuclear war. They are also pushing for wars when their kinds of people are suppressed in other countries. - - They do not offer services to willing buyers but are engaged in power games, planning for aggressions, oppressions and exploitation and engaging in it whenever they get the chance. Territorialism gives them that chance. They, in combination  with the territorial system, guarantee that the world population remains coercively organized in antagonistic groups, that either the majority or minorities will be more or less oppressed. They are unable to harmonize interests. Their compromises are at best temporary expedients, which do not settle anything and continue to antagonize all too many. They play zero-sum games rather than win-win games. - Parties will cease to be parties for more or less bloody civil or external wars and become harmoniously and peacefully coexisting organizations only once their powers become confined to their own members and voters, i.e. once one can escape their sphere of influence and power as easily after they have gained political power than before, i.e. when one can at any time ‑ at least after a giving notice, secede from their governments – unilaterally and individually, without thereby endangering a single of one's individual human rights and liberties. In case of crime or aggression against oneself or a member of one's own group of volunteers, one should be able to secede from its rule immediately. - Let parties freely rule ‑ but only over their members and followers ‑ but not ever over a single non-aggressive or non-criminal dissenter. - Under panarchism every party would win in every election: full exterritorial autonomy for itself and its voters. - - See: AUTONOMY, COEXISTENCE, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, LAISSEZ FAIRE, LAWS, LEADERSHIP, MAJORITY, MINORITY AUTONOMY, NATIONALISM, PARLIAMENTARISM,  POLITICIANS, POWER, REFERENDUMS, SECESSION, SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION, VOLUNTARISM, VOTING. . – J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS Nos. 16 & 17, on - Revised: 25.1.11, 2.1.12. - POLITICAL PARTIES

PARTIES: Parties are too busy obstructing each other to become constructive experimenters. - J.Z., 74. - Apart from the cases in which they do wrongfully force their flawed experiments upon the population of a whole country. Then they construct the modern types of costly "pyramids". - J.Z., 25.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PYRAMID BUILDING, HIERARCHIES OVER INVOLUNTARY VICTIMS

PARTIES: Parties at most benefit their members and voters - at the expense of all others. They do prevent all the progress that could have occurred without party rule. Their dependence upon numbers assures that the most widespread errors and prejudices do largely determine the contents of their platforms. - J.Z., 14.7.87, 2.4.89, 2.7.12. - Territorial parties could become rightful and useful parties only by becoming exterritorially autonomous parties for all their followers. - J.Z., 12.12.03. - Just look at the "intellectual" level of their electioneering slogans. To entrust any powers over dissenters to people wooing the majority of voters with as primitive and incomplete notions, is quite immoral, irrational and irresponsible. - J.Z., 19.9.04. - It is in no way better than the demagoguism or sophism we condemn in its historical practices, e.g. in the ancient Athenian republic, which was also a territorial regime, one tolerating even open slavery, conquests and colonialism. - J.Z., 2.1.12. -  TERRITORIAL, VS. EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS PARTIES

PARTIES: Parties have not only party fights between them but also faction and leadership struggles within them, all mainly caused by the power struggle inherent in territorialism. Not all of them are carried out publicly and not all of them are mere personality clashes. – To each party, party faction and aspiring leader the option of his own panarchy. Then they should be able to live in peace with each other, in peaceful and tolerant coexistence, merely competing with each other for more members or to retain their old ones. – J.Z., 21.7.87, 22.2.08.

PARTIES: Parties only argue on how much they are to tax us, in what ways and how to spend this loot – not whether they have the right at all to tax us and to spend “for us” in the first place, without our individual consent to each tax and each budget item. – J.Z., 17.6.87, 24.3.08.

PARTIES: Parties to act and rule only for and upon their own followers and at their own expense and risk. - J.Z., 11.8.91. They should have no more power over us and our monies than insurance companies have, with which we have contracted one or the other form of insurance. Granting anyone a vote over the affairs of all others, who are living in the same territory, is not democratic and liberating but despotic. - J.Z., 2.1.12. – VOTING, DEMOCRACY, DESPOTISM, MAJORITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM

PARTIES: Parties to act only for and at the expense and risk of their voluntary members and voters. Each to establish a one-party State, quite autonomous, but this only exterritorially. Then they would become something like secular, voluntaristic, autonomous and exterritorial churches, each with its own voluntaristic constitution, laws, jurisdiction, administration, taxation and policing and penal system. - J.Z. 18.12.92, 4.1.93.

PARTIES: Parties to rule only over and act only upon their own followers and subscribers. In that sphere they should be fully autonomous, as long as they let their dissatisfied members withdraw or secede freely from them. One-party rule for all, and all only by individual choice, and for all kinds of parties, all in the same territory or all over the world. – J.Z., 11.8.91, 20.2.08. – PANARCHISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDEPENDENCE, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

PARTIES: Parties today, as ever before, are war-makers, not cooperative or self-managing enterprises, as they should be. - J.Z., 74.

PARTIES: Parties turn most of us into losers, while being profitable, in power and money for their politicians, at the expense of their involuntary victims. Only a minority of their favorites do get - in form of privileges and hand-outs - more than they put in as taxpayers. It is a rigged shell-game, one with non-economic to anti-economic incentives and penalties. They take a State socialist common pig trough, compulsorily filled by tax slaves, for granted and then they do fight like pigs for “their share” of it. It amounts to a kind of partly representative State Socialism, in which, usually, only the least informed and most ignorant and prejudiced cast the majority of votes. They cater to power addicts and territorial statists rather than freedom and justice lovers. They do certainly not practise free exchange but rather block it, obstruct it or tax it. - Nor do they allow and protect all property rights, especially not with their thousands of taxes or tribute levies. No party program has so far recognized and respected all genuine individual rights and liberties, least of all the individual and minority group right to exterritorially secede from any regime, which is more or less misruling the population of a whole country. Political parties are thus one of the worst aspects of territorialism They do habitually practise the opposite of laissez-faire economics or free market relationships, starting with monetary and financial despotism. – J.Z., 30.12.11, 2.1.12.

PARTIES: Parties, as mere parts of the whole (*), should never be granted the constitutional, legal and juridical power to dominate a whole territory and all its population – but, instead, merely themselves and their own voters, who would then also becoming their voluntary members or subjects. – J.Z., 6.6.89, 24.3.08. -  (*) A fictitious whole, too, merely seemingly unified through the occupation and domination of the same territory. – J.Z., 24.3.08, 3.7.12.

PARTIES: Party divisions, whether on the whole operating for good or evil, are things inseparable from free governments.” – Edmund Burke: Observations on a Late State of the Nation, 1769. – They are only inseparable from territorial governments, wrongly called in all cases “free” governments. They are all too free or liberal or arbitraty with the rights and liberties of all too many of their subjects. All governments and non-governmental societies and communities should, instead, be subject to the free choices of their sovereign consumers. – J.Z., 3.11.85, 10.7.86, 24.3.08, 3.7.12. – PANARCHISM

PARTIES: Party is the madness of many for the gain of a few.” – Jonathan Swift, 1667-1745, Thoughts on Various Subjects, 1712. - Andrews Quotes, p.376. - Party is the madness of the many, for the gain of a few. – To which may be added, There are honest men in all parties, wise men in none: Unless those may be call’d wise, for whose profit they rest are mad. – POOR RICHARD, 1748. - Party is the madness of the many for the gain of a few. – Alexander Pope, Thoughts on Various Subjects. (“Die Partei ist der Wahn vieler zum Nutzen weniger.” - Pope) - “Party spirit, which at best is but the madness of many for the gain of a few.” – Yes, under territorialism. Under voluntarism, personal laws and panarchism each could come to be ruled ONLY by the party that he prefers for himself. – J.Z., 18.2.08.

PARTIES: Party loyalty lowers the greatest men to the petty level of the masses.” - La Bruyére, Characters, 1688, 11.63. – True for territorialist parties. Untrue for exterritorialist ones. – Only in the latter would they be free to lead only the already converted followers in the direction desired by all of them. – J.Z., 24.3.08.

PARTIES: Party members usually constitute only a small minority in any State. And yet the territorial system allows them to gain power over the rest. The same applies even within each political party: A handful of its members dominate all the rest. – J.Z., 17.2.08.

PARTIES: Party Power – over Party People only! - J.Z., 04-11.

PARTIES: Party Programs – but all only for all their Party People! – J.Z., n.d., from old Pan AZ, revised: 3.7.12.

PARTIES: Party victories for all parties and without the need for election campaigns and majority approval. - J.Z., 04-11. - VOTING OR ELECTIONS REPLACED BY FREE CHOICES FOR SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS & THEIR DIVERSE MAJORITIES &MINORITIES

PARTIES: Pick or Plot & Produce your Proprietary Paradise with your Party People – i.e. only among People Pleased with it and Prepared to Pay its Price. - J.Z., 04-11.

PARTIES: Pick your Party but for your life only! – J.Z., n.d., from Pan AZ. - Pick your Party and its kind of government - but for your own life only! - J.Z., 04-11.

PARTIES: Public funding for parties means, among other things, that we are taxed in order to put one or the other type of people in power over us – to tax us and otherwise misrule us, ever more! Few, if any, tax or spending proposals of the present parties would be passed in a referendum, i.e., they have no such mandate. – J.Z., 3.2.82. - - It is bad enough that party policies and party politics and election costs are forced upon us as tax payers. Now political parties want to be completely funded by taxpayers, as if they provided really wanted public services to others than their members and voluntary supporters. I favor “only” their complete exterritorial autonomy – for them and all their volunteers. Then they would be supported by all the members of their voluntary communities, societies or “competing and voluntary governments” - all without any territorial monopoly. - - It is astonishing enough that in a country like Switzerland even tax proposals are decided and passed by referendum. Apparently, the statism of the politicians there does not exceed the statism of the majority of the population, so they find enough consenting victims. - - J.Z., 25.2.08. - - PUBLIC FUNDING FOR PARTIES

PARTIES: public liberty under any political party is not safe. – Richard Carlyle, The Earth Belongs to the Living, p.34. – Most endangered by them are genuine individual rights and liberties and exterritorial minority autonomy. – J.Z., 30.12.11, 3.7.12.

PARTIES: Rather than splitting a country and its population into parties and their wards, their civil wars, their log rolling and unsatisfactory compromises, let each party form an exterritorially autonomous "country" or body for protective association and cooperative experimentation with its own "program", among its voluntary members only, from then on living under their own personal laws etc., without forcing them upon anyone else. - J.Z., 21.8.92, 4.1.93, 2.1.12. - Parties are so foolish or so criminal that they haven't aimed at this already long ago! - J.Z., 8.9.04. – This in spite of the fact that then they could rule lastingly over their own supporters and would not longer suffer under strong opposition. Whatever good they do have to offer would then become much more clearly revealed by their successes. No mere vote by outsiders and opponents could then interfere with the practice of their ideals among themselves. Thus, if they were informed, rational and moral enough, they should demand this liberty for themselves and for all others. That they do not do this, speaks very much against them. – They seem to be power addicts would are satisfied only through territorial domination, however temporary and fragile their domination is. – J.Z., 3.7.12. - PARTY RULE, DEMOCRACY

PARTIES: Rather than splitting a country and its population into parties and their wards, their civil wars, their log rolling and unsatisfactory compromises, let each party form an exterritorially autonomous "country" or body for protective association and cooperative experimentation of its own, with voluntary members only and living under their own personal laws etc. - J.Z., 21.8.92, 4.1.93. - Parties are so foolish that they haven't aimed at this already long ago! - J.Z., 8.9.04, 22.1.12.

PARTIES: Real democracy through overcoming the monopoly of political parties.” – Heinz Peter Neumann, 5.12.86. (“Wirkliche Demokratie durch Ueberwindung des Parteienmonopols.”) Alas, he probably never really and fully understood that this can be achieved only under the free competition of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, not under any territorial monopoly for any part, or party coalition. – Insofar I have failed to make this quite clear to him. He used to be my lecturer and one of my bosses and was a kind of libertarian and tolerant follower of Silvio Gesell. - J.Z., 24.3.08.

PARTIES: So far all of them provided merely candidates and platforms for territorial exploitation and despotism over dissenters. All their powers must become reduced to rule over their own volunteers and voters only. This kind of experimental freedom and tolerance would tend to enlighten them, while territorial powers do keep them ignorant, prejudiced, corrupt, coercive fraudulent, exploitative and abusive, in spite of “free elections” and parliaments of “representatives”. – J.Z., 21.10.07. - POLITICAL, DEMOCRACY, DESPOTISM, TERRITORIALISM


PARTIES: Territorial party politics is no substitute for ethics, wisdom, knowledge and competence. It does not represent consumer sovereignty in its sphere, no matter how loudly it protests that it does or asserts that it would represent the whole population and would have its consent or its mandate. All such assertions are mere fictions, applicable, at most, to a fleeting majority, rarely ever to a majority on any particular point of its platform or to any of its actions while in power. – J.Z., 25.8.98, 24.3.08, 2.1.12.

PARTIES: Territorial political parties at most benefit their leaders, members and voters – at the expense of all others and they do prevent many  kinds of progress that would have occurred without party rule. – J.Z., 14.7.87, 21.2.08, 3.7.12. – PANARCHISM

PARTIES: Territorialist parties can represent freedom at most for their members, followers and voters but never for their opponents. As the very name says, they are only parts of the whole but, due to territorialism, they want to dominate the rest, too. That makes them essentially wrong. – J.Z., 10.10.95, 24.3.08.

PARTIES: Territorialist parties do not offer sound alternatives but just more of the same. – J.Z., 19.9.88, 24.3.08.

PARTIES: Territorialist parties hide their inevitable dissent behind meaningless generalities and worthless compromises, i.e., more or less by fraud they present a “united front” towards most of their members and voters and towards most of their opponents. If they quite clearly stated that their own ideals would be applied by them only to their own volunteers, then they would not have to engage in any lies but would just have to consistently work towards the realization of that quite tolerant and tolerable (for outsiders) platform. – J.Z., 1.10.88, 24.3.08, 2.1.12. – Each faction of every party could then also do its own things among the own followers, undisturbed by the other factions. – Alas, so far, they remain religiouisly addicted to territorialism, with never a sound thought or doubt about it. - J.Z., 3.7.12.

PARTIES: Territorialist parties represent the politics of power, obstruction and coercion, misdirection and death. Only communities of volunteers, limited to personal laws and exterritorial autonomy represent all the possibilities of life, progress, peace, liberty, rights and tolerance, in all their varieties. – J.Z., 13.6.83, 17.2.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, TOLERANCE, DIVERSITY, EXTERRITORIALITY

PARTIES: The appeals of all parties during this period have been fundamentally identical. They all amount to this:‘What are your troubles? Vote for us and we will find somebody else to pay for putting them right.” – Sir Ernest Benn, speech, 27.1.1931, in Deryck Abel, Ernest Benn, Counsel for Liberty, p. 158 – POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, WELFARE STATE, TAXATION, TRANSFER SOCIETY, VOTING

PARTIES: The best Party is but a kind of Conspiracy against the rest of the Nation.” – George Savile, Marquess of Halifax, Lord Halifax, 1633-1695. - The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax, 1912, 225, in Seldes & in A. Andrews Quotations, p.333. – Unless panarchy is its aim. Then it might liberate all parts of the nation in accordance with their own ideals. – J.Z., 26.2.08. - The best party is nothing but a kind of conspiracy against the rest of the nation. … Ignorance allows people to join a party and shame prevents them from leaving it again.” – Halifax (J.Z. retranslation from: “Die beste Partei ist nichts als eine Art von Verschwoerung gegen den Rest der Nation. ... Unwissenheit laesst Menschen in eine Partei eintreten und Scham haelt sie davon ab, die Partei wieder zu verlassen.”) – I rather hold that prejudices, envy, greed and power-lust makes them mostly join and stay, all too uncritical of it. – J.Z., 24.2.08. - TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM & PANARCHISM

PARTIES: The consummate politician (read “statesman”) is the man who can fool most of the people most of the time. Since Sir Robert Menzies, the best we can hope for are men who can fool most of the people at election time. … As a general rule, politicians perform best when avoiding the fundamental issue, (*) which, in Australian politics is: that there are no fundamental differences between the parties.” – Mark Tier, Tweedledum & Tweedledummy. - - (*) Almost all fundamental issues! – They do always avoid the most fundamental issue: Should there be territorial politics at all or should all of us have all exterritorial autonomy options, together with like-minded volunteers? - J.Z., 17.2.08.

PARTIES: The country runs in spite of parties. In fact, parties are the biggest handicaps we have to contend with.” – Will Rogers, The Autobiography of Will Rogers, 1949, p.13. – If they merely existed, like e.g. sects, they would be tolerable. But they do tax us and do something to us with the money they have taken from us, without our consent, against our rights and interest and under the pretence that they would do something for us. Thus not their mere existence but their usual activities wrong and harm us. – J.Z., 24.3.08. – They do even legalize their crimes against us. – J.Z., 3.7.12.

PARTIES: The fate of parties is determined by those, who are not party members.” – Lothar Schmidt („Das Los der Parteien wird von den Parteilosen bestimmt.“) –– Actually, parties are only one of the many wrongful and unpleasant consequences of territorialism. In search for the lesser evils among parties, one of them (or a coalition of evil parties) gets to mis-rule a country for a while. – Party-members do usually constitute only a small fraction of the voters. - J.Z., 24.2.08. Quite rightfully they can only represent themselves. Collectivist territorial votes are not individually authorized blank cheques - but the territorial system does largely treat them as such, in their taxes and budgets. - J.Z., 2.1.12. - VOTING, ELECTIONS PARTY-MEMBERSHIP

PARTIES: The greatest of all doctrinal errors, as Tucker saw it, was to become confused as to the basic character of political power. As Proudhon had warned, the attempt to use organized political power for good ends must inevitably result in failure, for the means one chooses to attain any given goal always condition the outcome of the overall situation. Organized power, since it is fundamentally authoritarian in character, can only result in a further growth of authoritarianism. This was why Tucker insisted that labor tread on dangerous ground when it began to think in terms of organized force and political power. The tendency of labor to mobilize its force for a showdown in the political arena, he warned, is a most disastrous decision that can only lead away from a true social revolution.” – Reichert, Partisans of Freedom. A Study in American Anarchism, p.173. - - However, one should distinguish between the politics of volunteers and those of compulsory territorial rulers and subjects, or, between exterritorial autonomy and territorial domination, between personal laws and institutions and those territorially imposed, between voluntary taxation and compulsory taxation, organizations that permit secession and those that don’t. – J.Z., 25.2.08. - - POWER POLITICS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, MEANS & ENDS, AUTHORITARIANISM, GOVERNMENT, DOMINATION, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, ANARCHISM, TRADE UNIONS, LABOR MOVEMENT, CENTRALIZATION

PARTIES: The Labor people deserve a Labor government, the Liberals a Liberal government. Exterritorially both could have the government of their dreams at the same time and in the same country. That should be enough and a just punishment for both of them. – J.Z., 15.3.93. - Self-government should even be applied to the defeated parties. They should not just be given a minor role as "loyal" and obedient opposition. - Why should the defeated parties be deprived of self-government? - J.Z., 13.10.04. That means turning politics into conquests, domination and oppression. – J.Z., 13.2.08. - EACH POLITICAL PARTY TO BECOME EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS FOR ITS OWN MEMBERSHIP & VOTERS, Q.

PARTIES: The nest of office being too small for all of them to cuddle into at once, they contest is eternal which shall crowd the other out. For this purpose, they are divided into two parties, the Ins and the Outs.” – Thomas Jefferson. – This, too, applies only to territorial power systems, not to voluntary communities that are only exterritorially autonomous. In this form each party can remain permanently in the saddle – but only over its own volunteers. – J.Z., 18.2.08.

PARTIES: The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly what should be said on the vital issues of the day.” – Theodore Roosevelt: Speech before the National Convention of the Progressive Party, Chicago, Aug. 6, 1912. – How often have leaders of new parties said similar things, quite truthfully, about old parties, only to become later similarly and rightly accused? Let all of them become automatically purified by voluntary secessionism, personal laws and exterritorial autonomy, thus, essentially, by complete voluntarism, except in their defensive actions against of criminals with victims and other aggressors. – J.Z., 3.11.85, 24.3.08, 3.7.12. – Most of the new political parties were not any better. All are still territorialists and as such monopolistic, power-hungry, coercive and wrong. – J.Z., 7.3.09. - That is true even for the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party, both still territorialists and imagining that their government, however limited, would be fit for all people in a whole country, regardless of how much they dislike and oppose pro-freedom programs. - J.Z., 2.1.12, 3.7.12. - POLITICAL PARTIES

PARTIES: The party in power has never more than a precarious possession of it.” – Beaulieu, The Modern State, p.102. – In form of a panarchy, a community of volunteers, only exterritorially autonomous, it could continue safely and indefinitely, as long as it has still any voluntary members. Maybe some of the existing parties will realize this fact - one day. – J.Z., 24.3.08. - But don't hold your breath till then. They are VERY slow learners. - However, they have looked after their pension "rights", even after only short periods of "service" and, usually, at the expense of the taxpayers, too. - J.Z., 24.1.11.

PARTIES: The party system, its frustrations, conspiracies and civil wars are all caused by territorialism.  - J.Z., 21 January 99. - Name the party, if any, which has recognized this inherent flaw by now! - J.Z., 8.9.04. - None of their "research" departments has cared about this aspect. As territorialists they all take it for granted, as natural and unavoidable. - J.Z., 19.9.04. – As yet, to my knowledge, none of them criticizes territorialism. - J.Z., 24.1.11. - Please, do prove me wrong in this! - J.Z., 2.1.12. - None of them knows and appreciates all genuine individual rights and liberties or even their own best interests. They are all power-addicts and power-mad. – J.Z., 22.1.12. – TERRITORIALISM, POLITICIANS, REPRESENTATIVES, DEMOCRACY

PARTIES: the two-party system is only slightly less tyrannical than the one-party system.” – Howard Zinn: Disobedience & Democracy, p.65. – Both are territorial and have involuntary members and do not permit secession from them. Both have taxation, compulsory schooling, central banking, trade restrictions and many monopolies under their legalized but wrongful rule. Both are more or less authoritarian. Both abuse their powers. – J.Z., 25.2.08, 3.7.12.

PARTIES: There can not a greater judgment befall a country than such a dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into two distinct people (*), and makes them greater strangers and more averse to one another than if they were actually two different nations. – Joseph Addison, THE SPECTATOR, July 24, 1711. - - The solution to this seemingly insoluble problem is quite simple: Turn all political parties into independent nations of volunteers, all of them exterritorially quite autonomous. What more can they, quite rightly, ask for? – If they concede each other that much or that little, then there can be peace between them and even a defensive alliance between them becomes then possible. - J.Z. 3.11.85, 10.7.86, 24.3.08. - (*) If only they would, voluntarily and tolerantly, become two distinct peoples, leaving each other alone and with each doing its own things only for or to its own voluntary followers! Then they would only have to “sacrifice” their attempts to dominate the other part as well. Not much of a sacrifice, if you look at it objectively. – J.Z., 24.3.08.

PARTIES: This country is a one-party country. Half of it is called Republican and half is called Democrat. It doesn’t make any difference. All the really good ideas belong to the Libertarians.” – Hugh Downs (1997) - Even libertarians should not rule over anarchists, democrats and republicans or other ideologues. They, too, should confine themselves to genuine self-rule or self-government, among their volunteers and thus always only on the basis of personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - PARTY RULE, DEMOCRACY, REPUBLICS, LIBERTARIANS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, GENUINE SELF-RULE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, ITS COERCION, MONOPOLIES, TAXES, WARS, CIVIL WARS & DESPOTISM, LP.

PARTIES: Under individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy each party could win – but only a temporary domination over its own members, and voters, all its voluntary subjects, as long as they are inclined to remain in that position. But most of them, over long periods, are inclined to change jobs, residences, suppliers and even friends and become more enlightened and will, under that condition, not remain territorially stuck with any party, its ideology and its system, especially seeing that all around them all kinds of other systems, all chosen by volunteers for themselves, are in operation, some with more successes than others, while some would only serve as deterrents to somewhat enlightened people. – J.Z., 4.9.89, 24.3.08. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY.

PARTIES: Under individual secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy practised by panarchies each of the major parties would split up into several autonomous communities of volunteers, to the satisfaction of most of their members and voters and displeasing only their current leaders. – J.Z., 14.6.92. – All of them tend to be mere coalitions or minority groups. – J.Z., 20.2.08. - Another version: Under individual secessionism and minority autonomy, exterritorially practised by volunteers in panarchies, not only would the present territorial States split up into different communities, each ruled by one of the existing parties, but each of the major parties would split up into several autonomous communities of volunteers, for the greater satisfaction of their members and voters, most of them belonging to different internal factions of the party, and to the displeasure only of their current leaders. Consumer sovereignty towards party politics, too! - J. Z. 14.6.92, 6.1.93. - FACTIONS, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM

PARTIES: Under individual secessionism every party would win, at the same time and in the same country, but only dominance, a non-territorial one, over its own members and voters, subject, again, to individual secessionism. - J.Z. 4 Sep. 89, 10.10.89. – PARTIES UNDER PANARCHISM

PARTIES: Under territorialism even the worst two-party system is probably better than the best one-party system. Under exterritorial autonomy for volunteers we would have only one party systems, all with satisfied customers. – J.Z., 17.2.08.

PARTIES: We need a party aiming to do away with party politics. – J.Z., 15.10.74. – That requires doing away with territorialism, e.g. with the compulsory subjection of the population to States, their laws and institutions, and, especially, abolishing compulsory taxation, monetary despotism and the decision-making monopoly on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties. – J.Z., 30.12.11. - PANARCHIST PARTY

PARTIES: With society gone there remain only parties.” – J. O. Y. Gasset, Concord and Liberty, p.20. – So, to restore society we have either to get rid of all parties or to autonomize all of them. – J.Z., 1/78. – All only for their volunteers and under personal laws or exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 17.2.08.

PARTIES: You should pay your taxes only to the party of your choice and you should obey only the rules and laws of your own party's separate republic - as long as you respect the rights of others. - J.Z., 74.

PARTITIONING: Has any partitioning of territories ever been a satisfactory solution in the long run? - J.Z., 8.6.99. - Think of the splitting up of Europe among the sons of Charles the Great, the partitioning of Germany, Berlin, Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Russia, Israel/Palestine or any other! But the same can be said on any enforced "unification", e.g. that of Indonesia and Red China and that of the USA, through its civil war. - J.Z., 27.6.01, 9.12.03. - SPLITTING UP, TERRITORIALISM, GEOGRAPHICAL DECENTRALIZATION, FRONTIERS, BORDERS, UNIFICATIONS, Q.

PARTNERSHIP: Willing partnership can replace secret aggression to the benefit of both sides. – Even public, benevolent interference can be deadly.” – Sandra Miesel, in Poul Anderson, The Book of Poul Anderson, p.194. – Cooperation, collaboration to some extent or free exchange, of goods and services, or at least ideas and opinions or mutual tolerance and respect for each other’s panarchy and its exterritorial independence, thus leaving each other sufficiently alone, to the extent that this is desired, by more or less voluntarily closed or open societies, as long as they do not claim any exclusive territory for themselves. – J.Z., 26.2.08, 2.1.12. - VOLUNTARISM, COOPERATION, FREE EXCHANGE, BUSINESS DEALS, AGGRESSION, RESTRICTIONISM, PROTECTIONISM, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

PARTY PLATFORMS: Party Programs – all only for all the people in their party and at their risk and expense! - J.Z., 04-11.

PARTY POLITICS: No more party politics, election campaigns, party and party faction or leadership struggles and political bribery. Under exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities all parties, factions and leaders could win, all the time, self-rule for themselves and all their voters. They would no longer have to struggle to gain the majority of all voters in a territory nor would they have to compromise with their program by joining a temporary political coalition that would gain the majority of votes. A panarchist party with members from all other parties, one that would “fight” for all the aims of all other parties being rightfully applied, i.e., only to all their voluntary supporters. Obviously, this can only be done exterritorially, i.e. under personal laws. This approach could thus unite all "democratic" parties against all "despotic" parties, against all the territorial monopolists, including the “democratic” majoritarians, not only the intolerant zealots, fanatics and totalitarians. After a sufficient enlightenment campaign, such a party would cease to be a mere party and come to represent, with its panarchic or voluntaristic program, the "common interest" or "public interest", in an effective "coalition" that would respect the exterritorial autonomy of all voluntary movements, societies, communities, governance systems, kinds of anarchism and libertarian alternatives. Self-government for all parties and other movements could be their motto. – Panarchists could be apolitical anarchists and enemies of rule by any party and yet, they could, in consistently and in good conscience, advocate and join a panarchistic and secessionist party - because it would represent the rights and best interests of all (*), whether members of any party or not, no matter for what party they usually vote and whether they usually vote at all in a valid way.  - J.Z., n.d. & 19.9.04, 8.4.08, 2.1.12. – (*) Incurable territorial power addicts excepted! – J.Z., 22.1.12. - From prior and shorter Pan AZ. PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

PARTY RULE: Party-rule, all types, but only for voluntary victims! - J.Z., 04-11. - All only for their subscribers! – J.Z., n.d., from Pan AZ.

PARTY RULE: Yes! For each party among its faithful only! - J.Z., 04-11.

PARTY SYSTEM: Multiple political parties are a fact of life throughout Europe and most of the West. Today the only countries without strong multiparty political systems are the United States and a number of third world military dictatorships.” – Thomas H. Naylor. - This fact of life is all too often a cause of death, exploitation and oppression, internal and external wrongs committed on a vast scale. Only exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities would sufficiently correspond to the facts and all the requirements of life and ethics. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - As compulsory, monopolistic and coercive institutions, the territorialist par ties and their creatures, the territorial States do hardly represent naturally developed life but, rather, chains and fetters for it. They turn whole countries into prisons, whether maximum or minimum security prisons. - J.Z., 2.1.12. -  TERRITORIALISM, VOTING, POLITICAL CHOICES, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

PATENTS: Patents are to cover a) the long period now required until an invention is fully developed and finally found a sponsor and producer, b) to return to the inventor at least a good return for his thinking, labor and costs. – But if, due to good data banks, he could instantly reach those wanting his thoughts, labor and inventions or partners, then, on a quite free market, he could get a lump sum reward or return for his efforts, and, on top, the publicity value of having been the innovator. Any production can now be geared up so fast that the firm coming out with a gadget can already saturate the existing demand for it rather fast. I do not see why anyone should get a monopoly to satisfy future demand for it. Further innovation is, anyhow, a continuous process. And to grant a monopoly for every single forward step seems absurd to me. – Anyhow, there will be panarchies without copyrights and patent laws. Others may penalize only their own members if they buy any “pirated” products from them. – The long-term test will be: Which kind of society will advance faster, that with copyrights and patent laws or those without? - J.Z., 6.6.82, 26.2.08.

PATERNALISM: Corruptive paternalism. The state rulers have destroyed or absorbed all self-help associations and friendly societies formed by individuals and communities in the course of history (*) and in their place have put, in a monopolistic position, the welfare state. The by now evident aim of the welfare state is not to help people to become independent, but to instill in them a sense of allegiance and to establish a condition of permanent subordination towards the state. In fact the so-called social security is the surest path to personal psychological insecurity and continuous dependency through loss of self-esteem and the capability for self-help. - Gian Piero de Bellis, Straightjackets and Superstitions of the Statist Age. – (*) Actually, in spite of their huge tax levies and spending, they still left much work and fund-raising to numerous charities etc. – J.Z., 22.1.12. - STATISM, WELFARE STATE

PATERNALISM: In correcting social conditions, which produce intolerable frustration, it should be recognized that ‘give-aways’ and paternalism do little to enhance the recipient’s dignity and self-esteem.” – Ilfield, quoted by B. D. Shaffer, Violence as a Product of Imposed Order, p.5. - Or his self-responsibility and initiative. – Compare panarchism or polyarchism as a framework for individually chosen systems, communities, societies and even governments and as precondition for mutual tolerance and peaceful coexistence. - J.Z., 26.2.08.

PATERNALISM: The trouble is that a democratic government is in greater danger than any other of becoming paternal, for it is sure of itself, and ready to undertake anything, and its power is excessive and pitiless against dissentients. – What history shows is, that rights are safe only when guaranteed against all arbitrary power, and all class and personal interest.” – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, p.28. – But who or what can provide such a guaranty? Obviously not any territorial government. They do not even know and respect all individual rights and liberties. A revival and improvement of an old institution seems needed: a voluntary militia confined to protecting only individual rights and liberties, their own and that of all their fellow citizens, to the extent that they do claim them, within their diverse panarchies of volunteers. That, too, would be a self-help institution, one of them most important ones, the ultimate safeguard for individual sovereignty and individual choices. – J.Z., 26.2.08. - MILITIA

PATERNALISM: will they prefer to remain cradled in the infantile “security” of Big Daddyism? – O. V. Garrison, The Dictocrats, p.305. – Not an admirable condition for human beings, but those preferring it for themselves should be free to have it for themselves, at their own expense and risk, as long as they are prepared to put up with it. – J.Z., 26.2.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, FREE CHOICES FOR INDIVIDUALS, PERSONAL LAWS, WELFARE STATE, SECURITY, BIG BROTHER

PATERSON, ISABEL, The Humanitarian with the Guillotine. - Isabel Paterson, The Humanitarian with the Guillotine (1943) [English] January 2009. - TERRITORIALISM, DICTATORSHIPS, TYRANNIES, AUTHORITARIANISM, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, MAJORITARIANISM, STATISM

PATIENCE: Further, let us not deal harshly with their blindness, for that would reveal a myopic weakness in those of us whose eyes are attuned to freedom. And I confess to such nearsightedness at times. It isn’t easy to be patient with those who fail to see what we see. Overcoming this psychic blindness in ourselves may be the first stop in attuning another’s eye to freedom. So let us strive for patience, bearing in mind the infinity of things and ideas for which no living person has ever had eyes.” – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 11/76. - Let us rather strive for the experimental freedom of panarchies, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. It can work much faster than a purely educational effort like that of FEE. - Become impatient for liberties and rights, even if, at first, they can be practised only among volunteers. - But that requires patiently working for all liberties and rights, for experimental freedom, also in the monetary and financial sphere and in publishing all libertarian texts and discussions. - J.Z., 24.1.11. - RED., DIS., IDEAS ARCHIVE, LIBERTARIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY, ABSTRACTS, REVIEWS, ENCYCLOPEDIA, REFUTATIONS, DEFINITIONS, IDEAS ARCHIVES, ARGUMENT MAPPING, ETC.

PATIENCE: Patience accomplishes its object, while hurry speeds to its ruin.” - SA’DI, Gudistan (1258), 8.37, tr. James Ross. – But an impatient may, conceivably, not only act faster but also more sensible and better informed. The slow and patient chess player, for instance, is not always the best. – We have suffered too much for too long, too patiently, under territorial governments, wrongly assuming them to be right and inevitable. – Likewise, we put up with monetary and financial despotism and many other wrongs. – Should we not, by now, get impatient for liberty, peace, justice, all individual rights and liberties? – I for one am, while approaching old age. - J.Z., 20.11.85, 24.3.08, 2.1.12. - DIS., IMPATIENCE

PATIENCE: Patience is a resource which is exhausted mainly when one most needs it.” – MacWilliams. Retranslated. by J.Z. from: “Geduld ist die Faehigkeit, die dann, wenn man sie am meisten braucht, erschoepft ist.“ – In territorialist political struggles patience and enthusiasm soon runs out. An assumed hypothetical extreme case: If the choice of our next meal were dependent upon a political campaign and a majority decision in a whole territory – would we not often become rather hungry before that decision is achieved? Would we have enough time left to produce the things we want to eat? And if that production also depended upon a political majority decision? – Haven’t we, all too patiently, put up with all too many interventionists laws and bureaucratic rules? (Laws so numerous that we would not even have the time and energy to read them, if we wanted to. - J.Z., 2.1.12.) – Why should any dissenting minority patiently wait for the realization of its own ideals among its members, i.e., for the approval of the majority for it? - J.Z., 8.4.08. - Should we patiently wait for years to officials to grant a licence or a development plan? Laissez faire, laissez passer meant: Let people produce, let people exchange! - The quickest way towards it might be individual and group secessionism, followed by exterritorially autonomous associationism, for all kinds of volunteers. - J.Z., 24.1.11. - MINORITIES, MAJORITIES, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM

PATIENCE: Patience is good, but quick hands are better! In other words, all things come to he who waits – but he who takes gets them first.” – E. D. Doc Smith, Planet of Treachery, p.85, advanced as gypsy wisdom. - Patience is the virtue of asses.” – French proverb. - INITIATIVE, SELF-HELP, WAITING, OPPORTUNITIES, CHANCE, ENTERPRISE, DIS., SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, DIS.

PATIENCE: The term Satyagraha was coined by me … in order to distinguish it from the movement then going on … under the name of Passive Resistance. - - Its root meaning is “holding on to truth”, hence truth-force. I have also called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of Satyagraha, I have discovered in the earliest states that pursuit of truth did not permit violence being inflicted on one’s opponent, but that he must (? – J.Z.) be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. (*) For what appears truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. (*) And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by the infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on one’s self.” – Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. - - To some extent panarchists aim at that, too, but by reducing their own suffering to the usual difficulties of experimenting with new ideas, practices, gadgets and systems and by eliminating outside resistance and prohibitions. - I prefer freedom to practise truths, or what one holds to be truths, oneself and together with other volunteers, i.e., experimental freedom for all. Regardless of what others still prefer doing to themselves. Then it is up to one’s opponents to learn from that practice, if it is successful, or go on with the realization of their errors, prejudices and false assumptions, always only at the own risk and expense. Gandhi, too, aspired to territorial changes and thus did strongly provoke his opponents, even if only by non-violent or passive resistance and while putting up with any violence offered by the opponents. – J.Z., 26.2.08. (*) Try that "policy" on a mugger or murderer, a Nazi or Soviet or Mao communist. - J.Z., 2.1.11, 3.7.12.

PATRIOTISM: In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” - Mark Twain. - Patriotism and nationalism, especially of the territorial kind, have probably led to more wrongful than rightful actions. When not representing voluntarism in all spheres - then they are not representative. Where are the peaceful and tolerant patriots and nationalists for full exterritorial autonomy? Almost all of them subscribe at least to internal aggression against or suppression of or the outvoting and outlawing of internal dissenters, especially of the practice of their beliefs among themselves. (*) They may allow them verbal protests or protect marches and demonstrations but not free actions. - J.Z., 29.10.02, 2.1.12. – (*) That is something they ought to be ashamed of! – J.Z., 3.7.12. - Full experimental freedom already for the first pioneers within any country, population or “nation”. Their successes will be infective and attractive. Their failures will warn others. Patriotism is a dangerous sponge-word, one that has soaked up all kinds false or misleading of meanings. Territorialism and its nationalism are very flawed when compared with voluntarism, personal law, exterritorial autonomy and the kind of real unity, society or community that only they can provide. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06, 24.1.11, 3.7.12. - INNOVATORS, REFORMERS, NATIONALISM. 

PATRIOTISM: It has never been unpatriotic to take your country’s side against your government. It must always be unpatriotic to take your government’s side against your country. – A Byington sticker. - - It is not YOUR country. Nor is it YOUR government, unless you are a volunteer for it. And if you are so lucky to be already a member of a competing and exterritorially autonomous government or non-governmental free society, then it would be very patriotic of you, to take your government’s or your society’s side against all the rest of the “country” and its population, whenever they try to interfere with your liberty and rights over your own affairs. – The old terminology is quite insufficient and misleading. – J.Z., 18.2.08. - DIS., COUNTRY, GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE, COMMUNITIES, TERRITORIAL & EXTERRITORIAL, PANARCHISM

PATRIOTISM: My Country, right or wrong", is a thing no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton, English journalist. – It is mainly only their territorialism, which makes their situation and that of their population often rather desperate. – J.Z., 8.8.08, 3.7.12. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

PATRIOTISM: Panarchist Patriotism vs. Territorialist Patriotism. Or: vs. Popular Patriotism? – J.Z., n.d., from old Pan AZ.


PATRIOTISM: Patriotism can be rightful within volunteer communities, which do mind only their own business and leave peaceful members of other communities alone - apart from trading relationships. - Like nationalism, in territorial States, with compulsory membership, it is largely a farce or tragicomedy. - J.Z., 23.9.00, 31.1.02, 2.1.12, 3.7.12. - VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALITY, PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM

PATRIOTISM: Patriotism involved more than loyalty to a particular piece of ground. If Ardrey, (*) could not discern that, then he was not really trying. It also (**) involves loyalty to a particular group of people and to a ‘cultural tradition’ as Ardrey put it.” – Filthy Pierre, THE CONNECTION 115, p 119. – - (*) Robert Ardrey, coiner of the slogan “the territorial imperative”, which is also the title of one of his books. – J.Z., 22.2.08. - - (**) Also? Territorial or proximity feelings do not really stretch over the whole territory encompassed by territorial borders, much of which is not even known to most people living within these borders. – J.Z., 22.2.08. – Most people do not even have a real close relationship, beyond their proximity, with their next door neighbors. That they could have it with millions of others, whom they have never even met, is a very false pretence. – J.Z., 3.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM

PATRIOTISM: Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.” – Guy de Maupassant (1850-1892), My Uncle Sosthenes. - Territorialism, centralism, addiction to uniformity notions and compulsory membership are strong contributory factors to most of our remaining common problems, which are neither sufficiently examined by patriots and nationalists nor by political scientists and writers. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06, 3.7.12. - Without territorial monopoly claims, legally and coercively upheld, the diverse peoples in any territory would tend to peacefully compete with each other as they do e.g. in the Olympic Games, in private businesses, in hobbies, crafts and professional activities, as producers and consumers, entertainers and their audiences. – J.Z., 3.1.08, 3.7.12. – VOLUNTARISM VS. NATIONALISM & WAR, CHAUVINISM, TERRITORIALISM, HATRED OF & FEAR OF FOREIGNERS & ALIENS

PATRIOTISM: Patriotism is in political life what faith is in religion.” – Lord Acton, Nationality, 1862 – And of as little objective value! – J.Z., 12.11.81. – But it has not learnt yet, like most religions people have, in most countries, the peace-promoting qualities of voluntarism combined with exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. Since patriots are now armed with mass murder devices, we have to urgently introduce the same kind of tolerance that already exists for religions into the political, economic and social spheres – for all their various systems, beliefs, laws and institutions. – J.Z., 26.2.08, 3.7.12. – TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

PATRIOTISM: Patriotism is loyalty to geography.” – Source unknown. (“Patriotismus ist geographische Loyalitaet.”) - TERRITORIALISM

PATRIOTISM: Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.” – George Jean Nathan, 1882-1958, (*) - Bernard Berenson, 1865-1959, Lore and Maurice Cowan, compilers, The Wit of the Jews, Leslie Frewin, London, 1970, p.58. – (*) G. J. Nathan, Testament of a Critic. (“Patriotismus ist oft nichts anderes als Grund und Boden hoeher schaetzen als Prinzipien.“) - PRINCIPLES, TERRITORIALISM, JOKES, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM & PRINCIPLES

PATRIOTISM: Patriotism means loving our country, not the government.” – Michael Cloud. - Especially not a territorial government over involuntary victims. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - Even the best kind of territorial patriotism still constitutes a great wrong, by territorially suppressing exterritorial autonomy for dissenters. – J.Z., 2.1.08. – One might love a country but not all or much of its population. Or one might love some or many people in one’s country but not all of the country, e.g. not its deserts, icy regions or some of its cities. The term love should not be applied to whole populations or to geography. It is a mostly individualized human relationship with other humans. – J.Z., 3.7.12. - VS. GOVERNMENTS, PATRIOTISM DOES NOT MEAN STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM OR LOVE OF SUPPOSEDLY GREAT "LEADERS", OR RULING PARTIES, ADMINISTRATIONS & POLITICIANS

PATRIOTISM: This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it … Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?” - Abraham Lincoln. - People own only their own property, not whole countries or continents. But politicians try to rule territorially, based upon this lie and false pretence. - J.Z., 13.10.02. – What one really owns one could also sell? Are we free to sell, as individuals, parts of the “common” territory or only our private real estate?  - POLITICIANS, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, GOVERNMENTS,  TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, DIS.,

PATRIOTISM: Ubi bene, ibi patria." - ["Where the goodness is, there is my home"]. – Wher I am free – there is my real home. In this sense all of us are now, everywhere, among the homeless people! – J.Z., 3.7.12. – NATIONALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM

PATRIOTISM: You can’t expect everybody to be a patriotic fool who fights and risks all for undeclared or even wrongful war and peace aims of his territorial government. – J.Z., 30.1.79, 26.208, 3.7.12. – WAR AIMS, QUITE JUST ONES, DECLARED IN TIME, THUS, POSSIBLY EVEN PREVENTING A WAR.

PATRIOTISM: You will never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.” – Bernard Shaw, O’Flaherty V.C. – Or direct it into harmless channels of which sports is the least important. Free Trade, competitive production, consumer sovereignty in every sphere, full monetary and financial freedom, individual secessionism, various panarchies of volunteers only, under personal laws, are much higher values than centralized or federated nationalism and territorial unity and also any particular language or culture, religion or ideology. – J.Z., 16.11.78, 3.7.12. – Once patriotism becomes confined to volunteers only and only they have to pay the full costs and risk their own lives for the system which they prefer for themselves, then the costs and human sacrifices demanded and seemingly needed as “patriotic” actions, will become greatly reduced. Anyhow, under free choice of governments and societies for oneself and for everyone else, how many real enemies of significant power would remain? – J.Z., 26.2.08. – Almost all attempts at mutual domination would cease. Everyone would be quite free to mind his or her own business, society, community or governance system quite undisturbed. All territorial enemies would have disappeared as such. They would have been turned into peacefully and tolerantly competing independent communities and societies, all in happy “marriages” with likeminded peoples, all volunteers, and the systems they prefer between them, because all the dissidents would have seceded from them. Internally and externally harmony would thus get its maximum chance. – J.Z., 3.7.12.

PATRONAGE: One may choose either to patronize a government with one's money and services or one might prefer not to do so. Both actions are right, if voluntary and nobody is coerced. [Who is not a criminal with victims or other aggressor.] - One may owe a patron something or such debts may simply be asserted, but nobody is owned by his patron. One may freely secede from feudal and other forms of imposed patronage and opt out from contracted conditions, at least after a withdrawal period. - J.Z., 3.6.84, 15.11.02. - Genuine rights and liberties, morality or ethics deserving these terms, cannot be determined for whole populations by any old or current territorial legislation. - J.Z., 2.1.12. - VS. VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM, FEUDALISM, SERFDOM, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, LAWS, MORALITY, ETHICS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

PAUL RON FORUM, What Do you Think of the Political Theory of Panarchy? - Paul Ron Forum, What do you think of the political theory of Panarchy? - - -

PAUL, RON: Speaking out for 3 independent communities in Iraq: Email by John Zube, to: , free students network - Subject: Re: [freestudentsnetwork] FW: [ILV] Ignoring Reality in Iraq - - Dear Freedom Lovers, - Ron Paul is good, as usual, in criticizing what governments are doing. - Beyond that he comes here out in favor of self-government for each of the diverse groups (passage stressed by me), however, without relating this to the need for a-territorial, exterritorial or non-territorial autonomy for them, wherever people with diverse tribal, ethnic, religious, racial, ideological, social or political origins, inclinations or commitments are now, largely, mixed with each other in the same territories. -  I do believe that he is also wrong in distinguishing only three groups there. A closer look would, probably, discover dozens if not hundreds. - Beyond his limited advocacy of voluntary diversity he favors non-intervention. - That is quite right, as far as government action is concerned. But for "intervention" merely by means of e.g. the development and spread of better ideas it is wrong. - There and in this way we should try to "intervene", with better ideas, as much as we can! - Perhaps beginning with the advocacy of religious freedom, which we, in Western civilization countries, take already too much for granted. - A "Common Sense" book like that of Thomas Paine on national territorial independence, but now extended to voluntary and exterritorial independence, remains, apparently, still either to be written or widely enough published. Perhaps, one of you will write this book - and become one of the new "Founding Fathers". - My own writings on this subject and the other ones that I know of, were certainly not popular enough. - Since neither the US government, nor its allies, nor the Middle East governments, nor the critics of either, nor the fighting factions in the Middle East, have so far come up with better ideas to solve their problems (which are, to a considerable degree our problems as well, especially the problems of the tiny libertarian minorities), he should loudly proclaim the need for INTERVENTION - BY MEANS OF BETTER IDEAS, PLATFORMS, PROGRAMS, FOR QUITE RIGHTFUL AND RATIONAL AS WELL AS TOLERANT ACTIONS, ACTIONS BY VOLUNTEERS ONLY, UNDER PERSONAL LAW OF FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, in all of the trouble spots of the world. - These do not need external intervention with arms, much manpower and large budgets or blood sacrifices of official and underground soldiers and numerous largely unintended ones, of civilians, non-combatants, children, sick and old people, women, but, merely some intellectual efforts, time and energy and concentration and then almost cost-free distribution e.g. via emails, websites, floppies and CDs. - This kind of "intervention" could come to turn numerous supposed "freedom fighters" in the world into genuine freedom fighters. Actually, with such a platform, common to all of them: Full autonomy, on a personal law basis, for all majorities and for all minorities, there would not be much for them to fight any longer, neither against their present governments or "foreign invaders", or among themselves. - Catholics and Protestants or members of other religions, do not fight each other on our streets or against our governments, because the freedom they do want for themselves, as members of such groups, they do already enjoy. It would be the same with full freedom for all in the political, economic and social spheres. - Well, there might be some disappointed totalitarians and authoritarians, from then on confined to being shepherds only over their remaining flocks and being forced to deliver more than mere empty promises and slogans to hold them. - In the Middle East (and in still too many other places) not even religious liberty or religious tolerance is sufficiently advocated and upheld. - Far less is its full equivalent in the political, economic and social spheres. In these spheres "Foreign Aid" is there, probably, needed more than any material aid. - The inevitable results of territorialism are continuing religiously and other motivated repression, mass unemployment, inflation, stagflation, sales difficulties, "protectionism", monopolism, wide-spread poverty, all setting the scene for "freedom fighters", with their terrorist acts, civil wars, bloody revolutions, military insurrections, and for dictatorships and national war clashes. - Under full exterritorial freedom of action or experimentation for all groups of volunteers (initiated by individual secessionism and voluntary communities under personal laws and, especially, by recognizing governments and societies in exile – but always only for their present and future voluntary members), those which successfully did away with e.g. involuntary unemployment and inflations, both caused by the legalized monetary despotism of all governments and their central banking systems, would soon see their solutions spread all over the world. - Then and thus political, economic, social, religious, racial, ethnic, ideological and, especially, monetary and financial despotism, could be brought down as fast as the Berlin Wall - via such freedom of action, experimentation, contract, exchange and association in these spheres. - Nation-building attempts, on the territorial model, are not only follies, but crimes against the numerous dissenters in each "nation" or "population". - Every day many people are still sacrificed as human sacrifices, on the "altars" of territorial nationalism, and religious monopoly claims, on their slaughtering or battlefields for human beings. - All those artificial "unified" nation constructs and their borders, to the extent that they are imposed upon dissenters, should be torn down.  - This can be done, step by step, quite peacefully, by allowing all individual dissenters or their voluntary associations to secede or withdraw from the local territorial impositions, based upon territorially imposed constitutions, laws, regulations, organizations and jurisdictions - to do their own things, among their own voluntary communities, all to or for themselves only and always only at their own risk and expense, under their own and diverse constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. - All the opposition forces would be united - in their tolerance for autonomous diversity for all of their members and in their opposition to all who continued to attempt to dominate them territorially. - To the extent that this would be recognized, published and applied, it would bring peace, justice and freedom, as much internally, for each of the diverse and only exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, as their members want for themselves and, having achieved that, it would also bring peace between them, between all such communities of volunteers. - Freedom also includes the choice of being un-free, as much as one likes and as long as one can stand it. It permits even voluntary slavery. But in this case it can be renounced by any slave with immediate effect and without "indemnification" for the slave holder. - It would be as or even more successful in its peace-, justice- and freedom-promoting effects as was the consistent introduction of religious freedom or religious tolerance e.g., among the "Christians", who, for all too long and all too atrociously, did fight each other, i.e., those whom their supposedly common religious dogmas said that they should love rather than kill. - They did not even clarify that their supposed primary command was not: "Thou shalt not kill!" but: "Thou shalt not murder!" - Nor did they clearly eliminate all "collective responsibility" notions from the "morality" of their religions. - Why even more successful? Because there would be concrete proofs for successes and for failures among the new and voluntary communities. They could be demonstrated as fast and as detailed as they are e.g. on profit and loss accounts. Their diverse mythologies could be ignored. One would merely judge them by their fruits. The proof would be in the pudding, not postponed into a future promised paradise on Earth or even into a supposed Heaven or Hell. - Ron Paul's suggestion of deconstructing or tearing down "built" and "uniform" nations or confining them to volunteers only, is the first from the general libertarian movement and from prominent libertarians that has come to my attention. - So far there were only all too few and all too obscure "voices in the wilderness" calling for such a general change of "policies". - Alas, even he does not develop it sufficiently, i.e., does not come out, quite clearly, for individual sovereignty, individual secessionism or individual consumer sovereignty - towards all kinds of governments, non-governmental societies and communities as well as public services and community package deals or insurance or protection contracts, nor does he stress the exterritorial autonomy or personal law liberty that would be required. - Neither does he demand this kind of freedom for diversity and for individual choices and individual veto and decision-making power not only in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan but in all other countries as well, including his own. - Freedom to fill your “shopping cart” with as many or as few and as different governmental and societal services as you want for yourself. - Only then could former antagonists remain quite peacefully living and working in the same territories, side by side with all the various voluntary community members, who do their own things only to and for themselves, rather than trying to impose them upon dissenters. – However, in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Ireland, etc., the need for this kind of solution is even more urgent and obvious than in the already somewhat free countries. In the latter and at least in our remaining private choices we do already, every day, enjoy numerous private and, essentially, also panarchistic decisions and choices and diverse actions, quite independent of the choices others or the majority make for themselves. - Territorialist prejudices, shared by all the territorial governments in the world - and by most of their opponents, parties and movements, and by most of their victims, individual citizens or, rather, mere subjects and voting cattle - drives them into terrorist and guerilla forces and into the arms of new aspiring dictators and into "democratic" or "republican" submission to numerous wrongful laws and regulations and "authorities". - To my knowledge there are so far only three websites in which this alternative is seriously considered: - and - [In the meantime quite a few more have been added. So far I know of no complete links list of all of them. – Who will finally provide it? – J.Z., 3.7.12.] - During the 2004 ISIL Rotarua conference I distributed, free of charge, a still very primitive CD compilation of panarchist and monetary freedom files and about 100 floppies listing at least a fraction of the libertarian books that are now offered either online, on CDs or via e-mail and asking for more such entries and information. - I also suggested that these disks be freely duplicated by anyone interested. - The response to me, so far, was exactly zero, which did not impress me greatly. - What chance do freedom lovers hav,e when they continue to ignore some of the most important libertarian ideas and projects to spread libertarian enlightenment and confine themselves, largely, to arguing "old hat" questions among themselves, repeating the same arguments over and over again, as I have seen them doing over all too many decades and now, for many month, also in this student group? - The exterritorial and personal law tradition of mankind is ancient, probably as ancient as mankind, as Richard C. B. Johnsson (see above) argues in his recent and excellent review of a classical book on the subject. Nevertheless, it remains largely ignored, even by those who consider themselves to be "radical" libertarians. - This in spite of the fact that it is merely the opposite of territorialism, i.e., the other side of the "coin". - People as much inclined towards being contrary, on many public opinion subjects, and as argumentative among themselves, as libertarians are, should have long ago picked up and developed that simple and obvious alternative to the usual territorial governmental "policies" and "programs", or "politics as usual", even if it had been merely for the obvious motives of active "debaters", trying to score a point against their opponents, however far-fetched it might be. - Alas, here, too, they gave an all too typical instant of what Ayn Rand called: "The sanction of the victims".  - The best "foreign aid" that we could supply would be better ideas, combined with free trade, free enterprise and free investment opportunities, - including all those provided by full monetary and financial freedom, within foreign countries and within our own, even if, initially, confined only to volunteers and expanded only as these volunteers become more numerous. - Government efforts have failed to provide their troops even with sufficient body armor and good vehicles and spare parts for them, - not “only” with a quite rightful war and peace aims program. But then, the libertarians, so far, haven't supplied or sufficiently published such programs, either. - Maybe we will get, with Ron Paul, the beginnings of such an effort? … PIOT, John Zube - (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!) - (Just a bit more of territorialist classical Liberalism is not good enough for the crises of our times! - J.Z., 20.10.11.) - - - At 12:41 AM 20/12/2004, Jim Peron had forwarded: Ignoring Reality in Iraq by Rep. Ron Paul, MD - A recent study by the Pentagon¹s Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.” This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place. - - Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad sent a cable back to the US warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration. - - These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the US government¹s own assessment of our “progress” in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq. - - This demonstrates once again the folly of nation building, which is something candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election. The worsening situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires over and over again. - - The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people who have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history. - - Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means. - - Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation¹s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written” in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle. - December 14, 2004. - Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. - -

PAY YOUR WAY: If it is just that each person pay the full cost of a haircut or movie ticket, then it is also just that he pay the full cost of those services which the government provides him. (*) Others should not be expected to pay his way. Our present tax system is unjust in that it often compels one person to subsidize the government (service? – J.Z. ) used by another. Government would have to remain neutral among its citizens (**) if we taxed strictly on the basis of the benefits received by each person. (***) Any other system becomes a breeding ground for injustice and social strife.” – George C. Leef, THE FREEMAN, 9/78, p.569. - - (*) Provided, these services are not monopolized. Under territorialism many services are monopolized. - - (**) Or should be just one competitive service organization among many, without a territorial monopoly, serving only its volunteers. - - (***) Then it would already be a form of voluntary taxation or subscription. – J.Z., 26.2.08. – TAXATION

PAY YOUR WAY: What will you have? quoth God; pay for it and take it.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), Essays: First Series (1841): Compensation. Quoted as a proverb. – How many shop keepers have already said this to their customers? – J.Z. – - “Take what you want”, said God. “Take it and pay for it.” – Quoted as a Spanish proverb. - Let us have that consumer sovereignty and free choice towards all kinds of governments, societies and communities. Only the territorial ones ought to become outlawed. They certainly have committed an excess of crimes for all too long. – J.Z., 7.3.09. – PANARCHIES, TERRITORIALISM, GOD, SUPPORT YOURSELF, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-SUPPORT, TRADE, EXCHANGE, FREE ENTERPRISE, FREE EXCHANGE, MARKET, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARY TAXATION

PAYING ONE'S WAY & PANARCHISM: See Voluntary Taxation.

PEACE & FREEDOM: Extract from “ON PANARCHY” No. VI, published in PEACE PLANS No. 671. SOME  REMARKS ON THE PANARCHIST ROAD TO PEACE AND FREEDOM - A Questionnaire with Some Answers: Is the membership in any kind of anarchistic community, collective, society or cooperative ever to become compulsory? - Are non-anarchists only to be given the choice: death or adoption of anarchism for themselves? - Are anarchists prepared to tolerate statist activities among statists adults in the same way as they want their anarchistic activities among themselves tolerated by the present statists? - Are anarchists sufficiently in favor of free individual choices to permit other people to make quite different choices for themselves than anarchists would make for their own groups? - Or do most anarchists, in common with most statists and authoritarians, centralists and unity fanatics, all territorialists, want to permit only one type of supposedly ideal society to exist in any country, province, region or district at any one time?  Should we therefore distinguish between voluntaryist anarchists and authoritarian anarchists? - If one really believes in any kind of system, then one always tends to imagine that all others could or should share one's beliefs and that, one day, they will. But should one be prepared to wait as long as would be necessary to persuade all? - Should one, thereupon, postpone the realization of anarchy until all have become anarchists - if ever? - Or should one, rather, aim at alternative institutions for all who desire them, at minority and majority autonomy, at doing one's own thing, at one's own risk and expense, while leaving all others free to do their own things, however hateful these things may be to oneself? - If membership in anarchistic communities and societies is not be compulsory, then what about the however limited liberties and rights, which the others want to retain or realize for themselves?  - Are they to be free to organize and limit them in accordance with their own choices, quite undisturbed by anarchists whom they would leave free to do their own things? - If so, then let us state this now and quite clearly: Primarily and as realists and advocates also of the rights and liberties of others, we want only anarchism for anarchists and should, therefore, FAVOR statism for statists, according to their own free choices. - - "The libertarians say : Let those who believe in religion have religion; let those who believe in government, have government; but let those who believe in liberty, have liberty, and do not compel them to accept a religion or a government they do not want." - Charles T. Sprading, in his introduction to "Liberty and the Great Libertarians." - Instead of: "No nation can long endure half free and half enslaved", panarchists say: No nation can long endure when one section cannot be as free as it wants to be while the other is not allowed to be as un-free as it wants to be. - Or they say, with Mary Chisholm: Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name of national. - Organizationally this would naturally require some  changes, preparations  and precautions. - The only quite fundamental ones would be VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, based on individual secessionism and NON-TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION, under contracts or personal laws of one's choosing. - In other words: Minority and majority autonomy for all who desire it, based on individual sovereignty, shared and combined as much as individuals want to. - J.Z. draft of 1986.  Slightly revised: 10.12.04, 21.10.11, 4.7.12. – DIS., Q. & A., ANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, VOLUNTARISM VS. EGALITARIAN COMPULSION, NATIONS, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIAL COLLECTIVISM, PEOPLES?

PEACE & FREEDOM: Extract from “ON PANARCHY” No. VI, published in PEACE PLANS No. 671. - Freedom of action and maximum tolerance or endless wars, civil wars, terrorism, party struggles, compromises, dissatisfaction and, in desperation, error, by misjudgment or accident, finally the nuclear, chemical or biological holocaust? - Australians, like other victims of the territorial nation State concept and its corollaries (e.g.: one rule, one law, one jurisdiction for one territory and all its population, consenters and dissenters alike, based on limited but despotic voting powers of each adult also over the fates of others), are split up into at least 3 groups that are antagonistic to each other and permanently wrestle with each other for domination, which neither side has any great chance to completely achieve or keep for long. A lot of energy, earnings and resources are wasted and misdirected and expropriated in the process whilst numerous forms of parasitism are sponsored. - These three groups are: a) The Statists. They want as much as possible of human life run by the territorial State, centrally directed, regulated, manipulated, adjudicated, permitted or refused, in the pursuit of variously and vaguely defined "public interests". Former Prime Minister G. Whitlam put it once in a nutshell when he stated (I do not have the literal quote on hand): Australians should, ideally, only need a pocket money. All important and essential services ought to be paid for by the State. - Rarely was a politician as frank. That would have really institutionalized their subjects. Through his hands would have gone almost all of our earnings and "our" expenditures, provided the latter agreed, territorially and collectively, not individually, with his choices. The State, that's me, he could have said, with Louis XIV. He got very upset when Australians, at least temporarily, gave him, his cohorts and his aims a resounding "NO!" in reply. Alas, the same Australians, largely with their consent, fell later victims to more of the same kind of policies by others and by the same party. We are still far from living in an enlightened age. - b) The Compromisers, Moderates and Middle of the Roaders or Majoritarian Democrats. - They have very much in common with the Statists but are not as consistent as the Statists are. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Their committees, special boards and authorities, royal commissions, majority voting, representative institutions, democratic procedures, etc. try to somewhat satisfy almost all of the most diversified people, interests and aims, setting themselves up as universal adjudicators between the contenders a) and c). They have only a statist concept of "The Law" and of "Order", "Freedom" and "The Market" and ignore, despise or ridicule all radical and consistent principles, especially natural law, human and individual rights principles, preferring those "civil rights", which are very narrowly defined by them and which very often restrict rather than uphold genuine rights and liberties. Naturally, they are unable to provide more than a hotchpotch of ad-hoc measures and compromises, a mixed stew, which cannot fully satisfy anyone except those who are very mixed-up themselves. - c) The Freedom and Rights Lovers, however limited their vision of individual freedom and rights is, who do appreciate at least a number of individual rights and liberties and want to be left alone to enjoy these undisturbed. For this purpose, and to the degree they can envision, they want power over others to be limited and decentralized. Only a few want it altogether abolished, with no restrictions on any creative or self-responsible activities of individuals remaining. There are still many disagreements among them, e.g. on how to resist and penalize or neutralize the remaining aggressive and invasive people and associations. - Paucity of literature, meeting places, other contacts between them and the general conditioning they suffer from their a) and b) environment are contributing factors to make them insufficiently enlightened and consistent to always defend and spread their views successfully, even among themselves. - To some extent almost all of them still belong to categories a) and b).  - It is possible that if they did not, then they would have won the contest long ago, for they do represent, in principle and in their consistent proposals, all men, diverse as they are, equal and unequal alike, in many ways, in their nature, their aims and their methods. - If one accepts this rough and ready division of any people or nation as a fact of reality and wants to arrive at a sensible and rightful conclusion from it, one has to take at least one other very important fact into consideration: Centuries of discussions and debates, talks and lectures, floods of newspapers and magazines, libraries of books and brochures and manuscripts, broadcasting systems, databanks etc., an ever increasing multitude of communication channels, which do not achieve sufficient communication, have failed, so far, to bridge the remaining gulfs between these three groups - and the numerous splits within each of these groups. - If one accepts this observation, too, as a fact, then one may conclude that it is somewhat unlikely, unless some quite new and very important factors come into being, which would change this picture, that further decades or even centuries of conventional and modern enlightenment efforts, methods and tools, will reconcile these three groups, finally and sufficiently. One will then predict that, unless a radical change in their constitution and relationships to each other takes place, they will remain in a more or less peaceful or militant civil war against each other, one that might also involve them in international wars, even in a general holocaust with ABC mass-murder devices. - Several “democratic” regimes are already “armed” with mass extermination devices or anti-people “weapons”. - What can be done, what ought to be done to avert this danger, to end this continuing struggle? - The most radical and consistent solution, that I know of, would be to allow each of these groups to go its own way, with individuals deciding for themselves which of these groups they are to join or establish, as they have done now, in some countries for centuries, regarding their religious allegiance and in their different private life-styles and in their semi-public sports, arts, crafts and other entertainment, recreation and cultural activities. - There is no inherent reason why the political, economic and social sphere should be exempted from the benefits to be expected from private contracts, compacts, experiments and minority autonomy based on individual choice, while very serious arguments can be raised in their favor, including the very survival of the human race, the preservation and expansion of liberty, peace, justice and prosperity, the achievement of longevity, intelligence expansion, access to the stars. - What would this mean in practice? - Each Statist could have the State of his choice and could become as much the victim of a centralized or a decentralized government as he would like to be - or the beneficiary of such an arrangement, if that can be achieved - all at his own expense and risk and that of his voluntary associates, presently amounting to the vast majority. - A precondition is only that he or she does not, alone or in association with fellow statists, interfere with the realization of the different choices or dreams of the moderates and of the freedom lovers. - This requires (unless one wants to force all people into "reservations") that all are autonomously organized in a non-territorial way, under personal laws and their own self-government system applying only to their own and voluntary members. - Moreover, each adult and rational person must be set free to make his or her own choice between the various systems and subsystems, to have the all-important vote of seceding from one territorial State or non-territorial autonomous community and joining or establishing another. - In this important respect, among others, citizens have so far been completely disfranchised, never mind the excess writing and talking about "the right to vote". - - - The compromisers would be set free to attempt to settle everything by voting, committees and procedures, giving each individual one voice among many others but never the fully deciding vote on his or her own way of life, fate, liberties and choices. - Like the Statists, they could muddle on as before - but undisturbed by internal-external opposition or active dissent. Words would still be slung, as between some churches and sects, but hardly missiles. – Even the targets for mass extermination devices would become dissolved - and the motives, powers and means for building and keeping them. (But only an in-depth analysis of this change will fully and convincingly reveal this consequence. See on this my two panarchist peace books in - To leave each other alone, in the pursuit of one's different aspirations by different routes and means, would be the only compromise required between members of the 3 major different groups and this would be a rather uncompromising compromise, excepting perhaps the question of 1.) right or left-hand driving, 2.) quarantine for infectious diseases and 3.) the continuance of anti-people "weapons" and of plants, like nuclear reactors, that make them possible. - Regarding 1) and 2.) a general agreement, at least locally or regionally, seems possible to achieve. - Regarding 3.) most people have to be emancipated still. When this is achieved, the outcome is not in doubt to me. There are only rationalizations and excuses for their continuance and the dilemma created by the existence of territorial and sovereign nation-states, which have correspondingly disfranchised their subjects. - Governments by individual consent, the thorough self-governance proposed here, would dissolve this dilemma and the mutual fears involved and make room, at the same time, for genuinely protective self-help steps and organizations against the remaining and relatively few aggressive individuals and their gangs. - The freedom lovers, whether consistent believers in individual sovereignty, free trade, free contracts, free cooperation, free association, free exchange, a free market or only more or less approaching these and related aims and means and liberties, would at last be allowed to either victimize (exploit, deceive, coerce - if you take some of the sayings of their opponents serious) or to mutually benefit each other, acting (apart from some trade relationships) almost exclusively among themselves. - If their opponents were right, they could only say: We warned you and we told you so - you suffered only what you deserved, as a result of your own free choice. If the opponents are wrong, then they would, sooner or later, individually or in small groups, join their successful freedom experiments, welcomed with open arms and, hopefully, without any reproaches for the past. - While these freedom experiments still go on, only among the already converted freedom lovers, under the suspicious eyes, cat-calls, ridicule and slander of the enemies of individual liberty, the latter would be at complete liberty to discriminate against these experimenters, boycott their schemes, protect themselves against such "licence" as much as they liked - all, naturally, at their own expense and risk. They could become as censorious - towards their own voluntary members - as the Catholic hierarchy has been for along time, to prevent the spread of the freedom-infection to their own members. Many of the resources of the Statists and Moderates would be furthermore wasted in propaganda efforts against the Freedomites – but with less and less effect, provided the Freedomites demonstrate their cases successfully with their own experiments, undertaken exclusively at their own cost and risk. No national borders would separate them from their doubtful and taunting observers. They would live and work next door to them – but under different and self-chosen laws and institutions. - As a result, future conversions would be achieved by the own actions with their successes and disappointments or by observing the successes and failures of others, rather than by collecting, studying and slinging words (or laws or threats of law repeals – J.Z., 10.12.04.) at each other, almost incessantly, for months, years, decades or even centuries. - Admittedly, my kind of grouping is an over-simplification, comparable to a mere distinction between Theists, Agnostics and Atheists. Members of each group would tend to subdivide themselves further until finally, or perhaps only in an intermediate stage, there are in any country or worldwide not only 3 such groupings, but 3 dozen or maybe even 300 or more. - Between them, they would have a much stronger motivation to defend their chosen and practised lifestyles against aggressors than they have now. In this respect, they would have a common interest against totalitarians, like the opponents of the Nazis had, whatever their own convictions and ideals were, otherwise. -. In this respect they showed solidarity. This common interest could and soon would be expressed in corresponding defensive organizations - even though the all-over threat of further aggression would be already greatly reduced. However, new fanatic “prophets” and "great leaders" may arise any time. (But the number of followers they could get under panarchism would be rather limited, since they would have nothing but words or promises to offer and thus would disappoint their members and induce them to secede. They would either have to put up or shut up. - They would have freedom of action among themselves to prove or disprove their “ideals”. Since their “ideals” are rather flawed, disappointments would follow soon and reduce the number of their followers to relatively harmless proportions. – J.Z., 13.2.08.) - Based on this tolerance for tolerant actions, the panarchists would almost always have the chance to find many converts, friends and allies or at least neutrals among the armies of conscripts and slave laborers of despotic regimes, whose proper utilization or, rather, liberation, would greatly simplify their defensive task. - Moreover, the example of this degree of tolerance would often be effective in persuading victims in other countries to follow suit. Revolutions have often been infectious. (Maybe the example of Haiti, recently, has also helped to get the Philippines upon a less despotic path.) A full record of all the resistance actions in this century could be very instructive and would have many lessons to teach. - Among them would be this one: No despotic government is firmly in its saddle if the oppressed considered and utilized all their options. - Overthrows of despotic governments do now probably occur more frequently than ever before. Alas, most of the revolutionaries and insurrectionists are on most questions just as ignorant and disinterested or just as intolerant as most of those were whom they have overthrown. Libertarians have far not had any better programs to teach them for e.g. revolutions and liberation wars and military insurrections. (If they do already exist, please, do point them out to me. - J.Z., 2.1.12.) – (Such a program would have to include e.g. the establishment and recognition of xyz diverse governments and societies in exile in opposition to every existing despotic territorial regime, all only for their present and future volunteers. – J.Z., 4.7.12.) All such consideration go beyond the interest of most people with at least some practical interest in and sympathy for mutual tolerance for tolerant actions. Well, they ought to consider precedents set by institutions on a much more limited scale, like duty-free shops for international travelers and free-enterprise-zones, both of which do allow, in practice, antagonists like Free Traders and Protectionists, Deregulators and Regulators, to peacefully coexist. - When each can choose his way of life as an individual, how much has he still to fear from others? How much do others still have to be afraid of him? - The dilemmas in which the terrorists find themselves - and also their victims, will largely be dissolved and so will be the motives for building and stockpiling ABC "weapons". - - Territorial integrity and sovereignty would be replaced by non-territorial autonomy, imposed laws by voluntarily chosen laws. - The common glue remaining, to achieve a free world society between them, would be: a) true respect for the self-government of others, for dissenters tolerantly doing their own thing. - b) Recognition for the individual rights that are claimed by people in other communities for themselves, from an updated declaration of individual rights. - c) A reliance on predetermined arbitration courts and avenues for the settlement of differences between members of different autonomous volunteer groups. - d) Local militias of volunteers sworn and trained to defend nothing but individual rights, to the extent that they are claimed, and doing so, as far as is humanly possible, without offending themselves against human rights, for instance by not using indiscriminate means for killing and destruction. - On each of these points much could and should be said but this would go far beyond the short case for freedom for self-responsible and voluntaristic actions, which it was my intention to make here. - If individualism, liberalism, libertarianism, the natural rights philosophy, anarchism, voluntaryism etc. do not go as far in the direction of mutual tolerance and individual choices and freedom of action as is indicated here, then they do not go far enough but are still stuck on the theoretical and practiced models of authoritarians and Statists, of people who want to remake the world coercively, in their own image or in accordance with their own ideals, at least in what they consider to be their exclusive territorial domains or hunting preserves. Then they still fail to see that their own future liberties, rights, security and prosperity largely depend on the degree to which they are willing to respect the equal freedom of all dissenters and non-conformists to do their own thing – to and for themselves. - Without this kind of freedom of action, tolerance and voluntaryism, we can expect, in the long run, only Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e. the realization of “our” governments’ MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) “policies”. - J.Z., 26.2.1986. Slightly revised: 10.12.04, 13.2.08, 24.1.11 & 21.10.11, 22.1.12, 4.7.12. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE.

PEACE & FREEDOM: Some extracts from “ON PANARCHY” No. VI, published in PEACE PLANS No. 671: Through Panarchism to Peace and Freedom - (Note that a longer version of this draft can be found on sheet 16.) - - Panarchism is nothing but the consistent application of a basic anarchist principle that has often been expressed and in various wordings. - - Thus Malatesta says in Ein anarchistisches Programm, 2, Kap., Wege und Mittel: "Thus freedom for everybody, so that they can propagate their ideas and experiment with them. Freedom without any other restriction than that arising quite naturally from the equal right of everyone else to be free." - Panarchists assert that they are the only ones who have given this idea a consistently anarchistic, voluntaristic and individualistic interpretation. - The best analogy is that of religious tolerance. Under it anyone can freely hold and practise his religious beliefs side by side with freethinkers, etc., who do their own things. They may still argue with each other but by words only. Otherwise, they peacefully coexist and leave each other alone or merely try to make individual converts. - The panarchist equivalent to this, in the political, economic and social sphere, is statism for statists and anarchism for anarchists, any form of statism and any form of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, for those who believe in it (as long as they can stand it) and any other kind of non-governmental organization for its followers. - - Consequently, the diverse groups would have the least reasons and motives to be antagonistic to the actions of others, who are just doing their own things, for or to themselves, because then the own actions would be least restricted by them. - Panarchy can become a common platform for many diverse groups, movements and minorities. Such a change does, naturally, have consequences, e.g. upon present party struggles, resistance and terrorist attempts, civil wars and international wars. - We do already have and enjoy panarchism (unconscious of it being panarchism) in many other limited spheres of life that are, however, very important in the eyes of most people, namely e.g. in sports, fashions, diets, entertainment, arts, etc. etc. - Alas, because of a number of popular myths, public and even scholarly opinion has so far exempted the political, economic and social spheres from this kind of freedom of action or experimental freedom. - As John Bright suggested in 1867: "Let us lift ourselves above the narrow circle in which we are apt to live and think; let us put ourselves on an historical eminence and judge fairly." - Panarchists are consistent and want to realize freedom of action in the more important spheres also. They do expect to achieve, through this extension of liberty (which includes even the liberty not to be free, according to individual choice), at least the same kind of advantages (apart from its ethical justification) that can be derived from freedom of action in the minor spheres, where diversity of actions is already the norm, where each does his own thing, not imposing it upon others. - - Panarchy thus means freedom to experiment, in all spheres - as long as the same freedom to act independently is fully respected in others, with their different choices. - J.Z., 1986 draft, edited: 21.10.11.

PEACE & LAISSEZ FAIRE: The 19th cent., relatively speaking, was a peaceful century; the 20th cent., so far, has been a century of total war and cold war." - William H. Peterson, "THE FREEMAN", Aug. 76. - Full laissez faire, not only in the economic but in the political sphere, too, i.e. for all who wanted it or would have come to appreciate it, would have made the 19th and the 20th century almost completely peaceful. No vast opportunities for political criminals would have been left. They would have been reduced to committing some more or less isolated private criminal acts and even these would have become greatly reduced. (See e.g. my article on this in PEACE PLANS 15.) - J.Z. 1.8.92, 9.1.93.

PEACE & PANARCHISM, PANARCHIST IDEAS AS SEEDS: When I was young, I wanted everything and all at once, until our old Scottish minister explained things this way: One night he dreamt that he saw a new shop in High Street. He went in, and saw an angel behind the counter. Nervously he asked what the shop sold. 'Everything your heart desires', the angel said. 'Then I want peace on earth', cried the minister, 'an end to sorrow, famine and disease...' 'Just one moment', smiled the angel. 'You haven't quite understood. We don't sell fruits here only seeds! - M. L. Grassick

PEACE & PANARCHISM: J.Z. on Panarchism & Peace, Why didn't early traces of panarchism spread widely and fully, early on? From an email by J.Z. to RCBJ, Dec. 04.: To: Richard C. B. Johnsson … you wrote: I have two quick thoughts after having read your “peace pan” text. 1 We all know about wars and violence under personal law in medieval times. - [His second point was: "2 It seems the extension of Roman citizenship ended the personal law system that existed in the Republic and the early Empire. Could this uniformity of - laws be an important reason for the Fall of Rome, the uprisings of Germanic tribes, etc? Do you know of any evidence in that direction?"  -  See on this and other details of this correspondence with him below under ZUBE, JOHN, Some further notes towards panarchism. - J.Z., 29.9.11.] - Do we know enough about them? I read a long history of Switzerland. Johannes von Mueller, Geschichten Schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft, 1942, Zuerich, Neubearbeitet von Dr. H. E. Wechlin, Herausgegeben von E. A. Hofmann, mit Ergaenzungen von Robert Glutz-Blozheim und Johann Kacob Hottinger. The first edition appeared almost 100 years before. It is in 3 volumes and makes very interesting reading from a libertarian point of view. (But I marked no passage re panarchism and only one on voluntary taxation. - J.Z., 22.9.11.) But: Its infighting was long and terrible and all so superfluous from our present point of view. - - So was the infighting of the many Red Indian tribes in America. Hopis and Eskimos were refugees from it and, under their conditions, they remained peaceful. - Consider also the frequent and from our point of view, quite senseless infighting among Negro tribes, often described in the popular novels by Wilbur Smith, although their personal law situation, e.g., in the Congo, according to one sociologist that I knew, Melanie Foxcroft, allowed for up to 5 juridical avenues by choice. - The Muslims and the Christians, long after religious tolerance was introduced in other countries, still fight each other in many trouble spots in the world, e.g. in the Sudan and in Indonesia. Why didn' t they simply adopt such a simple and one already wide-spread solution among themselves? - Some Christians still fight each other - in Ireland. Why weren't panarchist practices not adopted there as well? - Was there sufficient peace among the head-hunters anywhere, among the 1000 tribes in New Guinea? Why was "long pig" preferred to "short pig"? Why didn't they at least respect their personal laws and rights to that extent? - Are our political parties ready to accept panarchism? - - In India, before the English took over, the princes were almost continuously at war with each other - at the expense of their subjects. - Just like about 27 Germany principalities and Kingdoms were before German unification. (Admittedly, here the unification led to even greater mass murders.) – U. v. Beckerath pointed out that at one stage a Buddhist sectarian movement united the subjects against the warring Indian princes and induced its believers to try to establish a separate peace among themselves, over the heads of their rulers. Supposedly, all the warring princes of India united against this danger to themselves, posed by that Buddhist movement, so that, as a result, it was almost totally wiped out and almost no trace of it can be found any longer and modern Buddhists are ignorant of it. True or false? I still do not know and have no other and written references on this. Beckerath probably had them - in his burnt pre-war library. - In feudalist times local princes and lords were almost constantly at war with each other. In Europe, too. Only the rise of more or less absolute and stronger princes or kings, and their growing empires, kings, who somewhat preserved the "peace of their realm", at least in their revenue interests and to subdue competitors for power, together with e.g. the "Peace of God", proclaimed, upheld and gradually spread, by some of the early popes, outlawing feuding for more and more days of the week, may have preserved civilization sufficiently. - Add to this the establishment of armed free citizens and their federations and the invention of guns and canons and also improvements in the bow and arrow technology, against armored knights or robber barons and their castles. They all gave peace and civilization a chance. - How many were killed in these almost constant small clashes? Who knows? Possibly more, at least percentage-wise, than in the infrequent large and very large wars, that were well enough recorded and reported. - Those, who wiped out, e.g. the Aborigines in Tasmania and Australia, did also not keep official records for inspection by historians. A wide-ranging controversy rages presently in Australia on this subject. Only indirectly, in private letters, can some evidence of such murders, man-hunts and extermination methods be found. - Sometimes they were private "retaliations" against those who stole their animals or set fire to their barns and houses - just like in the Wars of Red Indians and white settlers. The Crown may have disapproved of such killings - but did not prevent them, either. Nor did it pacify the natives or keep them from aggressions. Sometimes the government itself engaged in punitive police expeditions, acting on the principle of collective responsibility, killing even women and children. With the record of atrocities in our times, can we really blame them all that much? We did not sufficiently restrain or punish such wrong-doers, either. The records of international courts in this respect, against the genocide practitioners of our times, constitute a tragi-comedy, e.g. regarding Bosnia and East Timor. - The indirect victims, through the destruction of dwellings and exposure to the elements, in the minor wars, may have been even more numerous than those directly slain. But, who would have kept records or could have afforded to do so or would have been interested to do so? - - We have seen that even the destruction of the Soviet Empire has led to some extra fighting and that the "liberation" of India also lead to some wars and civil war actions. - - Perhaps nowhere did the part-realization of personal law and a-territorial autonomy assure peace and security sufficiently. - The Hansa conducted its own wars, just as if it had been a territorial power. And it strove to establish and maintain its own monopoly powers. - The Greek cities, like later the Swiss, fought each other. The leagues of Greeks did the same. If they had cooperated against the Romans, they might have won. (A suggestion by U. von Beckerath.) - - Slavery was and remained almost universal and traces of it remain even in our days, though, largely, reduced to sexual slavery, conscription and compulsory schooling, taxation and State membership or territorial subordination. - Why didn't panarchism spread explosively, like Christianity did, and Islam and territorial statism, the latter two partly by persuasion and partly by fire and sword? - Unless we come to find and publish quite satisfactory answers to such questions our case will still be built largely on sand and can be criticized all too easily. - That's why I try to find some answers, explanations or, you might say, rationalizations or excuses. - We do have to make many more discoveries in this sphere - and confirm them. - A new science of politics, of peace making, of tolerance, of publicity of the extent and limits for free experiments in all spheres, is not easily established. - - Sure, there were terrible acts committed during these times. But have they been exaggerated? - Possibly. Who really knows? Where are the records? Are they reliable? - - From the fall of Rome to the Thirty Years War starting in 1618, i.e. more than 1000 years, can you name the major wars? -  Presently, merely the empire building of Charles the Great comes to my mind, around 800. When he subdued e.g. the Saxons and had taken about 6000 of them prisoner, he had all of them slaughtered. (Here I report only what rightly or wrongly sticks in my bad memory.) His major crime was to permit, by his last will and testament, the splitting up of his Empire among several of his heirs - whose poor subjects were later forced to fight each other by the successors. [Also a suggestion by U. v. Beckerath.] A personal law split-up and decentralization was not considered by him, either. Almost all the subsequent European wars resulted from that bad move. Well, that is at least one point of view on this. Already then and by him, peoples and countries were considered to be personal properties, to be "fairly" distributed among his heirs. No sign of a-territorialism and personal law recognition and individual choice there, except his own. (One possible explanation: Few people could read and write then and books, in form of hand-written copies, were rather rare. – J.Z., 4.7.12.) - Major wars are not necessarily the only major killers. The rash of brushfire wars since WW II, combined with continuing civil wars, in 30 to 90 trouble-spots in the world, every year, since then, has, probably, by now killed already more people than were in WW I. Alas, I do not have such statistics on hand. - - The killings in Africa alone, since WW II, of Negroes towards Negroes, far exceed the killings of Negroes by the authoritarian white regime in South Africa - but are, usually, less covered by the media. Naturally, they do not justify the official S.A. killings, either. But they do, somewhat, explain their motivation and the fear involved, that S.A. may also be turned into such a "liberated" country and population. - By now the political repression there seems to have been diminished - but the private crime rate shot up. Ask Jim Peron about that. - Why did the virtual canton ideas there not outpace the propaganda for Swiss type cantons? Why did the terrible; and coercive territorial "unifiers" win, once again? - - Take also the case of abortions, where considerable individual and legal alternatives to these killings do already exist. Nevertheless, probably hundreds of millions of these innocents have been killed, by their own parents, with the aid of medics or quacks, more or less by choice? And this merely since WW II. - Where were and are the preventative panarchistic institutions and actions here? - What were any such atrocities in comparison to later territorial disputes? We must remember that peaceful activities almost never were recorded only misery was, as a rule. This tendency still prevails ­ just have a look in any newspaper. ” If there is no news, make it up or at least exaggerate.” Why should it have been any different in the past? Would there have been no records if panarchistic institutions, principles and practices had, quite obviously, either prevented wars or rapidly ended them? [Without too much of an effort, I cannot clearly distinguish here between his and my wordings. - J.Z., 22.9.11.] - If any of the Popes (sometimes there existed several at the same time, all making monopolistic claims!) had made a successful panarchistic appeal, then, certainly, a record of this would have been kept. I feel certain that some panarchistic ideas are also recorded in some Catholic archives and libraries - but this Church was not an ideal nursery for them, either, in spite of its attempt to achieve a world-wide peace, in its own way. - (By the way, this church has hundreds of records on levitation happenings.) Alas, its peace promotion ideas are very limited, sometimes even confined to mere prayers! - Why did the ideas and practices of governments-in-exile remained confined to those which also claimed a territorial monopoly? - Why did diplomats not explore sufficiently the negotiation options and separate peace treaty options with dissenting minorities? - Why were mostly only puppet regimes and satellite governments set up instead of quite rightful and voluntaristic alternatives only? - Sometimes the motives of territorial governments are obvious. They help to suppress separatism and independence movements in their neighborhood because they are afraid of them at home. -  Napoleon I had his excuse for his defeat in Russia. Later, defeated and incarcerated, he claimed a debt of gratitude from the Russian Czar to him, for, he declared, if I had set the serfs free, I would have won! Maybe, he would have. He, the killer of about 2-3 million people, claimed, then, that humanitarian motives prevented him from making such a proclamation. He had explained that he would not have wanted a repetition of the atrocities of the French Revolution. I believe the total number of victims of the Red Terror of it, already smaller than the total number of victims of the following White Terror, would have been far exceeded by the total number of victims of the Napoleonic wars. - The decentralist, alternative institution, liberation-approach was not even applied then and there, even when it might have led to an easy military victory. - These possibilities are not even fully recognized by most libertarians and anarchists today. - Humane treatments of POWs, better still, their liberation and free choice of governments or societies for them, could have turned the course of many a wars and could have led to liberation and short wars with little bloodshed. Alas! See the short essay of Beckerath on this, in appendix 18 of my second peace book. Try to interest a member of the usual peace movement in such an approach! - It is not only peaceful activities that are not sufficiently recorded. This applies to criminal activities, likewise. Even the police is involved in some forged crime statistics, for political reasons. Many years ago a NSW policeman was dismissed because he revealed such a forgery! - - Criminals themselves, certainly do not document and publish their crimes. Nor do many victims even bother to complain about being victimized - because they expect little help or no indemnity. - - There was no official score-keeping of the victims of feudal wars. Most of the lords and their serfs could not even write and read and the monks who could, would, mostly, not have dared to compile and keep such records, either. Nor was there a free press or postal service for such news. The Dark Ages were really dark in many respects. Admittedly, they had some bright aspects as well. But did these penetrate into all of its dark corners? Did they prevent e.g. pogroms? Or the crusades? Or the burning of witches, the murder of religions dissenters? - In some countries even private banditry was almost universal. Even in India and China. In Sicily, the Mafia installed, sometimes, at least some degrees of order and security, by keeping its private competitors down and bribing the official competition and financing itself through some approximation of voluntary taxation. Its protection, to those who paid, was often more effective than that of the official police force. But, obviously, this "aid" did not overthrow the official territorial monopoly, either, but, rather, lived in a kind of symbiosis with it. It would have been much less powerful if e.g. gambling, prostitution and drugs had been legalized and custom duties abolished. - The private night-watch, patrol and security forces have not yet competitively replaced the official police protection services, although they have already more manpower and private supporters than has the official police force. Why was there no rapid growth of influence among them? Why did they rather compete with each other than make a common cause against the remaining official monopoly? Why did they remain merely niche services? What prevented their sufficiently effective competition? - Sometimes, it may be simply the subsidies involved, like those in "free" public library services and in "free" public schooling, combined with compulsory attendance. - Admittedly, there are now more private schools and home-schooling efforts than for a long time before - but they have certainly not yet conquered all of their potential markets, no matter how efficient they were, like e.g. Joseph Lancaster's "monitor system". Nor have they, as yet, spread sufficient enlightenment. - I find it inexcusable, scandalous, that even tyrannicide is not yet sufficiently discussed as a single step, one of many, which might, in extreme cases, especially when combined with many other rightful and rational steps, do some good, instead of leading to even more atrocities. (Typically, it is not even a word in my automatic spelling system, inbuilt in Eudora.) Obviously, a separation of fanatic rulers and their volunteers from unwilling victims is involved here, or some choice of governments and effective removal of unwanted and imposed ones. Tyranny would be reduced through it by at least one head. These executioners have, obviously, undertaken an individualist "secession" by such actions, even though they knew, that they had, most likely, to lay down their lives in such an action. - A few dozen such secessionists and Hitler would not have survived for long and millions of lives would have been spared. [He managed to survive 43 publicly recorded tyrannicide attempts. - J.Z., 22.9.11.] Such secessionism and determination cannot be fully effectively outlawed and suppressed. Why was it not more effectively applied against obviously criminal governments, real monsters in human bodies? - Bad as the present US government is, in many respects, it has undertaken some sensible steps in this direction. Please do not distort this statement as if it meant that I am a fan of Bush or apologist for him. I merely want to state that I am not a fanatic enemy of all his efforts and actions, and those of his advisors, in every respect. - - Rommel was one of the best and most honorable German soldiers. But, he still served, for all too long, even a man and a regime like Hitler's, all too well, in spite of his scruples. He had not clearly decided when a soldier ought to disobey a government that is criminal. He still found himself bound, for all too long, by his oath. Thus, the several assassination attempts by the Allies against him were justified, in my eyes. But they should have been better organized. - At least one promising attempt, proposed by an English officer, against Hitler, was prevented by the English government! [This officer was foolish enough to ask for official English government permission for such an action! It was then denied. - J.Z., 22.9.11.] - Czarism was once defined as "despotism, somewhat moderated by assassination". - Romans and Greeks, at one stage, and some medieval theorists, did not consider such actions as assassinations or murders but as rightful, even obligatory executions, after these criminals, by their actions, had outlawed themselves. - Separate peace treaties, of formal subjects of such tyrants, with the armies or governments of his opponents, are another way of seceding, resisting and liberating. - The convention of Tauroggen, I believe in 1812, is interesting in this respect. First it neutralized the Prussian forces, formally allies and auxiliaries of Napoleon, then it turned them against him. Later, in the battle of Leipzig, some of the German and involuntary auxiliaries, suddenly turned their guns around, against the French occupation forces and formal allies, thus declaring their secession effectively. - The history of mass desertions, invited or spontaneous, is also interesting in the history of wars and revolutions and has its obvious panarchist aspects. Alas, a complete history of such events has not yet been written. Such somewhat panarchistic actions have been peace promoting. But mostly they were not panarchistic enough and thus they led to new territorial despotism or at least authoritarianism. - Instead, after the fall of Rome, under personal law in Muslim countries and later European ones, science made progress. Commerce flourished in several Mediterranean cities, something even Kropotkin noticed and approved of in one of his text at, and these were sometimes called the cradles of capitalism. Double entry bookkeeping, deposit banking, giro system, etc. - It seems much positive happened under personal laws! Is there a need for some revisionism? - Yes. But even statism and totalitarianism did not prevent ALL progress. Some innovations and inventions happened even under the Nazi and Soviet regime. As long as they were not obviously directed against or endangering these regimes there were even extraordinary State measures to support them. - On the other hand, some inventors intentionally withheld their invention from these regimes. I met two such inventors in Germany. One had invented a very early jet engine but never published his invention. After the war he was too old to promote it actively and by then it might already have been outdated, too. - But how much progress through experimental freedom - properly supported in a market-like way - was prevented? Even now, in the US, e.g., through the FDA. – Compare also the outlawry of DDT - - even when millions of deaths occur, as a result of such government institutions and measures, these measures are not rapidly stopped. - Compulsory x-rays were continued for many decades, even when their harmful effects may already have far exceeded their helpful effects. - - Why did experimental freedom remain largely confined to agriculture, biology, technology, science, medicine? - Why did almost none of these experimenters speak up for experimental freedom in all spheres, least of all e.g., Einstein? -  It seems the extension of Roman citizenship ended the personal law system that existed in the Roman Republic and the early Empire. Could this uniformity of laws be an important reason for the Fall of Rome, the uprisings of Germanic tribes, etc.? Do you know of any evidence in that direction? - Were they uprisings or invasions or plundering, rape, slavery and conquest attempts? Naturally, wherever the barbarian tribes had been conquered by Romans or others, they often rose in rebellion. - At least 45 different theories on the fall of the Roman Empire are on record. Not one of them can fully explain everything that happened. Some will be quite false or relatively unimportant. Some will have acted in combination with others. - It is disgusting that even this question has not yet been fully settled by now - although our own fate may depend upon it. - Let's face it. Those who lived largely and for long under personal laws were not angels, either, not really gentlemen and ladies, not fully civilized and tolerant human beings, sufficiently enlightened and wise in their decisions and actions. - The single-hypothesis explanations can only explain so much, not everything. They do not offer panaceas or cure-alls for all conditions and problems. Moreover, they are only effective, as effective as they can be, if they are properly and consistently applied. The multiple hypothesis approach is more likely to be successful in this sphere as well. - I do not want to discourage you - but the job ahead is not easy and, most likely, not readily solved with merely two articles, however excellent they are. But, if they act as snowballs towards an avalanche ... - Compare e.g. the extensive literature on Free Trade and on Atheism. Have these writings finally "conquered" the minds and the world, in our days, after centuries of such efforts and after most restrictions on such publications have disappeared? - Has this kind of literature been sufficiently combined yet, e.g. these two types each on a CD, containing 3000 such books? - What obstacles are there for the proper publication and marketing of new and better ideas and free experimentation with them? - There is revisionism and revisionism. Some find excuses even for the crimes of Nazis and Soviet or try to "correct" or minimize their mass murder figures. Other efforts explore the history of what might have been, if only other and rightful as well as sensible steps had been taken and other historical experiences taken as good lessons to be learnt from. - I am mainly interested in the latter kind of "revisionism". - - Panarchism has many different aspects. We ought to explore and utilize all of them. Only then can it become almost invincible. Otherwise, at least two "Achilles heels"" are left in it. - Only when all its rightful, rational and positive possibilities become fully recognized and utilized will it be successful and will we, retrospectively, come to realize why it could not and did not fully succeed before. - The main factor, in my opinion, is the fact that all genuine individual human rights and liberties were not clearly seen and recognized then - and are not even today. I found even insufficient interest in them, in attempts to declare all of them as fully and clearly as is possible now - among supposedly radical and consistent anarchists and libertarians. So what could one expect from people centuries to thousands of years ago, most of them illiterate or when literate, having access only to a relatively few books? Moreover, they did not have the modern recording, retrieval and communication options. Even we haven't fully utilized these as yet for the promotion of our ideals. - I would welcome other and better explanations. - J.Z., 22.9.11, 22.1.12. - HISTORY, HUMAN RIGHTS, ENLIGHTENMENT, PROGRESS – I THOUGHT THAT I HAD A DOUBLE ENTRY HERE, UNDER A DIFFERENT HEADING – BUT I CANNOT FIND IT!!!

PEACE & PANARCHISM: Panarchism is the main platform point for the peaceful settlement of most of the remaining internal and external disagreements of communities, societies and governance systems chosen by volunteers for themselves. Nevertheless, and although it is only the opposite choice of voluntary and exterritorial autonomy to territorial, monopolistic, majoritarian and compulsory decision-making, it has been left almost completely out of most of the official and other public discussion of opportunities to achieve peace in freedom and justice for all.  The exterritorial autonomy solution for volunteer communities has e.g. not been publicly and widely discussed e.g. for South Africa, the USSR, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Israel, Ireland, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, India, China, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Yugoslavia, the Balkans and  for all the new territorial States and  former colonies. – The territorial model has blocked most minds and blinded them to alternative, the just and liberating exterritorialist and voluntary options. This applies even to most of the anarchists and libertarians who, in this respect, are not so radical after all. – J.Z., n.d., 9.1.99, 23.1.12, 4.7.12. - It has also blinded them to the atrocities and oppressions and exploitative actions that are, inevitably, associated with territorialism. - Thus territorialism is still widely seen as the solution rather than the problem. - J.Z., 8.9.04.

PEACE & PANARCHISM: Peace, the exterritorial, voluntary, individualist, decentralist way! All other attempts lead at best only to temporary armistices but do not cut the roots of international and civil wars. – J.Z., 27.1.05.

PEACE & PANARCHISM: See especially my two peace books. Have any other books dealt with this aspect as extensively? & & See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON:  On Panarchy. Also: READ, LEONARD E.A comprehensive bibliography remains to be compiled, partly from the hints in this A to Z compilation.

PEACE & PANARCHISM: Through panarchism finally an end to all wars, civil wars, revolutions and terrorism, despotism, tyrannies and totalitarian regimes. It means a new and radically reformed political science and practice. A tolerant framework for all tolerant people which fundamentally promoting peace, justice, freedom, rights, prosperity, progress and enlightenment, while strengthening and combining them against the remaining private and official criminals. Through panarchism wars could become reduced to rightful policing actions against a small minority of warmongers, power addicts other aggressive and oppressive fanatics and terrorists. – J.Z., n.d. & 23.1.12, 4.7.12. – WARFARE, WAR, WAR AIMS, MILITIA, DEFENCE, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION, MILITARY UPRISINGS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, DESERTION, FRATERNIZATION

PEACE & TERRITORIALISM: Friedensschluss: das heisst, schon dem Worte nach: Kriegsbeginn." - Lohberger. (Conclusion of Peace: That means, already according to its wording, the beginning of war. - (In German the term "Schluss" means also "end", not only a "contract".) - A "peace" between territorial powers is merely the continuance of war with other means." - It leaves all their war making powers and territorialist motivations untouched and thus amounts at most to a temporary armistice which reduces continuous and wholesale slaughter to occasional or EVEN frequent armed clashes or border “incidents” and otherwise a more or less open or repressed civil war on both sides. - J.Z. 5.7.92, 15.1.93, 23.1.12.

PEACE & TERRITORIALISM: The question of peace should not be considered as if it were separate from the question of the power and organization of the State and the question of the State should not be considered as if it were separate from the question of territorialism, i.e., of territorialism vs. exterritorialism. Nor should territorialism and exterritorialism be considered as if they were separable from the question of individual rights and liberties, their realization and protection. - J.Z., 6.12.92, 9.12.03, 23.1.12.

PEACE BOOKS: Book One: WHAT HAS TO BE CHANGED IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL STATES TO MAKE A LASTING PEACE POSSIBLE AND HOW CAN THESE REFORMS BE REALIZED? - by John Zube - - Book Two: AN ABC - AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR - by John Zube. - - Book Three: The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom - The Alternative to the Communist Manifesto. English translation of "Das Manifest der Freiheit und des Friedens/Der Gegenpol zum Kommunistischen Manifest" by K.H.Z. Solneman [= Kurt H. Zube (1905-1991)]. RTF download here. - HTML version. – Apparently, these URLs did not copy correctly. See:, - -’peace.htm - 

PEACE IN EVERY TROUBLE-SPOT IN THE WORLD: With the territorial model, so far almost exclusively considered by almost all media and book writers, officials and political “scientists”, a lasting peace in freedom and justice cannot, obviously (to me) be achieved, although it has been tried over and over again. It is high time to try the opposite, the exterritorialist and voluntaryists approach, in every crisis spot. That is likely to be the win-win option or compromise (an uncompromising one!) that is rightful, possible and acceptable to most, even the radicals, since they could have their kind of radicalism, too, without having to impose it upon dissenters or without having to fear that dissenters would force upon them anything else. Almost every human action becomes possible under panarchism for those who do like them, except crimes and aggressions or other despotic acts towards non-members. As far as the own voluntary members are concerned, they would have to suffer the abuses they directly or indirectly contracted for, as long as they can stand them, in their self-chosen political etc. sado-masochistic constitutions. However, withdrawal periods should be agreed upon and the right to instantly be dismissed or to secede in case of severe breaches of contracted-for rights and liberties. – J.Z., 28.11.93, 12.1.99, 8.9.04, 19.9.04.

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST: Through Rejuvenation of Old Jewish and Arabian Exterritorialist Traditions, plan 202, pages 25 - 29, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. - ISRAEL, ARABS, MILLET SYSTEM. - ON PANARCHY, 1-24, in various PEACE PLANS issues, has been digitized in the meantime. - J.Z., 24.1.11. - COF, SOF, MILLET SYSTEM, DHIMMI, ISRAEL,

PEACE PLANS & PANARCHISM, MAIN TITLES: At least the earlier titles of this kind are already integrated in this listing. The job of extracting and adding later titles in the PEACE PLANS series remains to be done. - J.Z., 2.9.04. PEACE PLANS was and is (by being still available in back issues) a pamphlet series, published by me from 1964 onwards to 2002. It is largely based on panarchistic ideas and numerous of its “plans” deal with this subject, e.g. the following plans: 4, 16-18, 19C, 20, 21, 29, 61-65, 67, 77, 90, 91, 93, 100, 102,109, 110, 120, 126, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 147, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159, 160/44, 162/50&53, 169181, 170,173,174/3, 175/31ff, 179, 181/47, 183/50 & 51& 54, 184, 188, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206/35, 216, 219, 220, 221, 228/78, 230, 233, 234, 236, 239, 240, 241 and many later issues up to No. 1779, in 2002, on microfiche. Not only articles and pamphlets were published in it but whole books. All issues since No. 22 are on microfiche only. All back issues are available only in this format. See especially its sub-series ON PANARCHY. A list of panarchist or panarchist-interest writings in the LMP series PEACE PLANS, outside of the sub-series "ON PANARCHY": 1 & 74, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833.

PEACE PLANS & PANARCHISM, MAIN TITLES: the main and the supplementary literature list of LMP: Libertarian Microfiche Publishing and its PEACE PLANS        series, published from 1964 to 2002. All of them are still in print - on microfiche. PEACE PLANS 1-20 and a few others have been digitized and are offered so far only via e-mail or my first primitive CD. The contents of the micro-filmed and later digitized sub-series "ON PANARCHY" and also other relevant books of PEACE PLANS and other publishers have been integrated in this list. My main website:, brings, for lack of space, only my main literature list, not, like, the supplementary listing. My main site was limited to 5 MBs, then, supposedly exceeded this limit and was thus, officially discontinued, but my service provider, Acenet, did generously, or as an over-sight, continue it once I subscribed to broadband and, with this more expensive subscription to the faster broadband connection, lost the free entitlement to a 5 MB Website. My two peace books, reproduced on , are mainly based on panarchism and monetary freedom. The latter liberty is extensively discussed in the works of Ulrich von Beckerath. His 3 books on this and many other monetary freedom writings by Thomas Greco et al are now offered on  See also  and  See also Kurt Zube's anarchist Manifesto containing a whole chapter dedicated to the ideal of: To each the government of his own dreams! - J.Z., 19.9.04, 23.1.12. – - J.Z., 19.9.04. - A list of panarchist or panarchist-interest writings in the LMP series PEACE PLANS, outside of the sub-series "ON PANARCHY", is in ON PANARCHY XII, in PEACE PLANS 833. – A free banking A to Z compilation and a free banking bibliography of mine are now also on - J.Z., 4.7.12.

PEACE PROMOTION AMONG THE BERBERS: Through Exterritorial Institutions and Voluntary Associations, plan 201, pages 23-24, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507. - COF OR SOF & BERBERS.

PEACE RESEARCH: Science has brought little peace on earth or to the soul of man, although it has brought many comforts to body and business.” - Source not known. - Serious peace studies have not even begun until the exterritorial alternatives are seriously considered, too. - J.Z. 26.7.92. - There exists no scientific peace research as long as this relatively simple and obvious alternative is not considered at all or not taken serious, in spite of extensive and persistent precedents, which, although still incomplete, have led to relative peace in their spheres. Fully realized, they might have eliminated the governmentally organized mass murders called wars. - J.Z. 8.1.93, 3.1.12. - SCIENCE

PEACE THROUGH PANARCHY? Panarchy, with its individual secessionism, voluntary membership, exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, is not yet a major force for peace, just like other radical liberty and rights proposals are now not yet a major force towards total liberty and justice, or towards as much of them as each wants for himself, just as the present and monopolized democratic freedom and justice system, and reform attempts for it, all only on a territorial basis, are not yet a major force towards full rights, justice and freedom for all – to each his own – and just like freedom in education proposals are not yet major and effective forces towards sufficient enlightenment, and like freedom to experiment is not yet a general free and effetive option, as long as it is excluded in the political, economic and social spheres via territorial statism and as long are long as all of the individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy options remain, largely and in all countries and in most circles, unknown, unappreciated, even objected to and resisted or, worse still, systematically, legally and severely, i.e. territorially obstructed. – See also my file: Pan JZ notes 29 12 04 Peace & Pan of ca. 18 pages.

PEACE TREATIES: from the year 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1860 more than 8,000 treaties of peace, which were meant to remain in force forever, were concluded. The average time they remained in force was two years.” – G. Valbert, “REVUE DES DEUX MONDES”, April 1894, p.692. - Pitirim A. Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories Through the First Quarter of the Twentieth Century, Harper Torchbooks, 1928, in footnotes, p.25. – Can we expect better results from territorial Warfare States? – J.Z., 7.3.09. – Q.

PEACE VS. WAR, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM:  Territorialists are war mongers, whether they are aware of this or not, who are conducting almost perpetually either civil or external wars, at least to some extent, even when reduced to what is called „election campaigns“, merely as a result of their form of organization. Exterritorialists are automatically peace promoters, whether they are aware of this or not, as a result of their form voluntaristic and competitive organization, subject to individual choices. - Exterritorialism promotes peace, justice, freedom, progress, enlightenment and prosperity while territorialism has the opposite effects, sometimes to catastrophic degrees. – J.Z., 27.1.05.

PEACE, CIVIL WAR, WAR & PANARCHISM: The choice is either a) permanent or all too frequent and temporary, more or less open and violent uncivil war or international war - as a consequence of constitutionalising, legalising and juridically defending territorialism or b) exterritorial autonomy for all those who want it. - J.Z. 17.9.87, 1.4.89, 19.9.04.

PEACE, FREEDOM, JUSTICE, PROGRESS & PROSPERITY OR CONSISTENT LAISSEZ FAIRE, IN ALL SPHERES, INCLUDING THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SPHERES, NOT ONLY THE ECONOMIC SPHERE: There is not other peace, freedom, justice, progress and prosperity like that which would be realized by panarchism. - J.Z., 04.11.

PEACE, GOOD WILL, LOVE & PANARCHISM: From: John Zube to Thomas H. Greco, Jr., Gian Piero de Bellis", David Hart, - 23.12.02, Re: PEACE PLANS 61-63 digitized, Free Banking & Panarchy. - Dear Thomas, Gian and David, I never send around x-mas cards - but I do more than make up for it otherwise. Instance this long e-mail with still longer attachments. - Wish I could send you the time to read them as well. But at least now you will have these texts on hand as references. Could one's reference library ever be too large? - PIOT, John. - "PEACE ON EARTH AND GOOD WILL TOWARDS ALL MEN."??? - I always get somewhat annoyed when I read or hear this and similar slogans, like e.g.: "Love your enemy!" They are all too general in their formulas and do not suggest how they could be practically realized, although such suggestions have been made for 2,000 years and even longer. What are the fundamental preconditions for "Peace on Earth" and for "good will towards all men"? and how, if we cannot come to love all men, least of all our enemies, could we at least become just towards them? What are the minimum requirements for this? -  "Love", in any of its many forms, is just not strong, wide-spread or tolerant and embracing and practicable enough to achieve and secure peace. - In some of its forms, like many intolerant religious beliefs, or jealousy, it has led to many killings. - Alas, most people have still not much clearer notions about the ideas and practices of justice, rights, tolerance option and liberties, either, and what it means to be truly self-governing, self-controlling and to individually grant consent or to withdraw it. They still shrink away from their ultimate values: individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, voluntarism - in every sphere and full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities as a result. - How could a lasting peace, resting upon freedom, justice and prosperity and new kinds of peaceful principles and institutions, traditions and customs become first sufficiently discussed and publicized and then finally realized? - Slogans like the two on top do not help us in this respect at all. They do rather stop further thinking with their dogmatism than promote it. They assume that wishful thinking, in all too general terms, would be enough to provide practical solutions. - How? - Taking two widely publicized examples of hostile groupings, I suggest: Let each Arab group of volunteers, of whatever shade of opinion, as well as each Jewish group of volunteers, of every shade of opinion, rule itself under individually self-chosen personal laws, i.e., under full exterritorial autonomy for voluntary as opposed to geographical or territorial communities. Moreover let each other voluntary group enjoy the same kind of self-government option for itself. - In short: PIOT: Panarchy In Our Time or, as my father, K.H.Z. Solneman, suggested, in his 1977, 1983 "Manifesto for Peace and Freedom": "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams." - (My version of his formula. This book was published, in the German original and in one English versions, in print on paper and both were later digitized, not only put in my micro-fiched PEACE PLANS series.) - The obvious large precedent was set by religious freedom or religious tolerance, which has eliminated religious wars and religious civil wars - to the extent that it was realized. The same kind of tolerance and peaceful coexistence or experimental freedom or minority autonomy has still to be established in the political, economic and social system spheres, to the extent that these are presently monopolistically preempted by territorial governments. - Other precedents are scientific and technical experiments, which are tolerantly practised, as well as the great variations in private life-styles in the somewhat enlightened and free “developed” countries, many of them also “armed” with mass murder devices or anti-people or anti-population “weapons”. - To the extent that people are free to engage in their own and freely chosen practices, they do not fight each other in the streets, as a rule. However, since they do, presently, when living in the same territory, largely belong to the same territorial communities, they still try to dominate and exploit each other via territorial laws, with sometimes one group and then another being temporarily dominant in a territory and "legitimizing" its preferences by its laws and jurisdiction. This is done under slogans like: "Equality before the law!" and: "One law for all!”, with only uniform territorial laws being taken into consideration and a persistent blindness towards the just, liberating, enlightening and prosperity promoting exterritorial alternatives. All this under the pretence of "public interest" and democratic “consent” or a “mandate” by "free" “elections". At most they commit their offences against the smallest numbers. - But their avalanches of laws find ever-new victims and establish ever new privileges and all too often the consent of the victims is granted and the rightful opting-out and experimental freedom alternatives are ignored or suppressed. - This fundamental exterritorial and voluntary change would maximize all creative and self-governance options and self-controlled activities and institutions, while minimizing all mass-murderous and destructive ones. For some details see e.g. my two peace books. - Just the opposite to territorial institutions, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions is required to bring us as close to the realization of our own ideals, for and among ourselves, as human being can come, by their own efforts and at their own risk and expense. - It would leave no one any good reason or motive to complain about the activities of the community that he has chosen for himself - while leaving him free to secede from it, once he has become disappointed by it, and also free to join or establish another volunteer community, one closer to his present ideals. No re-education or election campaign, no majority approval, no fighting or collectivist revolution would be required. One-man "revolutions" would become optional and institutionalized - and they would leave the affairs of others alone. Thus they would not antagonize them and provoke resistance. - As Prof. Rudolf Rummel has pointed out, in his numerous web pages, the "democratic" States have been much more peaceful than the "rogue States". That fact is undeniable, when clearly pointed out, as he did. However, most of them, especially the larger ones, are also still only territorial "warfare States", as well, with despotic decision-making powers concentrated at the top (however representatively "democratized" in its forms), with power to conscript, tax, inflate, deflate, regulate and begin and conduct a war - largely independent of the opinions or convictions of their subjects, or successfully manipulating most of them. Nor do most of them set sufficiently attractive alternatives, by their examples, to induce the despotically ruled people and soldiers to rise in attempts to gain the same still all too limited liberties for themselves. When the victims of open dictatorships managed to flee or desert, then they are not always welcomed with open arms by democratic territorial States, because, under their monetary and financial despotism, they do not know how to fully employ all of their own subjects, far less large inflows of refugees and deserters. Thus they rather imprison and deport illegal immigrants or keep them forcefully out, by navies, which rather go after refugees than pirates. - Like the despotic regimes, they have also largely failed to proclaim exclusively just and liberating war and peace aims. - The Iron Curtain is down and new and "softer" ones have been set up, by the "democracies". If you can manage to ignore the present new barriers to free migration, remember the ones which were set up to prevent millions of Jewish and other victims of the Nazi regime from escaping it into "free" and "democratic" countries. Remember also the Chinese mother, highly pregnant with a second child, who managed to escape from Red China, only to be imprisoned and deported back as an "illegal immigrant", to be coercively aborted "at home". How many Western democratic people manage to ignore such atrocities and those committed by pirates against "boat people", just like all too many "good" Germans ignored or denied, for all too long, all too many atrocities committed by the Nazis? Finally, they were rendered powerless to do anything about them. - Even mere verbal criticism or protests were suppressed or severely punished. Remember: Some Jews were conscripted, by sheer terror measures, into forced labor in the extermination camps. Only towards the end, when also threatened by extermination, did some of them manage to rise, escape and survive. (Sobibor, Treblinka, Byalistok) By now "democratic" States have re-invented concentration camps for illegal immigrants and gained votes for themselves by as wrongly treating innocent foreigners, whose only "crime" is "illegal immigration". (A new German slogan says: There are no illegal humans!) In our times "people smugglers" are considered to be criminals, not the ones who set up and maintain immigration barriers and concentration camps and thus produced “people smugglers”, just like Protectionists produced conventional smuggling. In some ways all territorial nations have become nation-wide concentration camps. - "Democratic" States, with their "protectionism", monetary despotism, fiscal policies and avalanches of laws, their military institutions, foreign policies and mass extermination devices (A democratic State was the first and only one to use them - and they have further “improved” them to vast overkill-proportions!), as well as their collective responsibility prejudices and practices, have led to terrorism, perpetuated the arms race and dictatorships in other countries, and have, directly or indirectly, also caused or prolonged wars and made them unnecessarily bloody. Their compulsory mis-education system has also led to the growth of territorial statism, State socialist practices and an anti-capitalist, anti-market, anti-property, anti-competition, anti-profit and anti-rights and anti-liberty mentality in all too large part of the population. The Age of Enlightenment was turned into an age of systematic public misinformation and wrongful propaganda, even in the supposedly enlightened and progressive “democracies”. Even the Soviet system gained, after a few generations, the support of about 30 % of the population, afraid of and opposed to liberties. The enemies of fundamental liberties may be even more numerous in the traditionally "free" democracies. They have learned to "argue" against even the most basic liberties and take all too many oppressions and exploitations and controls for granted, as rightful and necessary. Moreover, in them, as well, the worst types tend to get to the top - as already Hayek pointed out in his classical work: The Road to Serfdom. - In short, as territorial institutions, with compulsory members or subjects, they are not innocent babes, either. … - Territorial governments should not be recognized at all as legitimate, not even as governments-in-exile. Instead, they should be altogether exiled from Earth and from a genuine political science, which should not confine its studies to the worst kind of politics . Even when introducing them on other planets they would merely bring about the same problems they caused here. If all these emigrants were unanimous initially, dissent would arise among them, too, i.e., rebelling minorities, engaging in terrorist acts, when they are small, and large and bloody civil wars and revolutions when they become larger. … All the best refutations of popular myths, errors, prejudices and propaganda slogans should become systematically collected in a special encyclopedia, together with their best refutations. All positive ideas, projects and proposals, platforms etc. with all their pro and con should also become effectively gathered and publicized by a special free market for ideas and talents, as proposed in PEACE PLANS 20 & 183. The former is only in English and the latter is available in both German and English. (Both are now also available free of charge and of copyrights restrictions via e-mail in RTF versions, upon request. A third one, the second book by my father on the Ideas Archive, is so far only available from me, digitized, in the German version. It has not yet been translated into any other language. Books still “have their fates” even when the fate of mankind may depend upon them.) - - Why free market libertarians have not yet been foremost in developing a special free market for ideas and talents, embracing at least all of the libertarian ones, is still a riddle to me. They should be more aware than others of how much such a free market is still amiss and how important it would be to bring together, permanently, demand and supply in this sphere. … - By all means, help to flood the world with libertarian peace ideas, i.e. peace ideas that are moral and rational and that would work. To do so electronically is now easier and cheaper than ever before, once the texts are digitized. - However, scanning is still rather flawed and laborious, since it requires extensive proof reading. For instance, to scan the text of PEACE PLANS 61-63 took me "only" 10 hours. But afterwards, to at least roughly proof-read the scanned text, has cost me several weeks of hard and boring labor. Boring and tiring it was, mostly, in spite of the opportunity it provided to some editing and entering further comments. - Transmission time for the zipped version to the single and first recipient was about 10 minutes. … Compared with this effort, preparing a book for microfilming was often done by me in a single day. Sometimes, I even readied several small books for automatic, computerized and quite accurate micro-fiching in one day. The supposedly highest and seemingly most automated technology is not always the cheapest and least labor-intensive one! That may be one of the reasons why so far relatively few libertarian books have appeared on websites, in e-mail, on floppy disks and CDs. … The peace discussion has stagnated for all too long, even among libertarians, who should be able to offer the best ideas in this sphere, precisely because they are freedom ideas and peace flows from the realization of all rights and liberties. It is high time to advance ideas and opinions in that sphere as fast and spread them as widely and easily - as it is now possible to do, electronically. - For years I have been advocating the use of another very cheap and powerful medium, namely CDs, for all libertarian texts. You can find more on that project on - The response rate was so far insufficient to induce the few, who indicated an interest, to fill, between them, the first libertarian CD with a spectrum of libertarian texts. … - An avalanche of libertarian information could be cheaply provided on CDs, more even on DVDs and external HDs. … - Perhaps all could be provided on as few as 300 CDs and, within the normal lifespan of most of us we might come to see a single CD or external HD powerful enough to hold all these texts! (This is, probably, possible already by now - with the cheap external HDs of 1 to 2TB that are offered now. - J.Z., 22.9.11.) - This medium, perhaps more so than any others, may be powerful and lasting enough to effectively "bury" our opponents under much better ideas, arguments and facts. … So, as you can see, I am not only a microfiche "fanatic" and long-term user but do recommend the optional utilization of all alternative media that are powerful and affordable enough, each in its particular strength, at least for all worthwhile libertarian ideas and texts. - Merry Christmas, Froehliche Weihnachten, health and a long life, and, most important of all: PIOT, John Zube - Somewhat shortened and edited: J.Z., 22.9.11, 23.1.12. - WAR, GOOD WILL, ISRAEL, ARABS, MUSLIMS, ISLAM, JUDAISM, HOLY COUNTRY, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, LOVE, Q.

PEACE, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, PROGRESS, INITIATED & MAINTAINED BY INDIVIDUALS DOING THEIR THINGS FOR & TO THEMSELVES: End all bloody and despotic revolutions, civil wars and international wars via the personal, individual and voluntary revolutions of individuals, practised in individual secessions and by voluntary, exterritorial and autonomous associations of volunteers, living under personal rather than territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. The same kind of tolerance that ended religious revolutions, civil wars and wars, wherever and whenever and as long as it was consistently applied, can also end revolutions, civil wars and wars conducted out of political, economic and ideological motives. - J.Z. 3.10.92, 4.1.93.

PEACE, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, PROGRESS, TOLERANCE, THROUGH PANARCHISM RATHER THAN LOVE: All we really need is the new and old kind of justice, freedom, tolerance and experimental options expressed in panarchies. You do not have to love your neighbor, far less your enemy. But you owe even to your enemy the panarchist peace, justice and freedom option. Even more so, you owe it to yourself, to your family and friends and to your neighbors. Only thus will “peace in our times” become possible. – J.Z., n.d. – JUSTICE RATHER THAN LOVE AS A PANACEA

PEACE, PANARCHISM & FREEDOM, 1986, by J.Z.: Extract from PEACE PLANS 671: Through Panarchism to Peace and Freedom (Note that a shorter version of this draft can be found on sheet 24.) - Panarchism is nothing but the consistent application of a basic anarchist principle that has often been expressed and in various wordings. Thus Enrico Malatesta  says in Ein anarchistisches Programm, 2, Kap., Wege und Mittel: "Thus freedom for everybody, so that they can propagate their ideas and experiment with them. Freedom without any other restriction than that arising quite naturally from the equal right of everyone else to be free." - - Unfortunately, such general clauses, often even contained in the bills of rights passed by governments, can be very differently interpreted and have been very differently interpreted by anarchists, libertarians and statists. - - Panarchists assert that they are the only ones who have given this idea a consistently anarchistic, voluntaryist, individualistic interpretation. - The best analogy is probably that of religious tolerance as opposed to religious hierarchy. Under this religious freedom, any kind person can freely hold and practise his religious beliefs side by side with freethinkers, rationalists, agnostics, atheists and humanists, who hold and do their own things. They may still argue with each other extensively but by words only, not “sticks and stones”, for instance, wherever religious tolerance is realized. These discussions can be very temperamental but, otherwise, they do peacefully coexist and leave each other alone or only try to make individual converts to their cause. - The panarchist equivalent to this, in the political, economic and social sphere, is statism for statists and anarchism for anarchists, any form of statism for those who believe in it (as long as they can stand it) and any kind of non-governmental organization, e.g. anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism, for those who believe in it. - As K.H.Z. Solneman put it: "To each the government of his dreams." - To which I added: "or the no-government of his or her dreams." - - (GPdB replaced “dreams” by “choice”, a more suitable term.) The assumption is that in this case the diverse groups would have the least reasons and motives to be antagonistic to the actions of others, who are doing merely their things, either to or for themselves and this at their own expense and risk only - because thereby the own actions would be least restricted, if at all. - - Such a change does, naturally, have consequences upon the present party struggles, resistance and terrorist attempts, civil wars and international wars. All of these presuppose a uniform territorial rule for all with almost no exceptions tolerated in the political, economic and social system spheres. - - We do already have and enjoy (unconscious of its panarchistic implications panarchism in many other spheres of life that are, however, most important in the views of most people, namely, e.g., in sports, fashions, diets, entertainment, arts, crafts, choice of jobs or professions, choice of reading, studying and teaching activities, private lifestyles, private movement and transport choices, alternative medical and fitness means, organizational forms of private and cooperative enterprises, a great diversity of voluntary associations for a variety of purposes, in friendship circles, in sexual relations (even easy marriage and divorce contract options are panarchistic), in religion and in natural science experimentation. - However, because of a number of popular myths, prejudices and errors, we have so far exempted the political, economic and social system spheres from this kind of freedom of action, competition or experimental freedom. - As John Bright suggested in 1867: "Let us lift ourselves above the narrow circle in which we are apt to live and think; let us put ourselves on an historical eminence and judge fairly." - Panarchists are nothing but consistent anarchists, who want to realize this freedom in the more important and large spheres also. - They do expect to achieve, through this extension of liberty (which includes even the liberty not to be free, according to individual choice), at least the same kind of advantages (quite apart from the ethical justification), that can be derived from freedom of action in the above-mentioned minor spheres, where diversity of actions is already the norm, the accepted thing, where each does his own thing, not imposing it upon others and takes this kind of mutual tolerance for granted. - Panarchism thus means no more but also no less than extension of freedom to experiment, freedom to act, into all spheres - as long as the same freedoms are fully respected in others, with their different choices. - Moreover, panarchists are realistic enough to realize that mere words, no matter how skillfully combined and advanced, do not have a sufficient persuasive power over most other people. They have not had this power over the last few hundred years and are unlikely to gain it during the next few hundred years, namely the power to persuade all people to subscribe to one particular form of anarchism. - - - Panarchism is a kind of uncompromising compromise. Each gets his own way in his own affairs - but he does not get his ideal practiced by others – unless others do come to individually accept it. - - Freedom to live one's own preferred lifestyle in every way, among likeminded people, quite independent from the preferences of others, which they realize among themselves, is already a great achievement, e.g. for anarchists. - - Moreover, in such a new social situation, they do not only have verbal freedom to make more converts, and a, however small, chance to one day persuade everybody to accept anarchism for himself, but they are then quite free to demonstrate their kind of anarchism and whatever benefits they can derive from it, to their neighbors and all other observers close-by, or, via the mass media and the Internet, to all interested people world-wide. - Actions speak louder than words. Actions in other countries, other cultures, other language areas etc., do not have the same persuasive powers, in spite of the modern mass media, to make alternative ways of living, working, enjoying and ruling oneself, appear as interesting and persuasive as such actions are when they are undertaken, so to speak, next door. (Maybe here the idle curiosity of neighbors and bystanders can do some good! – J.Z., 10.12.04.) - - Even when such actions are frowned upon or despised by others, the others have, in such situations, nothing to fear from them, since they will not be forced upon them. - For themselves they remain free to reject all practices they dislike and to use these practices among others only as their deterrent examples. – J.Z., 1986, 21.10.11, 23.1.12, 4.7.12.

PEACE, PANARCHISM & FREEDOM: SOME REMARKS ON THE PANARCHIST ROAD TO PEACE AND FREEDOM. - Extract from PP 671: Is the membership in any kind of anarchistic community, collective, society or cooperative ever to become compulsory? Are non-anarchists only to be given the choice: death or adoption of anarchism for themselves? Are anarchists prepared to tolerate statist activities among statists adults in the same way as they want their anarchistic activities among themselves tolerated by the present statists? - - Are anarchists sufficiently in favor of free individual choices to permit other people to make quite different choices for themselves than anarchists would make for their own groups? Or do most anarchists, in common with most statists and authoritarians, centralists, universalists, territorialists etc., want to permit only one type of supposedly ideal society to exist in any country at any one time, namely that of their own preference? Should we therefore distinguish between voluntaryist anarchists and authoritarian anarchists? - If one really believes in any kind of system, then one always tends to imagine that all others could or should share one's beliefs and that one day they will. However, should one be prepared to wait as long as would be necessary to persuade all? Should one, thereupon, postpone the realization of one’s own preferred kind of anarchy until all have become such anarchists - if ever? Or should one rather aim at alternative institutions for all who desire them,  i.e. at full minority autonomy, at doing one's own things, at one's own risk and expense, whilst leaving all others free to do their own things, however hateful these may be to oneself? If membership in anarchistic communities and societies is not to be compulsory, then what about the however limited liberties and rights which the others wish for themselves? Are they to be free to organize and limit them in accordance with their own choices, quite undisturbed by anarchists, who are free to do their own things? If so, then let us state this now and quite clearly: Primarily and as realists and advocates of the rights and liberties of others as well, we want only anarchism for anarchists and do also FAVOR statism for statists, according to their own free and individual choices. Organizationally this would, naturally, require some  changes, preparations and precautions. The only quite fundamental ones would be voluntary membership, based on individual secessionism and non-territorial organization, under contracts or personal laws of one's choosing. In other words: Minority and majority autonomy for all who desire it, based on individual sovereignty, shared and combined as much as individual volunteers want to. - J.Z., draft of 1986, slightly revised: 10.12.04, 23.1.12.  See: QUESTIONS.

PEACE, PROGRESS, PLENTY, = PANARCHY, POLYARCHY & PERSONARCHY = P x 6. Which makes much more sense to me than e.g. Ayn Rand’s A = A. - Especially the poor, oppressed, exploited and mislead people need these P’s more than anything else – towards a better future for them. - Add further P’s, like pluralism, patriotism, practice, private power, popularity? - J.Z., 04-11.

PEACE, PROGRESS, PROSPERITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM THROUGH PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHY? How to advocate them cheaply and easily, via a P.S. attachment to your emails. P.S.: PEACE THROUGH PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHY??? - Could panarchism or polyarchy or full experimental freedom or exterritorial minority autonomy really lead towards peace, freedom, justice, prosperity & progress for everybody, in our time, and towards all the diverse societies that individuals wish for themselves? Could they release all creative energies? - - - Check out and - If this is really the case, then this could be the most important message you ever passed on. Please save it and insert it in all your e-mails, to all your contacts, at least once. But first of all do also check it out yourself and submit your pro and con to at least these sites! You might thus become one of the new "Founding Fathers"! For now you are not committing yourself to more than putting this question to others. - - Optional extras: E.g.: 1.) I checked it out and found the material interesting, 2.) appealing, 3.) challenging, 4.) excellent - or 5.) doubtful but worth  checking out more closely. 6.) It did not yet convince me. But what do you think about it? 7.) Add whatever comments you want to add. - Do your bit for freedom justice and peace etc., as easily! - John Zube - 18.1.2005. - (You may leave out this contact address or add your own, as you please!) - By all means, do draft and utilize a better short advertising, to be launched in this or another way, than this one of mine! - Typically, so far I haven't even followed my own advice! - J.Z., 20.9.11. - PROPAGANDA, PUBLICITY, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHY.

PEACE: A government which makes war against its own people cannot be trusted to make peace with its neighbors.” – Jan Rokita. – Any government which retains a military monopoly and monopolizes decisions on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties, and does not permit dissenters to secede from it and does not allow minorities to become exterritorially autonomous, any government, which also insists on keeping the power to tax, inflate or deflate its monopoly money, conscript its subjects and to pass any laws it likes, cannot be trusted in this respect, either. – J.Z., 22.2.08, 3.1.12. – Already the monopolization of the decision-making on war and peace is enough, according to Immanuel Kant, to characterize any government, even a democracy, as a despotic regime. – J.Z., 8.4.08. - GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIAL, LAWS, MONOPOLIES, TAXES, DECISION-MAKING ON WAR & PEACE

PEACE: A universal proclamation of peace brings not enemies but friends.” – Charles Lane, Letter IV, April 17, 1843, in Carl Watner, A Voluntary Political Government, p.81. – That would entirely depend upon the kind of peace declaration. (*) – To my knowledge, Carl Watner has still not approved of panarchism and thinks the concept of “competing governments” to be entirely absurd, because he has only territorial governments in mind, not those which are only exterritorially autonomous for all their volunteers. I think that in a book with this title he should have gone further. Alas, he seems also committed to total non-violence. – (*) If it were made, e.g., by a federation of governments in exile, all aiming only at full exterritorial autonomy for their present and future volunteers, without any exclusive territorial claim for any of them, then they would find many adherents among the present subjects and victims of dictatorships and could, thus, perhaps to most likely, prevent or greatly reduced armed clashes. So far, to my knowledge, no government in exile has ever made such a declaration and peace offer. This would, naturally, not be a declaration of peace towards those still territorially suppressing various minorities or even the majority of a population. - J.Z., 23.3.08.

PEACE: All the oratory of the advocates of government omnipotence cannot annul the fact that there is but one system that makes for durable peace: a free market economy. Government control leads to economic nationalism and thus results in conflict. – Mises, Omnipotent Government, p. 286. - I would add: including a free market for protection and other political, economic and social services, e.g. for money issues, for access to natural resources and for forms of industrial organization. – J.Z. 1975, 3.1.12.

PEACE: All we really need is the new and old kind of justice, freedom, tolerance and experimental options expressed in panarchies. You do not have to love your neighbor, far less your enemy. But you owe even to your enemy the panarchist peace, justice and freedom option. Even more so, you owe it to yourself, to your family and friends and to your neighbors. Only thus will “peace in our times” become possible. - J.Z., 04-11. - LOVE, JUSTICE, TOLERANCE TOWARDS THE TOLERANT.

PEACE: Allow all individuals to undertake all peace promoting steps that cannot be rationally interpreted as aggressive, e.g.: negotiations, trade, migration. - J.Z. 21.9.81. - Individual and group secessionism, exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, panarchistic governments and societies in exile and their federation, an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties, local militia of volunteers for their protection, internationally federated, a unilateral peace declaration towards all suppressed people, unilateral nuclear disarmament, publication of programs for genuinely liberating revolutions and military insurrections, an open arms policy towards refugees and deserters and a full employment program for them and all others, primarily through full monetary and financial freedom, unilateral free trade, except for war materials to dictatorships. - J.Z., 25.1.11 3.1.12.

PEACE: An analysis of the history of mankind shows that from the year 1496 B.C. to the year 1861 of our era, that is, in a cycle of 3357 years, were but 227 years of peace and 3130 years of war: in other words, were thirteen years of war for every year of peace. Considered thus, the history of the lives of peoples presents a picture of uninterrupted struggle. War, it would appear, is a normal attribute to human life.” - Jean de Bloch, The Future of War, trans. R. C. Long, p.Ixv (1903). -  G. Valbert, on the basis of the computation of the “MOSCOW GAZETTE”, says that “from the year 1496 B.C. to A.D.1861, in 3,358 years, there were 227 years of peace and 3.130 years of war, or thirteen tears of war to every year of peace. Within the last three centuries there have been 286 wars in Europe.” He adds further, that “from the year 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1860 more than 8,000 treaties of peace, which were meant to remain in force forever, were concluded. The average time they remained in force was two years.” - Valbert, G., in the “REVUE DES DEUX MONDES”, April 1894, p.692. – Having these facts in view, the Honorable George Peel, in his “The Future of England”, p. 169, said that for fifteen centuries, since the full adoption of Christianity by the continent of Europe, peace has been preached, and for these fifteen centuries the history of Europe has been nothing but “a tale of blood and slaughter.” – Pitirim A. Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories Through the First Quarter of the Twentieth Century, Harper Torchbooks, 1928, in footnotes, p.325. – That’s the effect of territorialism or warfare States, in balance. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - War and preparations for war, which, during the armistice periods, they do wrongly call peace, is rather a normal characteristic for most of the large territorial States. - J.Z., 27.11.02, 3.1.11, 4.7.12. - DIS., WAR, HISTORY, WARFARE STATES, TERRITORIALISM

PEACE, CONCLUSION OF PEACE: That means, already according to its wording, the beginning of war. ("Friedensschluss: das heisst, schon dem Worte nach: Kriegsbeginn." ) - Lohberger. - In German the term "Schluss" means also "end", not only a "contract" or a treaty.) - A "peace" between territorial powers is merely the continuance of war with other means." - Or, as someone has said, a temporary armistice, until all governments involved, during which preparations are made for the next war, until they are ready to take up their military contest once again. – A genuine peace can only be achieved and last between communities that make no exclusive territorial claims that overlap in any way. It leaves all their war making powers and territorialist motivations untouched and thus amounts at most to a temporary armistice which reduces continuous and wholesale slaughter to occasional or frequent minor armed clashes and otherwise a more or less open or repressed civil war on both sides. - J.Z. 5.7.92, 15.1.93, 5.7.99, J.Z., 13.2.08, 3.1.12. – TERRITORIALISM, WAR, PEACE,

PEACE: End all bloody and despotic revolutions, civil wars and international wars via the personal, individual and voluntary revolutions of individuals, practised in individual secessions and by voluntary, exterritorial and autonomous associations of volunteers, living under personal rather than territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. The same kind of mutual tolerance, which ended religious revolutions, civil wars and wars, wherever and whenever and as long as it was consistently applied, can also end violent revolutions, civil wars and wars conducted out of political, economic and ideological motives. - J.Z., 3.10.92, 4.1.93. - JUSTICE, FREEDOM, PROGRESS, INITIATED & MAINTAINED BY INDIVIDUALS DOING THEIR THINGS FOR & TO THEMSELVES

PEACE: Even Hitler said that he preferred peace and would be prepared to disarm - if the other States disarmed! Naturally, you could not rely on his promises. But then: Can one rely on the promises of any other territorial government – in this respect? – J.Z., 19.4.08. – Q.

PEACE: Even those, who want a war have not other intention than to win. Thus, through warfare they wish to achieve a new and glorious peace. … Thus it is clear that a peace is the wished for aim of a war. Every man strives to arrive at peace through the war but not the other war around.” - ST. Augustinus, Gottesstaat, 19.12. – However, a peace of territorial domination is still a kind of civil war. – J.Z., 21.7.86, 25.3.08. - It can even have more victims than a war against an external enemy has. Often it is even conducted more cruelly. - J.Z., 25.1.11.

PEACE: Even torture, murder and terror are used to extract pro-war intelligence", while, during wars and during the armistice periods now called peace, no rightful and systematic effort is made to extract, combine, spread, apply, respect and utilize all of the already somewhat published pro-peace intelligence, ideas, references, resources and talents that already exist somewhere, towards the development of a genuine science and technique for the establishment of peace in freedom and justice. We still have only, almost exclusively, territorial Warfare States and no real peace research and peace science efforts, equivalent to e.g. military science and technology. Even religious spleens do still prevail among all too many who consider themselves to be genuine peace lovers and peace activists and they seem to be unable to derive from the experience with religious tolerance the possibility and rightfulness of tolerance for political, economic and social systems, as long as they are, likewise, applied only exterritorially and by volunteers. – J.Z., 18.9.98, 25.3.08, 25.1.11, 4.7.12.

PEACE: For more than one hundred years, Morse complained, we in this country have tried to forge a strong union on the anvil of authority, force, and compulsion. "Not through liberty, but without it, we sought our peace." But peace has been denied us, as it is denied to every people who seek order through the wrong means. "Union, harmony, peace, are not to be taken by violence. Every gift of such sort laid on Union's altar has been spurned. ‘Thou Fool! First go and be reconciled to thy brother.'" - For liberty alone is peace.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.57, on Sidney H. Morse. – Territorial rule acts like an internal occupation force or dictatorship, at least towards all kinds of dissenters. - J.Z., 15.1.11. - FREEDOM, LIBERTY, FORCE, AUTHORITY, VIOLENCE, TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY "UNITY", COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP OR SUBJECTION

PEACE: Free Trade ... the best human means for securing universal and permanent peace. It has often struck me that it would be well to try to engraft our Free-Trade-agitation upon the peace movement. They are one and the same cause.” - J. A. Hobson: Richard Cobden, the International Man, 1918, p.37. - Only if in "Free Trade" one also includes free contracts with alternative political, social and economic system services, all of them competitively and exterritorially provided only to their subscribers. - J.Z., 25.1.11. Without full financial and monetary freedom not “free trade” is really a FREE TRADE, not even when one considers merely its economic aspects. – J.Z., 4.7.12.

PEACE: Freedom and Peace are inseparable.” – Arthur Koestler. – So are justice and tolerance for all tolerant people. – J.Z., 25.3.08. – The rights and liberties involved ought to be sufficiently specified and publicized. Otherwise “freedom” and “rights” will remain, like “peace”, merely wishful thoughts with no useful knowledge of how to get from here to there. – J.Z., 14.4.08. - HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, A CORRECT, COMPLETE & IDEAL ONE.

PEACE: Freedom to Differ ... the 'umpire of peace’, the 'last appeal,' the 'end of disturbing disputes'!” - J. Warren, True Civilization, 143 (Nos. 411& 412. - DIVERSITY BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE

PEACE: General peace and order are the attendants of justice or a general abstinence from the possessions of others.” - F. A. Hayek: The Confusion of Language in Political Thought, p.15. - Property is not the only important right and liberty. Sometimes people are governmentally largely prevented even from the use of their own language. Territorial non-recognition and respect for all genuine individual rights and liberties, at least among those, who do already claim all of them, or at least some of them, creates a lasting civil war. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 3.1.12, 4.7.12. - PROPERTY

PEACE: Give Peace (A) Chance.” – Dangerous Buttons, No. 164. - How, when we have almost no freedom of action left in this sphere? - All such decision-making powers are territorially, coercively, collectively, centralistically and monopolistically placed in a few hands only, those of power addicts, who almost habitually abuse these powers. - All war and peace decisions ought to be placed into the hands of individuals and voluntary associations and only they should be held responsible for them. - We do not give peace a chance under territorialism. - J.Z., 25.1.11. Under territorialism we, the vast majority in any population, have simply no say and no freedom of action on war and peace matters. We are only allowed to serve a human sacrifices on the blood altar of Mars. - J.Z., 3.1.12, 4.7.12. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

PEACE: Give us peace.” - (“Dona nobis pace.”) - From a song or Latin prayer. Peace has to be established rather than begged or prayed for. This has to be undertaken with the widest possible participation of human beings able to participate in this effort. It can’t be donated by a “God”, or at least never was and cannot, lastingly, be provided by territorial States, which are, essentially, Warfare States. – J.Z., 25.4.06, 25.1.11. – No universal peace-maker does exist. We do not even have recognized professionals and experts on making peace. Diplomats and presidents as well as summit peace conferences and those by well-meaning but ignorant and prejudiced peace lovers, are simply part and parcel of the territorial Warfare States. - The supposedly existing, almighty and benevolent "Gods" or the supposedly single one, have tolerated wars among their supposed "children" for thousands of years, even while the victims of war prayed on both sides to the same "God" for peace. They still remain unenlightened by all religions and all political science departments on what causes wars and what would establish peace.  - J.Z., 3.1.12. - DIS., WAR, ESTABLISHING PEACE, GOD, RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY

PEACE: If actions of territorial governments could bring about a lasting and just peace in freedom - then we would have had it long ago – for no possible government action (except abdication of all territorial governments – J.Z., 14.2.08.) has been left untried, over and over again, in numerous versions. Territorial governments achieve wars rather than lasting peace, externally and internally. At most they arrive at temporary armistices. – J.Z., 20.8.99, 14.2.08. - Only some mini-States have remained peaceful for long periods, simply because they had, obviously, not sufficient power to conduct a war against one of the larger States. However, the invention of cheap ABC mass murder devices can change that situation almost overnight. Even small territorial State like Israel, peopled by the survivors or the descendants of one of the largest mass murders in history, has also armed itself with mass murder devices and has no idea of or interest in the peaceful and voluntary exterritorial alternatives to territorialism. Thus its population has set itself up as a target for its territorialist enemies, which are also arming themselves with these "weapons", which are, ultimately, suicidal or mass murderous, perhaps even for mankind. But under monopolized decision-making in this sphere no genuine suicide would be involved but simply mass murders, undertaken by power-mad power addicts, in this respect no better than Hitler, Stalin and Mao were. - J.Z., 3.1.12. - GOVERNMENTS, STATISM, EXTERRITORIALISM & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIAL MONOPOLISM & COERCION, ISRAEL, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

PEACE: If the alien ship now approaching the Llanvabon returned to its home base with news of humanity’s existence and of ships like the Llanvabon, it would give its race the choice of trade or battle. They might want war. But it takes two to make trade and only one to make war. They could not be sure of men’s peacefulness, nor could men be sure of theirs. The only safety for either civilization would lie in the destruction of one or both of the two ships here and now.” – Murray Leinster, First Contact, in The Astounding-Analog Reader, Book Two, ed. by Harry Harrison & Brian W. Aldiss, p.185. - A first contact problem, uniquely dissolved, through a free exchange, here of their space-ships, between people really alien to each other and correspondingly suspicious. – Here, on Earth, humans are not as alien to each other and do not know as little of each other. But they have so far pursued, through territorial governments, internal and external policies, which gave them, too, many good reasons to become and remain suspicious of each other. Both, our governmental internal and external policies have to become almost totally changed, to make the disappearance of distrust and suspicion possible. Internally the territorially uniform State under one government, constitution, body of laws and juridical system must become decentralized into all its various voluntary components, all of them under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, with each society, group, corporation, community or genuinely limited State ruling only its own volunteers and their internal affairs. Their external policy or their rightful war and peace aims must come to consist, largely, of the same practice: recognition and respect for all voluntary communities and opposition and resistance only to all those, who still do make territorial monopoly claims and try to realize them by force. Under that condition enemies would largely dissolve and become friends and allies or at least neutrals instead. Why fight when genuine self-government is not threatened at all but, instead, is to become, finally, fully realized? The few remaining political criminals, territorialists, with corresponding victims, would then become relatively harmless and encounter everywhere united opposition and resistance to their attempts. – J.Z., 28.9.07, 3.1.12. – Under this condition it might become possible to reduce mass murderous wars to mere rightful police actions against a few of the worst political criminals only, largely with the help of the armed forces of their regimes, to the extent that they can be appealed to either as patriots in the best sense or to their rational self-interest. Why should they risk their lives for any dictator or tyrant, which wrongs almost a whole population? – J.Z., 4.7.12. - PEACEFULNESS & TRUST, TRADE & WAR, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COERCION, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES VS. DESPOTISM, MILITIAS VS. CONSCRIPTS, DESERTION, LIBERATION, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, NEGOTIATIONS WITH & QUITE RIGHTFUL & UNILATERAL PEACE OFFERS TO THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN THEIR TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, PUBLIC DECLARATION BY THE PEOPLE OF QUITE RIGHTFUL PEACE & WAR AIMS

PEACE: If you want peace, declare your "war" against certain intolerant institutions, principles and beliefs - but tolerate or make peace with all those applying the institutions, principles and beliefs of their choice only to themselves. - J.Z., 78, 3.1.12. – Exterritorial autonomy or personal law makes that possible, as has often been demonstrated in historical experience even if not fully, consistently and lastingly. – J.Z., 4.7.12.


PEACE: In the arts of peace Man is a bungler …” - George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, 1905. Quoted by Arthur C. Clarke, in ANALOG 7/83, editorial. – All the peace ideas have not yet been sufficiently assembled and evaluated. Like in religion, numerous errors and prejudices prevail in this sphere too, which perpetuate war and Warfare States. – J.Z., 15.3.09, 4.7.12. - Let individuals make their own choices, in all their own affairs, quite independent of territorial governments. Let them do this with their own preferred kinds of voluntary governance systems, societies and communities, all under personal law, which existed for thousands of years and we would soon see that the vast majority do prefer peace and if sufficiently free, can also efficiently defend themselves, their peace in freedom, justice and tolerance - against the relatively few remaining war mongers. - J.Z., 25.1.11. Just like the majority of honest and productive people can effectively defend themselves against private criminals with victims – if quite free to do so and to organize and arm themselves correspondingly. - So far not even tyrannicide against the main war-mongers has become part of the regular peace policy of democracies. Even Western democracies, not only regimes like that of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao do stand accused of having carelessly or willfully caused the death of e.g. thousands of POWs, instead of treating them as liberated persons or as neutrals. Wrongful notions and practices of collective responsibility of individuals for the actions of their criminal governments or those of other members of their race, religion, ethnic group or nationality are still the rule rather than the exception, on all sides. - J.Z., 3.1.12. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DESERTION, POW TREATMENT

PEACE: Indeed, the whole wisdom of world history can be expressed in a single sentence: Each State robs, as much as it can. Full stop. In between there are digestion periods and periods of powerlessness, which one calls “peace”. – Spitteler. - Such sweeping generalizations do generally fail to cover all cases. How much robbery have e.g. Monaco, Liechtenstein, Sweden and Switzerland engaged in during the last 150 years? – J.Z., 23.2.08. - Panarchic, i.e. competing and voluntary governments, communities and societies, all without any territorial monopoly and any involuntary members, would be very different, in this respect as well. –- J.Z., 23.2.08. - TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, DIS.

PEACE: Individual liberty and rights drive out war. Freedom and genuine individual rights work peacefully. – J.Z., 8/75, 25.1.11.

PEACE: It is one of the most elementary rules of scientific inquiry that if you don’t know exactly what you are looking for, you may not know when you have found it.” – Motto to Francis A. Caries, The Signals, in ANALOG, July 66. – For instance: How many recognize in personal law rather than territorial law and in voluntary taxation rather than compulsory taxation and in monetary freedom rather than monetary despotism three of the major preconditions for peace? – J.Z., 14.4.08. - Q.

PEACE: It's co-existence or no existence.” - Bertrand Russell, quoted by L. J. Peter, The Peter Plan, p.144. – But peaceful coexistence is possible only on the basis of voluntary exterritorial autonomy, not on the basis of compulsory territorialism, which means always the territorial domination by one or the other party – and struggles for the acquisition, expansion or retention of territorial domination. – J.Z., 21.4.08, 25.1.11. - One cannot, in the long run, peacefully coexist with e.g. tyrannies, totalitarian regimes or mass extermination devices in anyone's hands. - J.Z., 3.1.12. – NWT, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALIS, TYRANNIES, DICTATORSHIPS, DESPOTISMS

PEACE: Just ponder the fact that hundreds of millions of people let themselves be led into wars against each other without insisting upon quite rightful war and peace aims. In that respect they were and are still not much better than former armies of slaves driven or forced to fight each other for the benefit of their masters. – J.Z., 14.4.08, 4.7.12. - The imposition of a territorial and majoritarian democracy is certainly not a quite rightful war aim. Our present territorial rulers know nothing better. Nor have they shown even the slightest interest in any more or quite rightful and rational war and peace aims. Their subjects pay in lives, limbs, freedom and rights for this ignorance and disinterest of their war leaders and their own. - E.g. in Iraq and in Afghanistan. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 3.1.12. - WAR AIMS.

PEACE: Let loose the hogs of peace. – Lawrence Ferlinghetti. – Let them secede – and arm, organize and act in voluntary communities and societies, for the protection of their individual rights and liberties, all those rights and liberties which they do want to apply among themselves. – J.Z., 25.3.08. – PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES – THROUGH MILITIAS & PEACEFULLY COEXISTING OF COMPETING PANARCHIES OF VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM

PEACE: Let me be my own man - a privilege I would extend to all peaceful persons.” - L. E. Read, Notes, 1/75. – But he was not prepared to let statists be their own men, doing their statist things to themselves only. He wanted to subordinate all of them to a “limited” territorial government, whether they liked that as their ideal or not. He was not satisfied with introducing limited governments only for its volunteers, regardless of what others might be doing to or for themselves. To that extent even he was a war-monger, too, without being aware of this. Did he ever clearly renounce the decision-making monopoly on war and peace? – J.Z., 21.4.08, 25.1.11. – To try to impose a territorial limited government is as wrongful and self-defeating as to impose e.g. a majoritarian territorial democratic government on a country and population like that of Iraq and Afghanistan. – J.Z., 14.3.09. - PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, UNDER PERSONAL LAWS & FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY.

PEACE: Let no man posture as an advocate of peace if he proposes or supports any social system that initiates the use of physical force against individual men, in any form whatever.” - Ayn Rand: For the New Intellectual, p.56/57. – Alas, her kind of supposedly limited enough but still territorial government does so, too, upon the vast majority of statists. - With quite flawed arguments she attacked the idea of "competing governments" or, rather, her straw-man notion of it. - So "objective" was her "objectivism" and still is, as far as I know, among most of her followers. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, COMPETING OR VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS WITHOUT A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS & VOLUNTARY SUBJECTS ONLY.

PEACE: Let us have peace. - Lysander Spooner: No Treason, VI, 55, Works I. – Alas, it cannot be simply offered, ready-made, as a gift. One has to work for it, establish it. However, in that effort unilateral peace declarations could play a significant role, towards the victims of a dictatorship, if believably expressed and already practically demonstrated on the own side, e.g. by freely competing governments in exile, all representing only their present and future kind of volunteers. That would also be an effective, i.e., a peace-promoting “gift” that would tend to be accepted by many of the unarmed and the armed victims of a dictatorship, at their first opportunity to do so. – J.Z., 21.4.08, 3.1.12. – WAR AIMS, LIBERATION WARS, DEFENCE, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATIONS, DESERTIONS, PUBLIC APPEALS, TRUST, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, REVOLUTIONARY WARFARE, PANARCHISM

PEACE: Let us take the risks of peace upon ourselves, not impose the risks of war upon the world.” – A Quaker book title, seen Dec. 86. - What risks are there, in any genuine peace, based upon individual rights and liberties, compared with risking all rights, liberties and lives, which is now made possible by "modern" and "scientific" wars, using "high technology" mass murder devices, still stockpiled by the thousands, even by "democratic" governments? – J.Z., 25.3.08, 25.1.11, 3.1.12. – DIS., Q.

PEACE: Liberalism starts from the premise that not war but peace is the father of all things. What alone enables man to advance and distinguishes man from the animals is social cooperation … War not only destroys, it cannot create.” – Ludwig von Mises. – Well, it creates weapons and ammunition, hunger and diseases and all too many dead, wounded and cripples, widows and orphans. It even created nuclear mass murder devices and so far we are stuck with them, for territorial governments are protecting them against destruction by the people. – They create ever new laws, wars, taxes, inflations and statist restrictions, e.g. on immigration, especially since WW I. - J.Z., 22.2.08. - How many of the classical liberals of today favor only exterritorial autonomy for volunteers instead of territorial domination, however well meaning, over involuntary subjects? - J.Z., 25.1.11. - LIBERALISM, DIS., TERRITORIALISM, LIBERALISM, Q.

PEACE: mankind is confronted today with the alternative: either lasting peace or serious risk of total destruction.” - Jacques Maritain, Man & The State, edited by Richard O’Sullivan, London, Hollis & Carter, 1954, p.173. - Can one have total peace with those men, now territorially in power, who are prepared for total destruction? Should one resist them only non-violently? Can one do so effectively? Are their nuclear mass murder devices protecting us? Can they protect tyrants from tyrannicide with minor conventional weapons or poisons or by an expert in unarmed combat? Are these monsters safe from military insurrections or revolutions? – Plausible slogans are often rather thoughtless. – But it is right to point out the nuclear war threat under the present territorialist conditions. Peace requires the exterritorial autonomy and the voluntarism of panarchism. – J.Z., 29.9.07. 11.3.09. - OR TOTAL DESTRUCTION? NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, DIS., Q.

PEACE: Most of us would rather risk catastrophe than read the directions.” - Mignon McLaughlin, READER'S DIGEST, 11/64. - Conclusion: Experimental freedom for everybody, especially for those willing to read directions. - J.Z. – Clear enough directions to peace have either still to be written or published or read. – J.Z., 21.4.08, 4.7.12. - Our territorial rulers were prepared to experiment with mass murder devices but not with radical and peace promoting ideas, programs, rights, liberties and institutions. - Perhaps, because with them their territorial powers and institutions would disappear. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - DIRECTIONS, PROGRAMS, BLUEPRINTS, KNOWLEDGE, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES

PEACE: Natural harmony between all human beings, who are not criminals with victims or other aggressors does require that each special or common belief, conviction or interest group can go and practise its own affairs in its own way, i.e., without laying down the law for all other groups and undisturbed by them, however much the others may dislike what particular groups are doing among their volunteers. All democracy is supposed to be based on consent - and consent can only be maximized or approach perfection among volunteers. No force or threat of force is to be used against non-members and the remaining or new internal dissenters should be free to secede – to do their own things among themselves or together with any of the other and individually preferred already existing associations and communities of volunteers or to establish another one. No power over others except over criminals with victims and other aggressors against peaceful and tolerant people. No taxation power or other powers over non-members. Citizenship and obedience only by free individual choice! Only intolerant physical actions – genuine crimes with involuntary victims – e.g. committed by outsiders against the own members or by the own members against outsiders - are to be resisted and prosecuted but not mere verbal insults, slanders, libels etc., which are either to be ignored or publicly responded to with the same "weapons and ammunition", e.g. ridiculed or morally and rationally refuted. To take mere verbal assaults or mere images serious, and class them as aggressive, does amount to belief in word or image magic or witchcraft. In the eyes of moral and rational beings, all those using such published mere words and images as an excuse for wrongful and aggressive actions, infringing basic individual rights and liberties, are not excusable but dangerous criminals. They discredit themselves and their "cause" in they eyes of all moral and rational beings. – They must become effectively resisted and deprived of any power over dissenters. – J.Z., 23.3.09, 25.1.11, 5.7.12.

PEACE: No peace that still involves political borders can be a fully just peace in freedom. – J.Z., 3.4.06. - JUSTICE, BORDERS & FRONTIERS, TERRITORIALISM, PRESENT STATISM

PEACE: Not by crying “peace! peace! when there is not peace. But by “evaporating” the points of antagonism in the social-economic system (*) that lead to war.” – John Hargraves, Words Win Wars, 1940, p.211. - Alas, he was still a territorial statist and didn't recognize the major and irreconcilable antagonisms which territorialism causes. - J.Z., 7.1.93. – (*) These “points” are, essentially, the territorial and statist impositions of such systems. Hargraves offered merely a word, “evaporating”, for the technique or method to be used. How does one “evaporate” territorialism? Essentially, one allows individual atoms or molecules to separate themselves from the masses of others and to join each other in another state or condition, one that is not bound by frontiers or borders but merely by affinities in a gaseous environment of mixed gases, possibly forming various clouds, moving often in different directions, dissolving and reforming in different ways again. But then all analogies do limp somewhat. The essential point is that the smallest entities involved, namely individuals, are finally given their own choices, becoming self-responsible, really self-governing, self-determining their own future, as far as any human beings can, rather than being continually bound by collectivist “choices” that others made for them. (XYZ laws, taxation, conscription, licensing, registration, passports, tariffs, penalties upon crimes without victims, monetary and financial despotism, etc.) If and to the extent that they will furthermore associate, it will be only with like-minded people, whether well enlightened idealists and reformers or fools or true believers of one kind or the other. Under that condition all of them would tend to learn faster and more than they could as mere subjects of imposed territorial systems, just like artists, technicians and scientists learn more by being free to experiment than by being kept under imposed dogmas or laws. – J.Z., 20.2.08, 25.1.11, 5.7.12. – PANARCHISM, Q.

PEACE: Of 4711 peace treaties in 3500 years , 4697 were broken and of 1656 arms races since 650 BC, 1640 led to war.” - Otto Lehmann Russbueldt: Wie gewinnen wir den Frieden? (How Do We Win Peace?) – ARMS RACES, PEACE TREATIES, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

PEACE: One has to begin peace, just like a war.” – Stefan Zweig. (J.Z. tr.: “Einer muss den Frieden beginnen wie den Krieg.”) – Allow everyone to begin a just peace – at least for himself and like-minded people. – J.Z., 5.7.92. – No more wars upon command, least of all total wars or even a nuclear war! – J.Z., 23.2.08. 5.7.12. - SEPARATE PEACE, DECISION-MAKING, NEUTRALITY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, DEFECTION, DESERTION, PANARCHISM, ASYLUM, INDIVIDUAL NEUTRALITY DECLARATION

PEACE: One peace is better than ten victories.” – German Proverb. – Often, not always. There can also be the “peace” of totalitarianism and that of the graveyard. – Peace with tyrannical regimes should be excluded. It is only a prelude to international war and already practises a form of civil war, using official and extreme territorial terrorism. - J.Z., 10.7.86, 25.2.08, 25.1.11, 5.712. – DIS.

PEACE: Only a peace between equals can last.” – Woodrow Wilson, address to U.S. Senate, 1917. – As if he had been the “equal: to any US, German, UK, French or Russian subject. Equality merely between other territorial power mongers, and power addicts is not enough - on the contrary. It almost assures wars, again and again. - It is not equality among all territorial subjects that makes for peace but the possibility for each of them to have and to enjoy equal rights and equal liberties, to the extent that they do, as individuals, want them for themselves and for like-minded people, regardless of how unequal they are otherwise, which makes for a genuine peace, or for peaceful coexistence for all kinds of quite diverse societies, communities and voluntary governments. – It is a peace between individuals, who are free to be as different and unequal as they are or want to be – compared with other people (those outside their own exterritorially autonomous communities and societies or even competing governments, all only of volunteers). It would mean non-territorial "unity" only among like-minded people, all within many and diverse communities and societies of volunteers, all of their own  free and individual choice, all confined to personal laws and exterritorial autonomy only. Thus they could achieve justice and freedom for all of them, in all their diversity, by all their different standards, principles and institutions. Thus a peace between them, based on recognizing their different choices for themselves, would have a good chance to become a long lasting one. – The greatest possible tolerance for all tolerant people but no tolerance at all for criminals with victims and other aggressors. - J.Z., 25.3.08, 25.1.11, 5.7.12. – DIS., EQUALITY? INEQUALITY? PANARCHISM

PEACE: Only exterritorialists, i.e. voluntarists, are viable or reliable enough peace partners. – Almost all large territorial governments do break their treaties, sooner or later, or wrongly interpret them. – They are motivate and guided by power addicts, who have all too much power in their hands. -J.Z., 14.12.10, 20.12.11, 5.7.12.

PEACE: Only freedom could guarantee peace.’ – President Reagan, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 10.8.87. - But territorial statism is, by its very nature, in many ways just the opposite of freedom for individuals and for groups of like-minded volunteers. Under the enforced uniformity of territorial statism, one leader like him – and too many others, who are much worse, can e.g. command the use of mass extermination devices. – In that respect most of their subjects are merely State property, for human sacrifices, to be made upon the whim, faith, ideological conviction or military notions of any territorial leader who is armed, in the extreme cases, with ABC mass murder devices, which, indirectly, endanger the own subjects just as much as those of foreign territorial regimes. - J.Z., 22.2.08, 3.1.12, 5.7.12. -  DIS., FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM VS. STATE SOVEREIGNTY & COMPULSORY TERRITORIAL MEMBERSHIP OR SUBJUGATION, NWT.

PEACE: Our present kind of peace is a kind of war. At best it is a temporary armistice. In most cases it is a more or less violent internal or civil (anti-civilization) war of the few who rule or do have other power in any territory against the many among "the" people, who do not want to be ruled by these few but, rather, if at all, then by some other few. And this situation, inherent in territorialism, prepares the ground for turning periods of peace or armistices into more international wars. At most one can say that democracies and republics are, generally, not as bloody and violent against the own citizens and foreign subjects as are dictatorships. However, even their best and peace-loving intentions can lead to minor and major wars, as long as they remain addicted and shaped by territorialist ideas, institutions and actions. See e.g. their indiscriminate bombing campaigns, their nuclear strength policies, their wars against drugs and terrorism and how they uphold legalized tax slavery. - J.Z., 9.10.00, 9.2.02, 5.7.12. - They are still far from permitting individual and group secessionism, full monetary and financial freedom, free trade and restrict even free migration. None of them has bothered so subscribe to a complete code of all genuine individual rights and liberties or has ever declare quite rightful war and peace aims only! - J.Z., 25.1.11, 3.1.12, 5.7.12. - ARMISTICE, WAR, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, CIVIL WAR

PEACE: Panarchism is the main platform point for the peaceful settlement of most of the remaining internal and external disagreements. Nevertheless, and although it is only the exterritorial and voluntary opposite choice to territorial and compulsory collective decision-making by a few for whole populations, it has been left almost completely out of the public discussion of opportunities to achieve peace in freedom and justice for all. The exterritorial autonomy solution for volunteer communities has e.g. not been publicly and widely discussed e.g. for South Africa, the USSR, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Israel, Ireland, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, India, China, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Yugoslavia, the Balkan and for any or the new territorial States and former colonies. – The territorial model has blocked most minds and blinded them to exterritorialist and voluntary options. This applies even to most of the anarchists and libertarians who, in this respect, are not so radical after all. – J.Z., n.d., 9.1.99, 25.1.11. - It has also blinded them to the atrocities and oppressions and exploitative actions that are, inevitably, associated with territorialism. - Thus territorialism is still widely seen as the solution rather than the problem. - J.Z., 8.9.04. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

PEACE: Panarchy, with its individual secessionism, voluntary membership, exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, is not yet a major force for peace, just like radical liberty proposals are now not yet a major force towards total liberty, or towards as much liberty as each wants for himself, and as the present and monopolized justice system, and reform attempts for it, are not yet a major force towards justice for all – to each his own! – Just like freedom in education proposals are not yet major and effective forces towards sufficient enlightenment, and just like freedom to experiment is not yet a general free option, as long as it is excluded in the political, economic and social sphere via territorial statism and as long are long as all these and many other important individual rights and liberties remain, largely and in most countries and in most of their circles, unknown, unappreciated, even objected to and resisted or, worse still, legally, systematically and severely obstructed. – J.Z., in old Pan AZ. See also my file: Pan JZ notes 29 12 04, 20.12.11, 23.1.12, 5.7.12. - PEACE THROUGH PANARCHY?

PEACE: Peace … the continuance of war with other means.” – Spengler. (“Frieden: … die Fortsetzung des Krieges mit andern Mitteln.”) – Yes, if by this he meant peace treaties between territorial powers. – J.Z., 21.4.08.

PEACE: Peace can be brought about not by meetings, subscriptions and conferences, but only by a radical revolution in ideas and customs.” - R. V. Sampson: The Discovery of Peace, p.97, on Proudhon. - True for meetings etc. between territorial governments. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - But meetings between soldiers of opposing armies might help! Also if citizens subscribed rather to their own just peace aims than let themselves be taxed and conscripted for the war aims and efforts of their governments. Both groups on both sides and between them ought to have worthwhile, timely and public conferences on quite just war and peace aims, instead of taking for granted e.g. territorialism - with its monetary and financial despotism and many other wrongs legalized and institutionalized by it. - J.Z., 26.4.83, 5.7.12. – PEACE CONFERENCES, SUMMIT CONFERENCES BETWEEN TERRITORIAL LEADERS, WHO HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER BUT THEIR TERRITORIALIST ERRORS, PREJUDICES & FALSE PRETENCES.

PEACE: Peace cannot be based on ABC "weapons" or territorial governments. It requires their abolition. - - Be peaceful or be gone - might be a motto for mankind now. We can no longer afford even mere conventional wars, because they might escalate into nuclear wars. - To achieve a lasting peace we must have justice and complete individual liberty for every non-aggressive and sufficiently rational being or, in other words, full realization of all genuine individual human rights and all rights of rational beings, to the extent that there are already recognized and wanted by at least some. From them their appreciation and realization would spread, possibly even fast. There is no other way to peace than through the full realization of all these rights and liberties, to the extent that they are wanted by any society, community or governance system of volunteers. - The record shows that territorial governments are unwilling and unable to do this job. On the contrary, they are the greatest single threat to rights and liberties and thereby to peace. - DICTATORSHIPS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUALISM, JUSTICE, LIBERTY, LIBERATION, LIBERTARIANISM, MILITIA, POLICE ACTIONS, POWER, RULERS, SELF-HELP, SOVEREIGNTY, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, WAR AIMS, WELFARE STATE. . – J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS Nos. 16 & 17, on - Partly revised: 2.1.12 5.7.12.

PEACE: Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be kept by understanding.” - Albert Einstein, Notes on Pacifism. – That understanding was certainly lacking in Einstein when he proposed nuclear ‘weapons”. – He was also opposed to exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. – J.Z., 21.4.08. – Would “understanding” totalitarian regimes lead really to peace with them? – The ones who are to be recognized and understood are the victims of these regimes. With carpet bombing and nuclear war threats we drive them into the arms of their oppressors. – J.Z., 25.3.08. – E., too, was a classical instance for the barbarism of the specialists. - J.Z., 25.1.11. – AIR RAIDS, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DIS.

PEACE: Peace does not have to be made. It is a natural condition. It consists of producing goods, rendering services and thinking up ideas, when goods, services and ideas flow freely from place to place, from people to people, you have peace, when political coercion blocks this natural tendency, you have war; the bloodshed will come in due time.” - Frank Chodorov. – Let people opt out of everything that makes for war and opt for everything for themselves that makes for peace. – J.Z., 21.4.08. – PANARCHISM, FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY ON THE BASIS OF EXTERRITORIALISM & PERSONAL LAWS.

PEACE: Peace has her victories no less renowned than war.” – John Milton, Sonnet 16, to Cromwell, May, 1652. - But there are not many about who would recognize all of them as such. – J.Z., 26.4.83. – How many are aware by now that e.g. the introduction of an ideal militia for the protection of individual rights and liberties, full monetary and financial freedom and panarchism would be very significant steps towards a lasting peace, based upon freedom and justice? - How many see in free trade, free migration, financial freedom, individual secessionism and in the abolition of the decision-making monopoly on war and peace, armament and disarmament - significant steps towards a lasting peace, based on freedom and justice? - J.Z., 18.4.08, 3.1.12, 5.7.12.  - Q.

PEACE: Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures. And however undramatic the pursuit of peace, that pursuit must go on.” – John F. Kennedy, address to United Nations General Assembly Sept. 20, 1963. (*) – Pursuits of peace by territorial governments must all end up in dead end roads. – J.Z., 26.4.83. - How many of those officials, speaking up for peace and of the members of the various peace movements, are prepared to eliminate territorialism, monetary despotism and taxation - as three of the main roots of war - or have even recognized them as such? – J. F. K. was certainly not one of them. – He and his predecessors and successors stockpiled mass murder devices and reserved to themselves the “right” to use them! And they retained the decision-making power on war and pace, “protectionism” and all other territorial laws, policies and institutions that make for war and economic crises. - J.Z., 25.3.08. – (*) Neither J. F. K. nor the UN nor any territorial other modern government did ever realize that, in spite of all the information sources at their disposal and their “intelligence” services. With all too much ignorance, too many popular errors and prejudices, they continue to rule, because the majority of voters shares their errors and flaws and their territorialist false assumptions and conclusions. – J.Z., 5.7.12. - Q.

PEACE: Peace is a natural effect of trade.” - de Montesquieu. – Territorialism is an even greater obstacle to peace than is protectionism. Protectionism is just one of many wrongful aspects of territorialism. – J.Z., 7.3.09, 3.1.12. – So are e.g. taxation and monetary as well as financial despotism and immigration restrictions. – J.Z., 5.7.12. - FREE TRADE, WAR, PROTECTIONISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

PEACE: Peace is an armistice in a war that is continuously going on.” - Thucydides. - Yes, while territorial States or warfare States are still tolerated, as if they could really provide all the wished for and promised services better and cheaper than volunteers in a freely competitive market for all services could. - J.Z., 27.11.02, 5.7.12. - DIS.

PEACE: Peace is indivisible.” - Maxim Litvinov, speech at Geneva, 1936. – As if e.g. separate peace treaties were impossible or undesirable. – I would class only separate peace treaties with dictators, rather than with their victims, as undesirable. - J.Z., 21.4.08. - DIS. - Oh, all the wrongs and nonsense that are proclaimed in the name of liberty, justice, peace, progress, education! - We never had a genuine and lasting peace! - Always territorial politicians and rulers got in the way of it. At most we had some temporary armistices, still crippled by preparations for the next war. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - DIS., SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES

PEACE: Peace is liberty in tranquility.” – Cicero, Philippicae, 44-43 B.C., No. ii, sec. 44. – („Friede ist Freiheit in Ruhe.”) - By that definition the slaves of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, under the "Pax Romana", had no peace. – J.Z., 14.4.08. – Are today’s tax slaves, education slaves and military slaves and the slaves of territorialism and its monetary and financial despotism - in peace and liberty? – J.Z., 15.3.09. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM, SERFDOM, SLAVERY, FREEDOM

PEACE: Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.” - Benedict Spinoza. – That disposition did not protect e.g. the Hopis, the Eskimos and peaceful monks and nuns or intentional community or utopian colony people or all States that wanted to remain neutral, like e.g. Belgium in WW I. – If the aggressors had this state of mind, disposition to benevolence, justice and tolerance, then they would not be aggressors. But they don’t. – They are armed, organized and aggressive, perhaps even warlike or fanatic ideologues or religious zealots or, at least, as conscripts and under military discipline, prepared to follow the orders of their wrongful territorial governments – or other gurus. – Fundamental moral and institutional changes are required for peace. – Good intentions and good will alone are not enough. - In my second peace book, I listed, mostly alphabetically, about 500 such points. - J.Z., 7.3.09. – - EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, SECESSIONISM WARFARE STATES, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, ARMS RACES, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, AGGRESSION- JUSTICE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES & WAR, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM,

PEACE: Peace is not an impossible task. It is only impossible to achieve and maintain a lasting and just peace on a territorial basis. – J.Z., 7.10.93. – Even those who managed to keep themselves out of direct participation in both world wars did suffer under them, economically. – The examples they set, e.g. Switzerland and Sweden, were still not good enough. - J.Z., 15.2.08. – Almost all the required preconditions for a lasting peace in freedom and justice are OUTLAWED! – J.Z., 5.7.12. – TERRITORIALISM, FREE TRADE, FREE MIGRATION, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, GENUINE SELF-DETERMINATION

PEACE: Peace is possible.” - Dangerous Buttons, No. 474. – Not only that: It’s obligatory to work for it – for every moral and rational being. – J.Z., 5.7.86. – But it is not possible for long on a territorial basis. – J.Z., 15.3.09. – Under territorialism no genuine peace is possible but, instead, only temporary armistice periods – at least for all the large and largest territorial States, with the mini-States remaining under the power of the large States - as far as their foreign affairs are concerned. – J.Z., 5.7.12. – TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES, MINI-STATES

PEACE: Peace is prevented by the organization of all people into territorial States. – J.Z., 18.3.99. – How many people of the various peace movements, organizations and protestors as well as marchers are aware of that and also that many of the ideas, institutions and laws they still subscribe to do cause rather than prevent wars? – J.Z., 5.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM, STATES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS.

PEACE: Peace is seldom denied to the peaceful.” – J. C. F. Schiller, Wilhelm Tell, I, 1804. – I deny, just like Schiller did in his Wilhelm Tell drama, that territorial domination is a peaceful and freedom, justice, progress and prosperity-promoting system. – However, it can provide the "peace" of the graveyard or of the mass execution trenches and that of whole cities nuked to death and destruction. - J.Z., 25.3.08, 3.1.12. – Most of the pre-conditions for a just and lasting peace in freedom are still quite unknown and thus unappreciated by most territorial rulers and their subjects. -  J.Z., 5.7.12.

PEACE: Peace is the business of society. Society is a cooperative effort, springing spontaneously from man's urge to improve on his circumstances. It is voluntary, completely free of force. It comes because man has learned that the task of life is easier of accomplishment through the exchange of goods, services, and ideas. The greater the volume and the fluidity of such exchanges, the richer and fuller the life of every member of society. That is the law of Association; it is also the law of peace.” - Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.122. – As if no individual rights and duties were involved in this. – J.Z., 21.4.08. - A consistently developed form of associationism and voluntarism is required, one that includes all exterritorial autonomy options for individuals and their voluntary associations and the competitive supply and subscription to "public" or "State" "services". - So far we never had a quite free society, made up of numerous free diverse societies, free to unfree ones, all in accordance with the wishes and ideas of their voluntary members. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 3.1.12, 5.7.12.

PEACE: Peace is too important to be left to the politicians.” - Prof. Linus Pauling. - Territorial politicians. Once we have enough exterritorialist politicians and citizens, then even these politicians might help to achieve it, by allowing free choices to all their subjects, all of them being volunteers only. - Under that condition their jobs might come close to being sinecures. – So far most of the ignorant, and foolish office holders and candidates for offices can still find all too many who are still more foolish than they are and so they can stay or get into office. - For proof look at the ca. 30,000 religions. At least these exterritorial institutions do already peacefully coexist in most countries. - Territorialism produces Warfare States but not peaceful societies and communities, at least not once it goes beyond a certain size and power. – J.Z., 25.1.11., 24.1.12. - TERRITORIALISM

PEACE: Peace lies in diversity and liberty.” - J.Z., 74. - Definitely not in the compulsory uniformity or unity of territorialism. - J.Z., 25.1.11.

PEACE: Peace requires at least as much living apart as living together – as long as both relationships are voluntary. – J.Z., 8.3.93. – VOLUNTARISM, SEPARATISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY SEGREGATION & VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION ONLY, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

PEACE: Peace talks between leaders are useless. Only peace talks between all the different kinds of peoples, who are involved, several in every territory, do have a chance. The latter talks would constitute the only rightful and necessary “summit” conferences. And such “talks” could be even unilaterally begun, by offering the victims of any territorial regime nothing but quite rightful war and peace aims, all directed only against their present authoritarian to tyrannical regimes and offering all the diverse peoples on both sides all the rights and liberties they desire among themselves, to the extent that they desire them, for their own communities all of volunteers only and without aiming at any territorial monopoly. – Obviously, not even territorial and representative or direct democracy should be offered as the only option and with the threat to militarily impose it. – That would only prolong unjustified and unnecessary bloodshed on all sides. Instances: Afghanistan and Iraq. - J.Z., 19.5.86, 25.3.08, 14.4.08, 3.1.12. – LEADERSHIP, SUMMIT CONFERENCES, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

PEACE: Peace through individual secessionism and the voluntary associationism of panarchies polyarchies etc. In other words: To each the government or non- governmental society of his or her dreams. - … of his or her own choice. - GPdB had suggested replacing “dreams” by “choice”. I could only agree with him, for most of the connotations of choice are better than those of dreams. - J.Z., 23.1.12, 14.1.93, 20.2.08

PEACE: Peace will come naturally and without further effort – once we no longer uphold the unnatural, coercive, monopolistic, collectivistic and territorial model of the Warfare State. – J.Z., 20.5.99, 14.2.08. - WARFARE STATES, TERRITORIALISM

PEACE: Peace, the exterritorial, voluntary, individualist, decentralist way! All other attempts lead at best only to temporary armistices but do not cut the roots of international and civil wars. – J.Z., 27.1.05. - PANARCHISM

PEACE: Peace, through the replacement of territorial domination by exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. - J.Z., 73, 25.1.11. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

PEACE: Peaceful & Pluralist Practices for Personal Preferences, Population and Planet-wide. - J.Z., 04-11. - TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

PEACE: Perhaps the removal of trade restrictions throughout the world would do more for the cause of universal peace than can any political union of peoples separated by trade barriers." - Frank Chodorov - . - Free Trade means much more than free international trade. It means free exchange and freedom of contract, association and disassociation in every sphere. Fractional Free Trade, the only one usually discussed and demanded, cannot assure peace sufficiently. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – PEACE & FREE TRADE, IN EVERY SPHERE, ORDINARY FREE TRADE SUPPLEMENTED E.G. BY PANARCHISM, FINANCIAL & MONETARY FREEDOM, FREEDOM FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS & TREATIES (NO LONGER MONOPOLIZED BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS), INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, IGNORING THE STATE, FREE CHOICE AMONG POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS

PEACE: Permanent peace between territorial governments is merely a pipe dream, not a real option. – J.Z., 3.11.85,12.7.86.

PEACE: Perpetual peace, then, is the fundamental political duty. For all that is morally valuable rests on the freedom of the individual human being. His freedom can be secured only in a just civil society, and a civil society can be secured only in a world of peace under just law. The advice of this sane man, then, speaks to us today as much as it spoke to his contemporaries: “Now, moral-practical reason within us voices its irresistible veto: There shall be no war, either between them and me in a state of nature or among states, which are still in a lawless condition in their external relations with one another, even though internally they are not. … As a matter of fact, it can be said that the establishment of a universal and enduring peace is not just a part, but rather constitutes the whole of the ultimate purposes of Law within the bounds of pure reason. … This idea should be attempted and carried out through gradual reform according to fixed principles. Only in this way is it possible to approach continually closer to the highest political good – perpetual peace.” IMMANUEL KANT, Justice, 344-5; Ladd, 128-9. – Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right, 148/49, quoting Kant. – Wars may be compared to brawls between drunks, but in this case between territorial governments, all addicted to and drunk with territorial power. – J.Z., 15.4.08. – They systematically and territorially suppress all the freedom, justice and peace experiments of volunteers, which would make a lasting peace possible. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 3.1.12. - WAR, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, POWER

PEACE: Planet-wide peace via planet-wide tolerance for diversity and plurality for all tolerant actions and community experiments among volunteers via personal perceptions and preferences! – J.Z., in Pan AZ, April 11. – TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

PEACE: Science has brought little peace on earth or to the soul of man, although it has brought many comforts to body and business.” – Dagobert D. Runes, A Dictionary of Thought. – Serious peace studies have not even begun until the exterritorialist alternatives are seriously considered as well, instead of remaining largely ignored. All those, are not really scientists and peace researchers, who manage to ignore these alternative approaches to a lasting peace based upon freedom and justice for all (just as much of either as they want for themselves). – J.Z., 26.7.92, 20.2.08, 5.7.12. - SCIENCE, SCIENTISTS, PEACE RESEARCH, POLITICAL SCIENCE, PANARCHISM

PEACE: See especially my two peace books. Have any other books dealt with the panarchists, monetary freedom and human rights aspects as extensively? If that is the case than I would like to hear about them. – J.Z., 8.4.08. & - & - PANARCHISM

PEACE: Senator Burton Wheeler, an isolationist, gave a speech on NBC Radio. “I firmly believe that the German people want peace just as any people prefer peace to war,” he said, “and the offer of a just, reasonable and generous peace will more quickly and effectively crumble Hitlerism and break the morale of the German people than all the bombers that could be dispatched over Berlin.” – It was December 30, 1940.” - Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke, the Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, Simon & Schuster, 2008, p.273. - This alternative would have been even more effective if such peace had been offered on panarchistic terms by a variety of German governments in exile, recognized by the Western Allies and allied with them. – Alas, such alternatives are not even sufficiently discussed now! – This book deals objectively with the war crimes committed on both sides of WW II. - J.Z., 14.9.08, 5.7.12. - PEACE AIMS, QUITE JUST ONES

PEACE: Si vis pace para secessio. - Fiat justitia! – To each his own! Der Freiheit eine Gasse! – Full freedom of contract, association, action, experimentation through exterritorial autonomy for societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers only. – Laissez Faire in every sphere, even for the self-responsible actions of tolerant statists, just doing their own things to themselves. - J.Z., 5.7.12. - SECESSIONISM

PEACE: Si vis pace, para bellum. - Vegetius, ca. 400 BC, Epit. rei milit. 3. Prolog. - At least the age of this doctrine and the numerous experiences since it was coined should rather induce us to doubt its validity. – There was no shortage of arms races. Most ended in wars. - Let him who desires peace prepare for peace - but also for war, if need be and if it is justified. – That means, among other things, quite rightful war and peace aims and military actions so rightfully conducted that they are reduced to mere rightful police action against the real war criminals, instead of a war against their first victims. - J.Z., 4/83, 19.4.08. – DIS.

PEACE: Since reason condemns war and makes peace an absolute duty; and since peace cannot be effected or guaranteed without a compact among nations, they must form an alliance of a peculiar kind, which may be called a pacific alliance (foedus pacificum), different from a treaty of peace (pactum pacis) inasmuch as it would for ever terminate all wars, whereas the latter ends only one.” – Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, II, 1795. - It should only be a federation of exterritorially autonomous governments, societies and communities of volunteers. (*) Otherwise, this peace, too, would be built upon a foundation of sand. – And a federation of local militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties would be even more important. - J.Z., 25.3.08. - And it requires a comprehensive declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 3.1.12. – Kant had recognized the importance of both, a rightful militia and of individual rights for the establishment and maintenance of peace. – J.Z., 5.7.12. - (*) The territorialism of the USA led it to the Civil War, two World Wars and numerous other wars. - Territorial federalism is not good enough. - See League of Nations and UN. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - FEDERALISM, TERRITORIALISM

PEACE: Territorial “peace” not only makes for war, it already is a kind of war, at least a kind of occupation and despotism with their inherent instability. – J.Z., 18.12.92, 19.2.08, 5.7.12. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

PEACE: Territorial governments prevent many peace, freedom and justice promoting actions by citizens. E.g.: free trade, free markets, individual secessionism, exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, free migration, tyrannicide, voluntary taxation, separate peace treaties, mass fraternization of troops, military insurrections and revolutions against warlike governments, negotiations and treaties by the people, over the heads of their rulers, decision-making on war and peace, armament and disarmament by the people, quite rightful and self-managed militia forces for the protection of individual rights and liberties, full monetary and financial freedom, declaration of quite rightful war and peace aims by the people. – J.Z., 20.8.99, 14.2.08. – TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS

PEACE: Territorialists are war-mongers, whether they are aware of this or not, who are conducting, almost perpetually, either civil or external wars, at least to some extent, even when reduced to what is called „election campaigns“. They do this merely as a result of their territorial organization. Exterritorialists are automatically peace promoters, whether they are aware of this or not, as a result of their form of voluntary and competitive organization, subject to individual choices. - Exterritorialism promotes peace, justice, freedom, progress, enlightenment and prosperity while territorialism has the opposite effects, sometimes to catastrophic degrees. – J.Z., 27.1.05, 3.1.12. WAR, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

PEACE: The 19th century, relatively speaking, was a peaceful century; the 20th century, so far, has been a century of total war and cold war.” - William H. Peterson, "THE FREEMAN", Aug. 76. - Full laissez faire, not only in the economic but in the political sphere, too, i.e. for all who wanted it or would have come to appreciate it, would have made the 19th and the 20th century almost completely peaceful. No vast opportunities for political criminals would have been left. They would have been reduced to committing some more or less isolated private criminal acts, or those of “great” prophets and gurus, among their “true believers” - and even these would have become greatly reduced in frequency of occurrences, degrees of despotism and number of voluntary victims. Free completion form much better alternative societies etc. would see to that. (See e.g. my article on this in PEACE PLANS 15.) - J.Z. 1.8.92, 9.1.93, 5.7.12. & LAISSEZ FAIRE

PEACE: The choice is either a) permanent or all too frequent and temporary, more or less open and violent “uncivil” war or international war as a consequence of constitutionalizing, legalizing and juridically defending territorialism or b) exterritorial autonomy for all those who want it. - J.Z. 17.9.87, 1.4.89, 19.9.04. - CIVIL WAR, WAR & PANARCHISM

PEACE: The choice is yours: Perpetual war, finally leading to a general nuclear holocaust, through the perpetuation of territorial rule or perpetual peace through the establishment of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, in all the diversity which volunteers would wish for themselves. – If this is not your free choice as yet, make sure it will become your option, a.s.a.p. - J.Z., 19.4.89, 25.3.08.

PEACE: The fateful error that frustrated all the endeavors to safeguard peace was precisely that people did not grasp the fact that only within a world of pure, perfect, and unhampered capitalism are there no incentives for aggression and conquest.” – Ludwig von Mises: Omnipotent Government, p.5. – It does not have to be an exclusive territorial capitalism under limited governments only. But capitalism for capitalists and socialism for socialists should certainly be among the many free options for individuals and minorities or even majorities. – There are many paths to peace, which are not yet seriously and widely enough considered. - J.Z., 21.4.08, 25.1.11. - Seeing that the various statists are, everywhere, still in the majority, it is only common sense to concede to them, as well, their own kinds of statist panarchies, but none with a territorial monopoly. They would then tend to split up into numerous and different statist sects, doing their things to themselves, under the leaders of their factions. - J.Z., 3.1.12. - DIS., CAPITALISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM

PEACE: The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism.” - Ludwig von Mises. - I would add: - in the sphere of political, economic and social organization, via full autonomy, voluntarism and tolerance on the basis of exterritoriality. - J.Z., 14.5.01. - He was one of those great libertarians who opposed that kind of free market, in favor of a "limited" government, and he even opposed it in the monetary sphere, wanting to make what he considered to be the only rightful, good and honest monetary system - an exclusive one! - J.Z., 11.2.02. - Possibly even a forced one, as if gold coins or gold-covered certificates needed legal tender power to be accepted. - J.Z., 3.1.12. - PANARCHISM, CAPITALISM, LAISSEZ FAIRE, MONETARY FREEDOM VS. MONETARY DESPOTISM OF ANY KIND

PEACE: The government is the institution for making war. Despite all pious wishes it is thus the least suitable institution for making peace. Its very existence prevents peace - by establishing a state of war between various groups, by subjecting all of them to a territorially imposed and thus superficially uniform and united system.  - J.Z., 76, 5.11.02, 3.1.12. - TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

PEACE: the great Libertarians ... have always stood for peace. Liberty leads to peace, while authority necessarily leads to war.” - Charles Sprading: Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.29. - If liberty is incomplete, because it is still largely unknown and undeclared, then we still get all too many wars, as history has proven again and again. The widest possible use of all genuine individual rights and liberties, at least within communities of volunteers, to the extent that they are enlightened about them, is the only relatively safe and sure road to a lasting and comprehensive peace in freedom and justice for all. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 5.7.12.

PEACE: the individual way - is the quicker way to peace.” - Ernest J.P. Benn, Benn's Protest, p.49. – Alas, he did not clarify that this would involve e.g. individual secessionism, desertion from dictatorships, tyrannicide, voluntary membership in States and societies, full monetary freedom and a clear and complete declaration of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 21.4.08.

PEACE: The key to peace lies in “as much intercourse as possible between the peoples of the world … as little as possible between the governments of the world.” – Richard Cobden. – The diverse peoples, all only organized as communities of volunteers, could, should and would conclude peace between themselves over the heads of their present territorial rulers. – J.Z., 15.3.09. – PANARCHISM, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, QUITE RIGHTFUL PEACE AIMS, NO MORE MONOPOLIES IN DECISION-MAKING ON WAR & PEACE, ARMAMENT & DISARMAMENT, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES & TREATIES!

PEACE: The major causes of wars, civil wars, violent revolutions, terrorism and other mass murders, especially the existence of territorial States, with all their wrongful powers, monopolies, institutions and laws, is not even questioned by most members of most peace movements and “peace activists” or “peace lovers”. Thus they, too, are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. – J.Z., 19.4.95, 25.3.08. - Compare: ”… the soil of peace is thickly sown with seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth.” – Ambrose Bierce: The Devil’s Dictionary.

PEACE: The members of an Open Society have and can have in common only opinions on values but not a will on concrete ends. In consequence, the possibility of an order of peace based on agreement, especially in a democracy, rests on coercion being confined to the enforcement of abstract rules of just conduct.” – F. A. Hayek: The Confusion of Language in Political Thought, p.27. – According to Kant even a democracy, in which the government still decides on war and peace, is still only a dictatorship. – Furthermore, it embodies the despotism of majorities, monetary despotism, tax slavery, military slavery and “educational” slavery. - J.Z., 19.4.08. - An open and voluntary society would also be open to individual and group secessionism and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. - Contrary to what Hayek states here, it would be open to freedom of action or freedom to experiment, as long as both are tolerant and self-responsible. Alas, Hayek remained a territorialist to his end. - That was part of his errors, prejudices and confusions. - J.Z., 25.1.11.

PEACE: The most ridiculous statement I have ever heard is one that was attached to a splinter political party: "Peace and Freedom". You can have peace, or you can have freedom, but you don't get both at once. (Applause. Booing.)” - Robert Heinlein, Requiem, p.278. - Over-simplified bi-polarity "thinking" is not very enlightening and often misleading. You can have as much peace as is possible between human beings - only through realizing or allowing all liberties for all who want them, to the extent that they do want them! - J.Z., 23.1.02, 7.3.09. - PEACE & FREEDOM, PANARCHISM: “To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!” – DIS.

PEACE: The most significant European experience of “beating swords into plowshares” was the acceptance of religious tolerance. The most significant reversal of this tolerance was the rise of intolerant territorial nationalism. – J.Z., 17.9.82. - And the most significant reversal of intolerant territorialism for political, economic and social system will be the introduction of full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of communities, societies etc. of volunteers. – J.Z., 24.3.08. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW VS. LAW & ORDER LAWS

PEACE: The Pax Romana, … ceased to work some centuries ago. The Pax Britannica had an even shorter run, and the Pax Germanica never came off at all. I don’t think we shall see any further attempts in this direction, though I may be wrong. Empire building is now out of favor: it is strange to hear it advocated from the neighborhood of Chicago.” - Arthur C. Clarke, Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds! Harper/Collins, 2000, p.27. – Exterritorialist, voluntary and competitive world federalism has not yet been tried! – J.Z., 25.9.07. - PAX ROMANA, PAX BRITANNICA, PAX GERMANICA, PAX AMERICANA, IMPERIALISM, WORLD DOMINATION, WORLD STATE, WORLD FEDERATION

PEACE: the peace that passeth all understanding" - a Biblical phrase. - I would add: It will never be achieved. Only a peace whose scope and prerequisites are understood can be achieved. That biblical peace remark applies only to the peace inherent in all free market relationships and these relationships are presently understood by only all too few. – J.Z., 26.4.83. – (The market as a whole and its free actions, cannot be understood by anyone. But the prerequisites of it, in every sphere, can be understood by normal people, most of them, presently, still conditioned to submit to territorialism without doubting, questioning or even resisting it. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 5.7.12.) But let individuals be free to fully practise e.g. a genuine free market capitalism or laissez faire capitalism or market anarchism among volunteers – or any other system among their volunteers - then the free market relationships and their institutions will tend to spread fast and this without causing any economic crises but rather fast ending those which exist under territorial governmental meddling at last among their members. – Meddling to be furthermore tolerated only among meddlers and at their expense and risk! – That kind of self-inflicted pain might teach them – after a while. – Who knows and understands all individual rights and liberties so far or shows even sufficient interest for them? - J.Z., 15.3.09. – Unlimited free choice for individuals among communities, societies, political, economic and social systems, i.e., experimental freedom, freedom of contract and associations as well as disassociation in this sphere, will also lead to more and more and, finally, sufficient understanding of all genuine individual rights and liberties and, thereby, to a lasting peace, to freedom, security, justice, prosperity, progress, even life-extension and the stars. - Even while our knowledge of the details of all such free and rightful actions will remain very small and incomplete. Under the rule of all genuine individual rights and liberties they will be sufficiently and automatically coordinated to lead to natural harmonies and peaceful and tolerant coexistence, regardless of the remaining diverse choices of individuals and minorities. - J.Z., 25.1.11, 5.7.12. - UNDERSTANDING, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

PEACE: The purpose of all war is peace.” – St. Augustine, The City of God, xv, 427. – But, even if this were true, it is certainly, not the achievement of any and all the wars of the past. – J.Z., 8.11.85, 15.3.09, 25.1.11. – Because the wrong warfare aims and methods were used, again and again, all more or less totalitarian and territorial rather than liberating ones. – J.Z., 5.7.86, 25.3.08, 5.7.12. - WARFARE, WAR AIMS

PEACE: The question of war and peace should not be considered as if it were separate of the question of the State and the question of the State should not be considered as if it were separate of the question of territorialism vs. exterritorialism and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers should not be considered as if they were separable from the question of individual rights and liberties, their realization and protection. – J.Z., 6.12.92, 9.12.03, 19.2.08. - PANARCHISM, STATE, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, HUMAN RIGHTS, FREEDOM, MILITIA, LIBERATION, WAR AIMS, DEFENCE

PEACE: The reconnaissance satellites (both those of the United States and the late Soviet Union) may well have averted World War III. Together with such ubiquitous communications devices as fax machines and portable satellite telephones, they are the best guarantee of “peace through truths: As President Reagan put it with the hard-won cynicism of the practical politicians: ‘Trust, but verify’.” - Arthur C. Clarke, Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds! Harper/Collins, 2000, p.425/26 – As if the problem had only a technological solution. Against territorial States even the highest technology cannot provide a sufficient and lasting security, because it leaves their war-like nature and capacities untouched. – J.Z., 25.9.07. – Computer failures and misinterpretations of computerized observations are part and parcel of the risk of accidental nuclear war – i.e. a war with possibly worse consequences than any war before. Moreover, madmen were all too often in charge of the statist war machines. – J.Z., 5.7.12. - & TRUST, BUT VERIFY, HIGH TECHNOLOGY & NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

PEACE: The true peace is not a peace between States. Between States there can be no peace. Not to have recognized this was the mistake of the late Bertha von Suttner and is the mistake of all peace movements that do not, with Tolstoy, conduct the fight against war as a fight against the State. Whosoever gets involved with State policy, be it only in the very least and be it even for revolutionary purposes, must stand with one or the other war party.” - Gustav Landauer, quoted in Lernziel Anarchie. – That is true for territorial and large States but not so true for modern mini-States and some neutral States like Sweden and Switzerland. – Nor is it true for those communities of voluntary statists that would be organized only under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 19.4.08, 25.1.11, 3.1.12.

PEACE: There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.” – A. J. Muste, quoted in an editorial in THE NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 16, 1967. - Muste certainly did not know the true way to peace and thus was a bad guide to it. – J.Z., 25.3.08. I doubt that he could even have properly and comprehensively defined it. He might as well have merely prayed or wished for peace, a peace still left all too undefined, apart from the absence of war. - A genuine peace condition, realized anywhere on Earth, would, indeed, tend to be peace-promoting, world-wide, rather soon. However, where and in what is it to be found as yet? Certainly not under territorial States, not even in those very small ones, which do no longer plan for aggression or defence and not even the few ones which have kept themselves neutral for over 100 years. – Most States are still organized as territorial warfare States and at any time prepared for war - upon command by their rulers. – At best there are temporary armistices between them. – J.Z., 14.4.08, 15.3.09. - Peace is not a magic word that needs only to be uttered in order to become realized. - J.Z., 3.1.12, 5.7.12.

PEACE: There is not other peace, freedom, justice, progress and prosperity like that which would be realized by panarchism. – J.Z., in Pan AZ. - Only it allows everyone to attempt to realize his own ideals and gives no one the opportunity or power to impose them upon any peaceful dissenters, who would rather do their own things. - J.Z., 3.1.12. - FREEDOM, JUSTICE, PROGRESS & PROSPERITY OR CONSISTENT LAISSEZ FAIRE, IN ALL SPHERES, INCLUDING THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SPHERES, NOT ONLY THE ECONOMIC SPHERE

PEACE: They want to stop wars – but do not want the decision-making power on war and peace etc. returned to them. Nor do they want arms and suitable armed organizations against war-mongers, or institutions of volunteers, exterritorially autonomous, that are inherently peaceful and just, compared with territorial states. Neither do they advocate and realize any of the other and numerous conditions which make for a genuine and lasting peace. Some would preach even against the execution of tyrants by tyrannicide. – J.Z., 30.1.91, 25.3.08. – As if the death of millions of victims of tyrants would be more acceptable to them than the execution of their murderers! – J.Z., 15.3.09. – Almost every day a tyrant stays in the saddle more than his single life are risked or even destroyed. - In my second peace book, at, I offered, mostly in alphabetized form, ca. 500 points which are mostly still all too much neglected by the vast majority of ordinary peace lovers, who are mostly on wrong tracks, which do not lead to a genuine peace. – If you know of a peace book which tries to deal with more and other facets which do make for war, please, do point it out to me. – I would also welcome any refutations of any of my statements there. - J.Z., 5.7.12. - WELL-MEANING BUT IGNORANT OR PREJUDICED PEACE LOVERS ARE, MOSTLY, NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN ALL GENUINE PEACE-PROMOTING OPTIONS, BUT ONLY IN THEIR SECTARIAN NOTIONS ON ACHIEVING PEACE. NON-VIOLENCE, PACIFISM

PEACE: Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy. - Territorialism assures more violence and persistent deception and frauds than does panarchism. It largely prevents sufficient and rapid enlightenment. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – Actually I cannot imagine how panarchism or any genuine panarchy could cause an aggressive war. It would tend to deprive the temporarily remaining territorial and aggressive governments, relatively soon, of their wrongful powers, revenues and dissenting subjects, also of most of their soldiers and officers, who would come to accept attractive and unilaterally offered separate peace conditions, assuring them of all the genuine rights and liberties they want for themselves and to the extent that they do want them. – They would not longer be mere puppets and expendable pawns in the hands of their territorial mis-rulers, despots and tyrants. - J.Z., n.d. & 25.1.11. - PEACEFUL CHANGES & REFORMS VS. VIOLENT REVOLUTIONS, DESERTION, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, FRATERNIZATION, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS

PEACE: Through Exterritorial Institutions and Voluntary Associations, plan 201, pages 23-24, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507. - COF or SOF - A kind of early biarchy, not yet a multi-archy, polyarchy or panarchism with many diverse panarchies. – J.Z., 15.3.09, 5.7.12. - PEACE PROMOTION AMONG THE BERBERS. PANARCHISM

PEACE: Through panarchism finally an end to all bloody wars, civil wars, revolutions and terrorism, despotism, tyrannies and totalitarian regimes. It means a new and radically reformed political science and practice. A tolerant framework for all tolerant people, one which fundamentally and naturally promotes peace, justice, prosperity, progress and enlightenment, while strengthening and combining them against the remaining private and official criminals. – J.Z., n.d. & 5.7.12. - PANARCHISM

PEACE: Through Panarchism to Peace and Freedom - J.Z., from 1986 draft. - FREEDOM & PEACE THROUGH PANARCHISM

PEACE: to argue that the free market is the only road to peace, prosperity and freedom ought to be a recognized truism. What could be a more obvious statement? It's like saying peace is peaceful or free people are free. That this is not grasped by most people illustrates how far our culture has departed from the liberal thought that characterized the late 18th and 19th centuries.” - Sheldon Richman in THE FREEMAN, 9/78, p.543. - A fully free market would also embrace all the panarchist, monetary and financial freedom as well as the free migration options and also non-territorial and voluntary statism for the great variety of statists, at their own expense and risk. - J.Z., 25.1.11. - Even absolute monarchies conceded to fools a fool's liberty. Why shouldn't libertarians concede to statists the fool's liberty as well and be content if the statists consider the libertarians to be fools, who want to practise their foolish liberty? - J.Z., 3.1.12. – E.g. the Hopi and Eskimos kept the peace within their communities – without the benefit of a free market. – J.Z., 5.7.12.

PEACE: To the extent that peace lovers are still territorialists they do remain war-mongers, however unintentionally. – J.Z., 29.9.93. - TERRITORIALISM

PEACE: War is an invention of the human mind. The human mind can invent peace with justice.” - Norman Cousins, Who Speaks for Man? p.318 (1953). - Well, did he invent it and publish his solution? - J.Z., 3.1.12. - While democracies are much more peaceful and less murderous towards the own subjects than are dictatorships etc., they are still not just and free enough to prevent all wars, civil wars, riots and terrorist acts - until they, too, are reduced to communities of volunteers only, all of them only exterritorially autonomous. These peaceful options have been discovered long ago – partly practised in history - but the main schools of "political science" have still to discover them. - J.Z., 27.11.02. – WAR, POLITICAL SCIENCE, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAW

PEACE: We can have a people’s peace.” – David Lawrence, quoted in Eugene Lyons, Our Secret Allies, p. 364. – There is no other. A peace between territorial governments is merely a temporary armistice. But "the" people must be properly defined and organized, too, namely as communities of like-minded volunteers, under their own personal laws and with full exterritorial autonomy, not merely as the all too diverse population of whole territories, which are always in party or party-faction struggles with each other, if not in civil wars or engaged in revolutions or mutual terrorism. – J.Z., 25.3.08, 5.7.12. – PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

PEACE: we cannot make peace with Russia because Russia is at war with the Communist Party that holds her in sway; if we make peace with the Communist government we declare war on the Russian people, and vice versa. The dilemma is inescapable.” - Salvador de Madariaga, The Blowing up of the Parthenon, p.83. - Rather, the Communist Party and its Communist government made war on the Russian people and over 100 other ethnic groups, not to speak of all the other ideological, religious and racial groups. But we could and should, in alliance with corresponding governments in exile, have offered a diversity of separate peace treaties to every one of the suppressed groups in the Soviet Union, an alliance even with those communists and State socialists prepared to confine their ideology, their laws and institutions, to their own volunteers, conceding to all of them - and to all other communities of volunteers - full exterritorial autonomy. Thus all the victims of totalitarian communism could have become effectively combined, allied, by a common platform, against the minority of totalitarian communists. The majority of the communist regime’s soldiers and officers could also have been won over in this way. But not while they and all other peoples in Russia were threatened by our governments' nuclear mass murder devices. – The same policies apply to all other dictatorial, tyrannical and totalitarian regimes, which should always be clearly distinguished from their involuntary subjects. - J.Z., 1.2.92, 24.2.08, 27.1.11, 5.7.12 - DIS., CAPTIVE NATIONS, SECRET ALLIES

PEACE: We look primarily to government to keep the peace – but increasingly there is no peace.” - Richard Cornuelle, Healing America, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1983, p.19. – Why expect territorial Warfare States to be able and willing to provide peace? – J.Z., 7.3.09. - Has their history provided enough evidence that they are able and willing to achieve it? They cannot even end unemployment and inflation, which their own legalized but wrongful and irrational policies caused in the first place. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 3.1.12. - WARFARE STATE, Q., GOVERNMENTS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

PEACE: Whosoever wants peace has to remove the State, the organizer of war. International peace cannot be obtained at any lesser price.” - LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr. 3. – As States for their remaining volunteers they could and should remain, as long as they have any followers. They have to lose only their territorial monopoly power. - J.Z., 3.1.12. - TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES VS. PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

PEACE: With the territorial model, so far almost exclusively considered by almost all media and book writers, a lasting peace in freedom and justice cannot, obviously (to me) be achieved, although it has been tried over and over again. It is high time to try the opposite, the exterritorial and voluntary approach, in every crisis spot. That is likely to be the win-win option or compromise (an uncompromising one!), which is rightful, possible and acceptable to most, even the radicals, since they could then have their kind of radicalism, too, without having to impose it upon dissenters or without having to fear that dissenters would force upon them anything else. Almost every human action becomes possible under panarchism for those who do like them, except crimes and aggressions or other despotic acts towards non-members. As far as the own voluntary members are concerned, they would have to suffer the abuses they directly or indirectly contracted for, as long as they are willing to put up with them, in their self-chosen political etc. sado-masochistic constitutions. However, giving notice and withdrawal periods should be agreed upon and the right to instantly be dismissed or to secede - in case of severe breaches of contracted for rights and liberties. – J.Z., 28.11.93, 12.1.99, 8.9.04, 19.9.04, 3.1.12. – PEACE IN EVERY TROUBLE-SPOT IN THE WORLD, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

PEACE: You can't have peace until the captive nations are free.” - Mr. Michael Darby, 9/72. - And also those minorities whom the presently captive nations would hold and treat as captives in "their” new national territories. In other words, peace requires the option of exterritorial autonomy for ALL. (*) J.Z., 26.4.83. – Under territorialism there are captive nations even within the representative or direct democracies based - on majority voting. Terrorist acts are just symptoms of this disease and of the prevailing notion of collective responsibility and of monetary and financial despotism. – J.Z., 5.3.09. - (*) Except, naturally, active aggressors and criminals with victims. If they merely attack, murdered and robbed or cheated each other, in their own community and left all others alone, then the non-members would have no right to complain. They might then even cheer whenever another aggressor or criminal is killed by one of his own fellow-citizen. Under panarchism the protection of members of peaceful communities against such outsiders would be very competitive. - J.Z., 3.1.12. – CAPTIVE NATIONS, LIBERATION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, TERRITORIALISM INSTEAD OF VOLUNTARISM, TERRORISM

PEACE: You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.” - Malcom X – His kind of freedom, peace, justice, law and institutions for himself and like-minded people. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - PEACE & FREEDOM

PEACE: You cannot be unaware of the true nature of peace. Peace is not mere quiescence. It is the active enjoyment of liberty and order combined by and under reason. How can you seek peace with those who condemn reason as an ‘objective deviation’, and liberty as a bourgeois prepossession? Real peace is the outcome of free agreement among free parties. You cannot agree (or disagree) with a man who is drunk or in a temper or out of his mind, because he is not at peace with himself. You can only make peace with peace. (*) Now, with whom do you want to make peace? With Moscow or with its victims? You must choose. Since Moscow, either directly or through its puppet governments, is at war with the peoples of half of Europe, you can only make peace with Moscow by declaring war on the peoples of half of Europe. Is that what you mean when you say: “Start making peace”? - Salvador de Madariaga, The Blowing up of the Parthenon, p.11/12. - Territorial governments are not at peace with their own subjects, either and have also all too often made wrongful territorial claims against other territorial powers, which is one motive for them to go to war with each other. – J.Z., 24.2.08. - The term "Moscow" was also an unwarranted generalization. True believers in communism and its power-mongers were always a minority, there, too. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - (*) peaceful, moral and somewhat rational people. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - DIS., LIBERTY, ORDER, TOTALITARIANISM, DESPOTISM, GOVERNMENTS, CAPTIVE PEOPLES, CAPTIVE NATIONS, REASON, FREEDOM, AGREEMENT

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE & PANARCHISM: Plan 67, page 4, - for the toleration protection of foreigners, living under personal Laws and their own institutions. - ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. - PERSONAL LAWS, CAPITULATIONS, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, CONSULAR JURISDICTION

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM, UTOPIAN COLONIES, LENIN: Solange Kapitalismus und Sozialismus nebeneinander bestehen, koennen wir nicht in Frieden leben. Letzten Endes wird dieser oder jener siegen. Entweder wird man der Sowjetrepublik oder aber dem Weltkapitalismus die Grabrede halten." - Lenin. (As long as capitalism and socialism exist side by side, we cannot live in peace. Lastly one or the other will win. Either the Soviet republic or world capitalism will receive its obituary.) - What a muddle-head he was - and also his followers. As if there existed a Soviet "republic" or a genuine and comprehensive capitalism anywhere in any country, far less in the world, instead of the usual mixed economies, mixed with all too much wrongful and irrational territorial interventionism. Als as if, at least in what he terms capitalist countries, even under their limited liberties, numerous socialistic and communistic enterprises did not already peacefully coexist with private and cooperative enterprises, all of a great variety and all of them all the better the less they are given any government privileges and support, i.e. the more free-enterprise-capitalistic they are at least in their internal relations to non-communist or non-socialist groups. Capitalist acts, under the Soviet regime, were driven into the black market, always under the threat of huge and wrongful penalties when they were discovered. State Socialism was and is much more intolerant than genuine private enterprise, free trade and laissez fare capitalism or free markets are. It is also much less productive, so that even in officially still communist regimes, like that of Red China, large degrees of capitalist and free market actions were finally allowed to operate. Fully free, peaceful and just coexistence would require exterritorial separatism and autonomy for all groups societies and communities of volunteers, all under their own personal law, regardless of their internally applied ideologies and practices. Territorial and coercive and monopolistic segregation, on the other hand, merely assures a series of hot and cold wars, civil wars and revolutions, for "capitalistic" as well as for "socialistic" governments and all their victims. - J.Z. 5.7.92, 15.1.93, 10.12.03, 23.1.12. - Think e.g. of the tax, inflation and unemployment victims under "democratic" governments. - J.Z., 3.1.12. - COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM, UTOPIAN COLONIES, LENIN, DIS.

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: Peaceful coexistence is only possible on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of communities of volunteers or, in other words, under full experimental freedom or freedom of action in all spheres, always only at the own risk and expense. – J.Z., 19.11.93, 15.2.08. - Only all territorial monopolies have to become abolished. Let them try to compete without wrongful and legalized monopolies victimizing dissenters, operating under optimal conditions for their statist systems, all with unanimous support of all their volunteers. Surrounded by the successful experiments of outsiders, and experiencing one disappointment after the other with their State socialist etc. experiments, their enthusiasm would tend to expire rather fast and their membership would decline correspondingly. - J.Z., 3.1.12.

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: There is no other way out under the present conditions There are only two ways: either peaceful coexistence or the most destructive war in history.” – Bulganin, May 14, 1956, quoted in: Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.226. – For territorial States peaceful coexistence is an unnatural condition. For exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers it is a natural condition. – J.Z., 6.10.07. – The former provide nuclear targets, the latter don't. -  J.Z., 3.1.12. - PANARCHISM & THE NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: Whether you like your neighbor or not, nothing can be done about it, you have to find some way of getting on with him, for you both live on one and the same planet.” – Khrushchev, in an article in FOREIGN AFFAIRS, in 1959, quoted in: - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.351. – Alas, neither side considered realizing this suggestion for all kinds of voluntary communities under full exterritorial autonomy, with both ideologies free to practise their system in the same country, e.g. capitalism for consenting adults as well as socialism for consenting adults. – Fixed and flawed ideas still keep us at the brink of extinction. – J.Z., 6.10.07, 3.1.12. - TERRITORIAL OR EXTERRITORIAL? NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, ENDING THE DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE OF EVERY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT, LOCAL MILITIAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INTERNATIONALLY FEDERATED

PEACEFUL SOCIETY: Have we rejected reason and humanity altogether? Are we so accustomed to living under the mushroom cloud that we no longer believe that a just and peaceful society is possible or even desirable? If we have come to that, we have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, and we are damned irrevocably to a hell on our own planet!" - Morris West, "Proteus", 68. - See my ABC Against Nuclear War, on 500 steps away from it, in PEACE PLANS 16-17. For a more systematic treatment see PP 61-63: What has to be changed in the constitutions of all States to make a lasting peace possible and how can these reforms be realized? (Both are now downladable from:  - I wonder how many have actually downloaded, read and pondered them. I cannot remember having received a single email from anyone on these books, as if they were not controversial enough or not worth reading. Am I still largely only a voice in the wilderness? Is the Internet so inefficient in spreading peace, justice and freedom ideas – or those of the kind that I prefer? – No one has bothered to point out to me even better peace books. Do they exist? - J.Z., 23.1.12.

PEARSON, DAVID G.: Declaration of Independence, 1p, 122 in PEACE PLANS 1398.

PEARSON, KERRY, Pearson alias Lux Lucre (1963-2004)] - An art stamp created by him years ago. - Does his picture, too, say more than a thousand words about panarchy or panarchism?  Alas, I did not succeed in keeping it in this file. - J.Z., 1.10.11.

PEDEN, JOSEPH R., Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law," JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES, 1 (Spring 1977), p. 83; see also pp. 81-95. For a summary, see Peden, "Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland," THE LIBERTARIAN FORUM (April 1971), pp.3-4. - (10) Peden, "Stateless Societies," p. 4. - A note by M. N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, in revise edition, 1978, where MNR discussed the tuath and brehons of ancient Ireland. - IRELAND

PEDEN, JOSEPH R., Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland," THE LIBERTARIAN FORUM (April 1971), pp.3-4.

PEDOPHILES: This is, obviously, a very controversial subject still and the following is only my present and quite personal viewpoint: Voluntary communities opposed to such sexual activities (with immature persons, unable to give a truly informed consent) would not accept or retain such people as members. They would also warn their own members and those of other communities of aggressive OR exploitative homosexuals and pedophiles in their neighborhood, by publicizing black lists and hold them responsible for their victimizing actions. They might even systematically warn all potential victims or their guardians of the risk of association with people whose religion prohibits sexual relations but whose sexual nature does, nevertheless become often expressed in wrongful and secret sexual activities, especially those involving minors. For several years the mass media have been full of reports on numerous such crimes with victims, often going back for decades, if not for many generations, as "customary" as e.g. on Pitcairn Island, among a very small population. But adult homosexuals, only doing their things for or to themselves would not be their concern - unless they happen to be AIDS carriers and are also engaged, without precautions and warning their partners, in hetero-sexual activities with people who are not members of the homosexual communities. Then, depending upon how high or low they estimate the risk of non-sexual transmission of AIDS to be, they might engage in quarantine measures against members of homosexual communities. Or they might merely shun them or keep them under close observation, warning their potential victims. Class action suits against them would be considered and might be engaged in. When they consider, that they have suffered too much victimization from such groups then they might consider denying them work and residences in their neighborhood, as they might e.g. for habitual criminals. Even collective responsibility might be considered against those, who appear to be incurable offenders against involuntary victims, under all kinds of excuses or self-rationalizations. They might then consider imprisoning or deporting them. They would certainly not try to keep silent on their presence in a local community or on the remaining other than sexual infection risk, however low it might be or might be considered to be and will not concede to all homosexuals equal rights or non-discrimination among the own members. They would not consider such activities as merely a private affair, subject to secrecy of such involvement for members of other communities. The membership lists of all communities would be open to public scrutiny. The various panarchies would have different rules on the age or degree of maturity required for their children to make their own sexual choices and would not simply accept the opinions and preferences of adult pedophiles and homosexuals and the immature preferences of their minor children in this respect as valid. The natural or adoptive parents, not pedophiles and homosexuals, are the guardians of the rights and interests of their children, no matter how much the pedophiles and homosexuals assert that they would really and truly love particular children. In cases of incest, too, the rights of the victims come before the rights of the victimizers. The pedophiles and homosexuals would have their own rules among themselves. But they would also have to allow their children or victims to secede from them and to join other communities, which frown upon both activities. Victim liberation and victim's choice and indemnification of victims in every sphere! No immunity, equal rights or recognition for victimizers. Masochism and sado-masochism doing their things only to each other, in such voluntary communities, would be tolerated - while in other voluntary communities such practices might be outlawed or simply ignored. Some to most libertarian communities would simply ignore homosexual activities, which are not aggressive, as private affairs, regardless of the non-sexual risks involved until these risks, too, do become intolerably large in the eyes of many. Some would do the same even for pedophile activities, at least after the first puberty signs have appeared. Others would tolerate sexual activities among minors, if they are of a non-coercive type. Antagonism between such groups becomes maximized as long as they are forced to live together under the same territorial system, laws and jurisdictions. The people with different attitudes, systems and approaches in this sphere, too, must become free to separate themselves out, according to their individual preferences, allowing, ignoring or shunning those they disagree with and defending themselves against only against any aggressive actions. If, for instance, the AIDS virus changed and became much more infective, then at least public toilets might have to become separate for AIDS carriers and others. Or other quarantine measures might then be adopted. By now territorial laws and administrations have in many countries rather privileged than restrained AIDS carriers, regardless of the wishes of those whom they might somehow endanger, even non-sexually (toilet seats, spittle, breath, mosquitoes) all under the excuse of "non-discrimination" or that the otherwise involved costs would be too large, e.g. for different prisons, schools or hospital sections and ignoring the right of individuals, especially of parents, to discriminate in favor of the rights of their children. Maximum tolerance for rightful and harmless actions! Minimum tolerance for wrongful and harmful actions! - Will the pedophiles, homosexuals, Aids victims or fundamentalist Christian or Islamic homophobes now put out a contract on me, as being either too intolerant or not tolerant enough? - PIOT, J.Z., 15.10.04, 26.1.11, 6.7.12. – There are, unfortunately, even some anarchists, who still consider sex with minors, even mere children, to be a matter of “sexual freedom”. – J.Z., 30.12.11. - HOMOSEXUALS, SADISM, MASOCHISM, DISCRIMINATION, NON-DISCRIMINATION, LIBERTARIANISM & PANARCHISM, AIDS, PUBLICITY, QUARANTINE

PEE WEE HERMENEUTICS, TC 151, reproduced in pp.70-71, & 82 of  ON PANARCHY XVI, in PEACE PLANS 901

PEER GOVERNANCE: Panarchy - P2P Foundation - 5 Mar 2009 ... Panarchy is a near synonym to the concept of Peer Governance, ... [online] URL: iss1/art11 ... - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

PEKELIS, ALEXANDERLaw and Action: Selected Essays, ed. by Milton R. Konvitz, Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell Univ. Press, 1950, p. 68: "Before the rise of the modern State, the existence of a plurality of legal orders was probably too obvious to be remarked on. But even after the claim of the State for the monopoly of law making made itself  felt, the existence of non-official systems of law was recognized. But an investigation into the real nature of these legal systems, representing, so to speak, as many States within the State, is completely neglected." – TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW, HISTORY

PEKING REVIEW:  Feb. 18, 1966, p. 3-5 noted: An agreement has been signed between Chiang and Johnson governments, settling status of US forces in Taiwan, allowing extraterritorial rights. - H. R. McArthur, abstract in PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNAL, Vol. 4, No. 2.

PELISSIE DU RAUSAS, G.: Le Regime des Capitulations dans l'Empire Ottoman, 2d., Paris, 1910-11.

PEMBAUR, WALTHER: Gedanken zu einer Ethik des Minderheitenrechtes, Wilhelm Braumueller, Universitaetsverlag Wien-Leipzig, Sonderdruck aus: NATION UND STAAT, IX, 1936, Heft 10/11, 30 S., JZL. - A very limited defence of very limited minority rights written by a territorial statist, who all too often sounds just like many Nazis did, when they wanted to bring "home" “their” “nationals” spread over the world. - J.Z. - Home is wherever you are exterritorially free to do your own things for and to yourself. - J.Z., 19.9.04.

PENAL SYSTEMS: An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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 (1795) - Penalties within communities of volunteers should be distinguished from those within States with compulsory membership and a territorial monopoly. In the latter case e.g. wars against drug users, drug producers and drug traders become possible, with many others becoming their involuntary victims as well. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. - PRISONS, PENALTIES, PUNISHMENT & LIBERTY

PENNINGTON, MARK, The Atlas Economic Research Foundation's newsletter Atlas Highlights winter 2006-7 page 17 describes the work of Mark Pennington, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, Department of Politics, Queen Mary College, University of London. Mark Pennington studies government land use regulation, and concludes that there should be competition between different systems of land use regulation. Mark Pennington has written a book about this, which should be published in 2008 by Edward Elgar, with the title Towards the Minimal State: Markets and the Future of Public Policy. Atlas's Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Orders awarded a prize to Mark Pennington in fall 2006. - - Cato's Letter, a publication of the Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. spring 2011, volume 9, number 2; is Robust Political Economy by Mark Pennington. Mark Pennington is not discussing competitive federalism, but his reasoning applies to competitive federalism. Mark Pennington says a "framework that provides for exit enables people to escape from the depredations of potentially predatory actors. If people are acting opportunistically, the capacity to exit from relationships with these actors provides a disciplinary check on potentially self-interested behavior." Mark Pennington says "The most important form of learning takes place from seeing what other people do in their lives, and learning from their experiences. In order for that sort of learning to take place, it's absolutely imperative that the widest possible number of experiences - or experiments in living, if you like - actually occur." - 2 Hints in links by Kenneth Howlett. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, LEARNING, ENLIGHTENMENT, COMPETING LAND USE SYSTEMS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

PENNOCK, J. ROLAND & CHAPMAN, JOHN W., Editors: Voluntary Associations, NOMOS XI, Atherton Press, N.Y., 1969, 291pp, JZL. - I find this a very disappointing treatment of a to me very interesting subject. The essays are boring to me and skim-reading did nowhere attract my attention. They try to give the impression of academic objectivity but the subjectivity of their opinions and judgments leaks through almost everywhere I tried. An ivory tower treatment, with a strong statist bias against voluntary associations, especially corporations, in most cases. So many words and so many generalizations, so many prejudices and so few positive ideas and conclusions! If any anarchist or libertarian should find anything of possible interest for me in this volume, please do point it out to me. - J.Z. 29.1.99, 23.1.12. – ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY IGNORED

PEOPLE & DEMOCRACY OR MAJORITY DESPOTISM: Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people." - Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism. - Who is "the people" remains undefined here. There are always at least 4 different groups : 1. the bludgeon wielders, 2. their voluntary victims, 3. their involuntary victims and 4. disinterested or even cheering onlookers. Panarchism would mean that only volunteers would be at liberty to bludgeon each other while other volunteers, at the same time and in the same country, would be at liberty to support each other, in ways they like, or to leave each other alone. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 8.4.89.

PEOPLE & FREEDOM: There is a popular fallacy that people want to be free. ... Very few people would choose to be absolutely free. Many do not really want to be free at all, but would prefer to live comfortably secure ' like battery hens’." - Anthony Lejeune, Freedom and the Politicians. - But the few, who do want to be 'absolutely free', do have the right to select this option for themselves. And each of the "battery hens" has the right to get the own choice, at her own expense and risk. - J.Z., 4.4.89, 6.7.12. – DIS., INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM

PEOPLE VS. INDIVIDUALS: Pandering to “the” people costs individual people their rights and liberties. A “people” that does not permit individuals to secede from it is not any better than the Islamic fanatics are, who do not permit individuals to secede from them and who punish such free and rightful actions with death. The territorialist and democratic “people” constitute only a wrongful and harmful pseudo “people”, not a genuine community, just like any intolerant religion constitutes only a pseudo-religion. Neither their ideas nor their practices and institutions ought to be tolerated any longer. – J.Z., 9.1.05, 6.7.12. – WELFARE STATES, INTOLERANT ISLAMIC SECTS, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, POPULATIONS, STRANGERS, COUNTRYMEN: like any other human group, no more than a collection of strangers. – Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars, p.115.

PEOPLE, POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES & INDIVIDUAL CHOICES: Individual choices, within the own affairs, characterized by improved and completed (as far as is possible so far) individual human rights codes, all undertaken clearly at the own risk and expense (if not, then subject to arbitration settlements), should be above and beyond the choice of "the people" and its "representatives". - J.Z., 5.2.90, 5.2.93, 6.7.12. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PEOPLES, REPRESENTATIVES, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM.

PEOPLE: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. – Thomas Jefferson. – Many other people have independently expressed this insight, even one of my 3 sons did, when he was still very young, about 9, I believe. – J.Z., 6.7.12. – Q., RIGHTS, MAJORITARIANISM, DEMOCRACY

PEOPLE: A government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves.” - Grover Cleveland - More precisely, upon that of its voluntary members. No others are really part and parcel of "the people" or "the nation" or "the State"! - J.Z., 11.10.02. - Many of the doctrines or "principles" of territorial statism are no more moral or rational than are most of the dogmas of churches and sects. - J.Z., 24.11.02. - GOVERNMENT, CONSENT, JUSTICE, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, NATIONS, COUNTRIES

PEOPLE: A government of right originates from the people, is founded on compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government as they may deem expedient.” – Declaration of Rights of Maryland, I, 1867. – The people, considered to be an entity, is merely an unwarranted generalization, an abstraction, a fiction. - Under territorialism not “the people” but only the majority have that right. The others are in fact disfranchised when it comes to public affairs. At most they can only hope to persuade the majority or to become a new majority. – “The people” is a dangerous term, more often misunderstood and abused than clearly seen for what it is, a mixture of very different kinds of people within the population of a territory. And this in spite of the fact that even the individuals within a family or a friendship circle and within the same occupations are already very different. Even the so-called majorities do contain many different factions. – Compare also the numerous schools, which exist in economics, in philosophy, in paintings, in music, in architectures, in psychology, in religions, in ideologies, in politics, in social ideals, all of them somewhat coexisting in most populations or “peoples”. – When it comes to political, economic and social systems they are at present all subjugated to the ones that are territorially imposed by their rulers. The opponents do, usually, just strive for another kind of territorial imposition. - J.Z., 10.7.86, 26.3.08, 6.7.12. [I am advised by the program to consider J. Z. or JZ. - At least in naming oneself and in the form of choosing to express one's initials, there should also be free choice for individuals, mini-panarchistic ones. The language unifiers would provide a better service if they eliminated e.g. the many spelling differences between English as practised in the USA and English as spoken and written in the UK. - As for style: We grant liberty to poets for their way of using a language. Why should we not have the same liberty for prose writings? Is a uniform grammar more important than a clear enough expression of ideas? Curses, too, do not conform to grammar rules, nor do many jokes. Sentences in form of slogans, exclamations or assertions do also have their value. - J.Z., 3.1.12.]

PEOPLE: A people can be its own tyrant and often has been.” – (The people can be its own tyrant and often it has been.) - Boerne, Kritiken: Nouvelles letters provinciales. („Es kann auch das Volk sein eigner Tyrann sein – und ist es oft gewesen.“) Those, who do want to tyrannize themselves, or prefer to become voluntary victims of tyrants, should be given the chance to do so – without imposing their preferences upon any others. - J.Z., 4.7.92. - If they as tyrants or their tyrants were very efficient tyrants, they would get rid of many people with that kind of slave or serf mentality and, consequently, liberate us even of their presence. But more likely, after a few bad experiences with tyrannical actions towards themselves, most theoretical sympathizers with tyranny or “great” misleaders, would secede from tyrannies and choose something better for themselves. - J.Z., 15.1.93, 6.7.12. - Even under the Nazi- and the Soviet Regimes the genuine totalitarians constituted a minority - alas, a territorially ruling one. Territorialism made that possible and prolonged their rule and multiplied the number of their victims. - J.Z., 19.9.04. - There are e.g. orthodox and fundamentalist churches and sects that impose their own kinds of severe discipline upon their voluntary members. Where these societies go wrong is only when they do not permit their member to secede from them and make other choices for their own lives. To “punish” them for such secessionism amounts to extreme tyranny or despotism and should not be tolerated by any free society. Free societies might also intervene in the case of minors, whose parents refuse them e.g. life-saving blood transfusions or vaccinations. As adults they would have the right to refuse such life-saving methods for themselves, but not for their children. They do not own them. They are merely their natural guardians. Whenever they neglect or ignore that function, their parental "rights" over their children do cease. I liked a rule of the old Athenian constitution: Anyone could make himself a guardian over another, especially a child, but ONLY once genuine rights and liberties of that person were wrongfully ignored or attacked. - If merely some better chance for health or survival is offered and the method is still debatable, then parents should be free to refuse to subject their children to it. – J.Z., 18.2.08, 3.1.12. – TYRANNY, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, PARENTS & CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, MINORS, GUARDIANSHIP

PEOPLE: A people is always a community with rather narrow boundaries. But a nation, as a rule, encompasses a whole array of different peoples and groups of peoples who have by more or less violent means been pressed into the frame of a common state. In fact, in all of Europe there is no state which does not consist of a group of different peoples who were originally of different descent and speech and were forged together into one nation solely by dynastic, economic and political interests. - - Even where, influenced by the growth of democratic ideas, the effort toward national unity took the form of a great popular movement, as happened in Italy and Germany, the effort really started from a reactionary germ which could lead to no good outcome. (*) The revolutionary efforts of Mazzini and his adherents for the establishment of a unified nationalistic state could but serve as hindrance to the social liberation of the people, whose real goal was hidden by the national ideology. Between the man Mazzini and the present dictator of Italy yawns a mighty abyss; but the development of the nationalistic system of thought from Mazzini’s political theology to the fascist totalitarian state of Mussolini proceeds in a straight line.” – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.201. - (*) Small scale territorialism was turned into large-scale territorialism and even territorial imperialism and totalitarianism. – J.Z., 26.3.08.

PEOPLE: A people may prefer a free government, but if, from indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it ... They are more or less unfit for liberty; and although it may be for their good to have had it even for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it." - John Stuart Mill. – I hold that a “free government” is a contradiction in terms, at least for all territorial governments. – Moreover, one should not judge “people” collectively, since there are all types among them and either to all or to some of the types his characterizations would not apply. All dissenters should become free to do their own things to or for themselves. - J.Z., 26.12.07. - & FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAW

PEOPLE: A recent poll taken by the London Sunday People revealed the following disturbing British opinions and habits: 97 % think that all politicians are liars. 75 % think that local government officers are crooks. 30 % think that businessmen are dishonest. 25 % think that journalists twist the news. 67 % admit to cheating on their tax returns. 35 % admit to stealing from their employers. 20 % admit to cheating on fares. 8 % admit to stealing from shops. – TANSTAAFL, 3/76. - I wonder by how much these figures would be changed once all of them would only be volunteers of their panarchy, working in self-managed enterprises and have all become acquainted with an ideal declaration of genuine individual rights and liberties and at last some of them had been members of an ideal militia force for the protection of these rights and liberties. - J.Z., 27.1.11. – Flawed institutions and laws produce bad mentalities, while good ones tend to improve them. The old saying that “power corrupts” does express that in a nutshell. – J.Z., 6.7.12. - HONESTY, CORRUPTION, DISHONESTY

PEOPLE: All people must be allowed to develop in freedom.” – Down to Earth Movement. – In: A New Society: The Anarchist Alternative. – FREEDOM, DEVELOPMENT, INDEPENDENCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, ANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

PEOPLE: All power is inherent in the people.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. – All power should emanate from individuals and be limited by individual rights and liberties, among which e.g. individual secessionism is essential as well as the freedom to associate under full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 3.11.85, 9.7.86, 26.3.08. – I wonder how I would express it in another ten years, if I live that long. – I can only hope that others will improve my wordings or supplement them by better ones. - J.Z., 26.3.08. – Under the pretence of serving all of the people the territorial rulers have done almost everything except that. As territorialists they could at best only represent some of the people, namely their voluntary followers plus those, whom they granted legalized privileges. – J.Z., 14.4.08, 27.1.11. – “The people” are largely a myth, in all countries. All people are different, not only physically but also mentally and emotionally and in their acquired characteristics and personal preferences, even within friendship and family groups. – J.Z., 30.12.11. – Jefferson, too, seems to have failed to define "the people" properly and today the term is still widely misunderstood and abused by in public opinion, most political “scientists”, who are merely territorialists, and naturally, by territorialist politicians, who pretend that they can and do rightful represent whole populations, at least of their electoral territorial district. - J.Z., 3.1.12, 6.7.12. - GENERAL INTEREST? PUBLIC INTEREST? COMMON INTEREST, THE NATION, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIS., VOTING, REPRESENTATION, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, REPRESENTATION, POLITICAL SCIENCE, DIS.

PEOPLE: Americanism envisions a proportionate shrinkage of the State as an important factor in the American Social Order. This is the genesis of the American truism that those people are governed best who are governed least. In its converse this statement is likewise true, for certainly those people are best who require least government.” – Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.53. – As long as there are active authoritarians and even totalitarians around us, we do not need a single strong or authoritarian or even totalitarian and territorial government against them but, against these aggressors or potential aggressors, our common enemies, rather, some form of defensive federation of many diverse governance systems, societies and communities, all only with voluntary members, all formed, mainly, by decent, honest, freedom and justice loving people, knowing and appreciating many to all of their individual rights and liberties and those of all other human beings, acting correspondingly friendly and tolerant towards them, allying themselves with them in their defensive and liberating efforts, as effectively as possible, well enough informed and trained for such occasions, against all aggressive totalitarians, despotisms, dictatorships, authoritarians etc., who are not content with dominating their voluntary followers but wish to expand their system to all others, without their individual or group consent. – J.Z., 11/82, 27.1.11, 6.7.12. – Only such an organization could turn a defence or a liberation action from a war against whole populations into a quite rightful police action against a few genuine war criminals or private criminals with involuntary victims only, largely together with the police forces and military forces who are supposed to fight for the enemy, a despotic territorial regime and together with this regime's captive peoples, nations, or minorities, who are supposed to fight, work and pay tributes to these war criminals. – J.Z., 27.1.11, 3.1.12. - AMERICANISM, PANARCHISM, DEFENCE, LIBERATION, DES., UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATIONS, APPEALS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, NEGOTIATIONS WITH VICTIMS RATHER THAN VICTIMIZERS, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT RATHER THAN COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY ACTIONS & PREPARATIONS

PEOPLE: Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.” – Joseph Sobran in The Myth of ‘Limited Government’ – At least under territorialism democracy is largely only a government promoted delusion rather than a genuine democratic self-rule for all peaceful people. - J.Z., 7.3.09, 27.1.11.

PEOPLE: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken, 1880-1956, A Little Book in C Major, 1916. – Alas, he too considered people as a collective body, instead of seeing their varieties and demanding that any particular segment of them, with all their volunteers, ought to be free to choose their personal laws and institutions themselves, instead of remaining dependent upon the votes of all the others among “the” people. All too great and unjustified generalizations lead, generally, to all too large and false conclusions. With minorities and majorities getting the option for their own systems, naturally, they would still make many mistakes. But these would be at their own expense only and teach them and outsiders useful lessons. – J.Z., 9.9.07, 3.1.12, 6.7.12. - COMMON PEOPLE, MAJORITY, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, VOLUNTARISM

PEOPLE: Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.” - Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism. - Panarchism means that only like-minded volunteers may bludgeon each other, like boxers in a ring, while other groups of volunteers are at liberty to help or support each other or engage in free exchanges and other collaborations or simply to leave each other alone. - Who is "the people" remains undefined here. Alas, even O. W. abused the term “people”, as if it meant a single entity, rather than millions of individuals, all different, most with different abilities, interests, beliefs and convictions. - They should not only be as free as they had been for a few decades before WWI, e.g. to emigrate, thereby spreading many members of most “peoples” all over the world, but, instead, get also the liberty or right to “leave their present government” internally - through exterritorial individual and group secessions. Then how many would remain stuck with or loyal to their remaining exterritorial government, as “its” people, instead of doing their own and different things? Initially, perhaps, most of them would stay members, voluntarily. But once the first successes of a few voluntary communities have become widely known, the old territorial systems would tend to shrink in members, probably, rather fast. Especially since then it would not be dangerous to try to leave them, as is it is for people living under territorialism. Nor would they have to adapt to another country, possibly one with a different language, or separate themselves all too much from relatives and friends. But even from the openly despotic territorial systems many escaped, risking their lives or huge penalties in the attempt, if caught. A chain reaction of secessions and of building-up new alternative societies of volunteers could easily result. The numbers of these secessionists and panarchists could fast exceed the ca. 50 million people who migrated to the USA. A federation of all minorities, aspiring to independent panarchies for themselves, could become the largest political force in the world. Tyrannies have nothing to offer but lies, false promises, censorship, coercion and terror, huge burdens and numerous restrictions, monopolies and privileges, which might enable them, for a while, to avoid this kind of disintegration for them. Merely against territorial enemies, they remain often all too strong. However, once they are confronted, even at a considerable distance, by a dozen or several dozens of governments in exile, in other countries, all of them representing all the internal dissenters of tyrannies, through already existing refugees and defectors, practising full exterritorial autonomy for and among them and holding it up as their ideal for all future members, once these are finally liberated as well, then, against this approach, the territorial despotic regimes would be rather helpless. – Even Communism was, in the end, split up into numerous factions. Now only a few communist regimes remain, Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam and Cuba, to my knowledge. Would they resist desperately, if they would be assured that they could be continued – exterritorially, for their remaining volunteers? - There are always at least 4 different groups : 1. the bludgeon wielders, 2. their voluntary victims, 3. their involuntary victims and 4. disinterested or even cheering onlookers. - Panarchism would mean that only volunteers would be at liberty to bludgeon each other while other volunteers, at the same time and in the same country, would be at liberty to support each other, in ways they like, or to leave each other alone. - J.Z. 6.4.89, 8.4.89, 22.2.08, 27.1.11, 3.1.12. – Q., DIS., CONSENT, REPRESENTATION, VOLUNTARISM, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITIES DESPOTISM, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, LIBERATION, WAR AIMS, LIBERATION, DEFENCE, SECRET ALLIES, DES., REVOLUTION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

PEOPLE: Do only better institutions produce better people or do only better people produce better institutions? An old question, which has appeared in many different wordings. Personally, I believe that much better institutions would produce much better people. But why not allow both methods to freely compete with each other? Allow all those, who believe they are better people, to secede and to establish their supposedly better institutions. But allow also those, who believe, that better institutions would produce better people, to secede and to try to produce better people through their supposedly better institutions. Most principles, except mutual tolerance for tolerant actions, do not have to be practised territorially. Let the various experiences of different experiments decide – or become available to future individual decision-makers. – J.Z., 2.10.07, 3.1.12. – INSTITUTIONS, ENVIRONMENT, GENETIC INFLUENCE, HUMAN NATURE, DIS., TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: Enjoy yourself. It’s later than you think.” – Chinese proverb. - Without individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, this poor response is quite common, especially in the face of the greatest threats, towards which most people at present have good reasons to feel quite helpless, in their present status or position - under territorial rule. Curiously, they do not even question, criticize or deny extreme powers of a few people over all of them, nor do they demand sufficient freedom of action for themselves rather than for the main troublemakers, the territorial governments. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06, 27.1.11. [So far there are only a few honorable exceptions in this respect. – J.Z., 6.7.12.] – Un-free and threatened people tend to rather try to enjoy themselves as much as they still can, rather than attempt to liberate and save themselves, especially when, as at present, under territorial regimes, only very few and small steps are open to them to liberate and save themselves. - Just compare the all too limited and often trivial interests and activity preferences of most people as revealed on Facebook. - However, among potential friends many famous libertarians are also listed. Sometimes one can make friends with them, on Facebook, even if one does not know them personally or only superficially, and, otherwise, by their reputation or their writings. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 3.1.12, 24.1.12. - NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, SELF-HELP, SUPPRESSION OF SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY WITH THEIR SELF-HELP & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM OPTIONS, DIS., FACEBOOK

PEOPLE: Even Machiavelli concedes (Discourses, I, 58) “that the people are more prudent and stable, and have better judgment than a prince.” – B. R. Barber, Superman and Common Men, p.122. – One should not speak about whole populations using such a term. The population of a territory does only rarely if ever, form a single entity of fixed characteristics. (We are all individuals and different in many ways, often internally even more so than externally. It is rather a conglomerate, thrown together by chance or coercion, of the most diverse kinds of individuals and groups. Sufficient commonality and sufficient common sense can be found only among those individuals who do share enough knowledge and interests in common, particular common purposes and activities, people with sufficiently similar moral views, that one can to some extent consider them as a somewhat uniform body of people. A common language and a common history under one government has not sufficiently unified them, as their different parties, factions, ideologies etc. do daily demonstrate. Only once they have all sorted themselves out, individually, in different societies and communities or under competing and voluntary governance systems, personal laws or in their own kinds of exterritorially autonomy, corresponding to their own and diverse individual choices, can one begin to speak, with some justification of “a people”, a genuine community or society, for each of these groups. – J.Z., 26.2.08, 27.1.11, 3.1.12, 24.1.12.

PEOPLE: Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories.” - Jefferson, quoted in: Arthur C. Clarke & Stephen Baxter: The Light of Other Days, p.149/150. He should have added: “the people” should not be territorially defined but, by their own individual preferences, their own voluntary associations and communities. – J.Z., 16.9.07. - VS. GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM

PEOPLE: For Bastiat, the rule of the people could be best achieved in a system which allowed individuals of society to go their own way without placing restraints upon them. – G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.193. - Close, but close enough to panarchism or only to individualism? - J.Z., 27.1.11. - MAJORITY, DEMOCRACY, RULE OF THE PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM

PEOPLE: Give government of the people, by the people and for the people back to the people! – Libertarian sticker. – Also a “MAD Sticker”, 1974. - But only to individual people and their voluntary associations, not to whole territorial populations, as their kinds of collectivistic, centralistic and monopolistic, seemingly “self-managed” but really only centrally administered and, largely, mis-ruled country-wide and statist prisons. – J.Z., 26.3.08, 3.1.12.

PEOPLE: Give the people what they want and they go away happy.” – TV Channel 7, Comedy: The Persuaders: Chain of Events, 15.3.76. - It is not a matter of giving them whatever they want [at whose expense?] but of respecting their right and liberty to make, individually, those choices for themselves, even when it comes to whole political, economic and social systems, which they do prefer for themselves, as long as they allow all other non-criminal and non-aggressive people the same freedom. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 3.1.12.

PEOPLE: Government armies aren’t the people’s armies. (Even when they are called the “people’s army”.) They fight for the aims of territorial governments, not for the diverse aims of the diverse people in any territory and their diverse groups, communities etc. The armed forces of territorial government have to become transformed into volunteer militias of the people, exclusively for the protection of their individual rights and liberties. Territorial governments know very little of these rights and liberties and care even less about them. Thus they should not be granted any exclusive and territorial military, legislation, jurisdiction, administration or police powers, except genuine self-government over their remaining own volunteers, all those, who did not prefer to secede from them. – J.Z., around 7.8.03 & 18.10.07, 3.1.12. – GOVERNMENTS, PEOPLE & GOVERNMENTS, ARMIES, SOLDIERS, PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS, MERCENARIES, DECISION ON WAR & PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, MILITIA, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

PEOPLE: Governments fight government. People don’t fight people.” – Mary Ingram, 24.10.75. – If only that were quite true. The warfare method of territorial governments is not confined to fighting only one or several foreign governments, but, rather their primary victims, their “own” territorial subjects, including their conscripts, other forced laborers and tax slaves. - They force their territorial subjects to work, and fight for them and to pay tributes to them. If territorial governments were only killing each other - then I would not mind this at all. Such "duels" I would welcome and say: good riddance. The sooner and the more, the better, until none of them are left. - I would cheer only for any government or leadership that renounces territorialism and confines itself to exterritorial autonomy for its own volunteers, doing their own things only for or to themselves. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 6.7.12. - DIS., GOVERNMENTS, WAR, DECISION-MAKING, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

PEOPLE: He who speaks of the people, speaks of a madman, for the people is a monster full of confusion and mistakes; and the opinions of the people are as far removed from the truth as, according to Ptolemy, the Indies are from Spain.” – Francesco Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia, 1564. – Therefore, let them sort themselves out, by individual secessionism and voluntary and non-territorial associationism. – J.Z., 10.7.86. - Everyone has the right to live in accordance with his own sound ideas, knowledge and wisdom or his own ignorance, errors, prejudices etc. – always at his own risk and expense or for his own profit, learning and advancement.  – The setting of failed experiments - as deterrent examples - is almost as important as the setting of attractive or successful examples, just as it is in business and in private life style choices. - J.Z., 26.3.08, 3.1.12, 6.7.12.

PEOPLE: How about a chip for everyone, either in their right hand or in their forehead, to make sure no one gets away with anything? Problem is … while "they" are keeping track of us, who will be keeping track of ‘them’?" – Cheryl DeJesus. - That will come, if we let them. So, let us chip them first and publish the full results for each of them. - That might somewhat help to keep them under our control. No privacy at all for them. That would give them too many opportunities to cheat, exploit and mislead us further. - This should be one of the rightful and necessary burdens of their office. Then their jobs would become less attractive to these power addicts. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. - Naturally, a much better solution would be not to allow anyone any territorial power over dissenters any longer. All are to become confined to their voluntary followers. - J.Z., 26.1.11. – The most advanced voice stress analyses, logic systems and linguistic analyses should also be applied to all their public utterances, with the results immediately published, to reveal all their lies and deception attempts, all their cover-up terms. Compare: “Who guards the guardians?” – J.Z., 6.7.12. - PEOPLE TO BE CHIPPED OR RULERS, REPRESENTATIVES & BUREAUCRATS? POWER ADDICTS, POLITICIANS, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, VOLUNTARISM, DIS., PUBLICITY, TURNING THEIR OWN WORDS AGAINST THEM.

PEOPLE: I believed that people should and could be free. I hated the State and I believed that the people should be awakened to its murderous rottenness. Now, I'm not so sure about awakening the people, but I hate the State more than ever.” - Tom Godwin, The Greater Thing, ASTOUNDING SF, July 1954, British edition, p.89. - Only individuals can be awakened and enlightened, one by one, not the masses of the people, as a whole, suddenly, by one measure. All alternative approaches must ultimately rest on individual volunteers and their actions, alone or in voluntary association - and quite free, even exterritorially autonomous. - J.Z., 7.2.02. - STATE, INDIVIDUALS, MASSES, ENLIGHTENMENT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, DIS., INDIVIDUALISM, EXTERRITORIAL MINORITY AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

PEOPLE: I know of no safe depositor of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it away from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to W. E. Jarvis, 1820. – “The people” is an all too vague and misleading a notion. A better institution for this should be formed by those, who are interested in and enlightened on individual rights and liberties and also organized, trained, armed and motivated to fight, if necessary, for their defence, in the best forms of militias of volunteers. – J.Z., 5.6.82, 27.2.08, 27.1.11. - Likewise, all kinds of people should be genuinely represented by any of many diverse and peacefully competing societies, any competing government - as long as their members and "subjects" are all volunteers, free to secede and while they only aspire to rule themselves, autonomously and exterritorially, under personal laws as well as they can. - It works in every other sphere but was so far territorially outlawed for alternative and individually freely chosen political, economic and social systems, all only for their volunteers. - J.Z., 14.10.02, 27.1.11. - However: How many sufficiently enlightened people are there, so far, in the whole world? And how many opportunities for them to learn, quite freely and to act, responsibly, i.e. at their own risk and expense, on their acquired knowledge and own ideas and opinions, quite independently in all spheres going beyond their daily life choices, e.g. as producers and consumers? – J.Z., 10.4.08, 27.1.11, 6.7.12. - “The people” is a myth, for any country, for any "nation" State. – J.Z., 7.3.09, 27.1.11. – MILITIA, POWER, PUBLIC, DEMOCRACY, SOVEREIGNTY, REPUBLICANISM, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM UNDER PERSONAL LAW

PEOPLE: I like to believe that people, in the long run, are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, radio and television broadcast with Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, London, August 31, 1959. - Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower 1959, p.625. – Another version runs as follows: PEOPLE: I’d like to believe that the people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that governments better get out of their way and let them have it.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower. – Territorial governments, that is, which are all too often Warfare States. – J.Z., 21.2.08. – I suppose that most people, once they hit upon a thought that appeals to them, do express it in several somewhat different versions. Sometimes merely because their memories, like mine, are still all too imperfect. Their listeners or readers then make their own changes, intentionally or unintentionally. – J.Z., 15.3.09.  - Both, the people and the government should be better defined than they are here. Each individual should ultimately be free to choose his own enemies and allies and not only his friends, associates and trading partners. That would be more peace-promoting than any efforts by any territorial government. - These territorial and coercive organizations are the problem, not the solution. - Just imagine all dissenting individuals and minorities becoming free to secede and rule themselves autonomously, under personal laws, i.e., exterritorially. What would then remain of most dictatorships and tyrannies? How could such rulers effectively resist their internal and external enemies, who agreed and acted upon the platform: Full exterritorial autonomy for all minorities? What could such a platform e.g. achieve, soon, in the Middle East? - For many decades it has not been seriously discussed in any summit conferences or mass media. - The ancient traditions of exterritoriality and personal law are largely forgotten, even among the Arabs and Jews. - Visit: - J.Z., 26.11.02. - - Yes, to E.’s view - once they are freed from territorialist restraints and monopolies to do so, quite freely. – But that would also require that they would first realize what peace really means and requires, in place of the territorial Warfare States. – And that would require sufficient interest in such questions, which so far was not shown but prevented by numerous popular errors, prejudices, false assumptions and conclusions. [Agaist them a comprehensive digitized encyclopaedia of the best refutations is long overdue. - J.Z., 29.9.07, 6.7.12. - & PEACE, GOVERNMENTS, DECISION-MAKING, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PEACE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, MUTUAL TOLERANCE, PERSONAL LAW, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES, GOVERNMENT

PEOPLE: I never cease to be amazed at what people will put up with if it’s presented to them in a pretty package.” (*) – F. Paul Wilson, Wheels within Wheels, p. 54. – If the package were only “opened” and used panarchistically, by volunteers, then at least they would not wrong and harm all those opposed to it in spite of its pretty packaging. – J.Z., 6.6.92, 7.1.93. - Moreover, then alternatives to it could be freely practised everywhere. Thus one could rapidly demonstrate that in some cases only pretty packaging is involved and that their contents leaves very much to be desired. - - (*) Or, as in totalitarian or dictatorial regimes, in terrifying ones. – J.Z., 20.2.08. - [The package deal offered to newcomers to Nazi extermination camps was often confined to: Help us burn the other Jews, we are murdering, then you do not have to join them, immediately, in the gas chambers. - J.Z., 3.1.12.] - PANARCHISM, OBEDIENCE, SUBORDINATION, STATISM, ADAPTABILITY OF MAN, PROMISES FROM POLITICIANS, PROPAGANDA, TERRITORIALISM, SOPHISM, OFFICIAL LIES & TERRORISM

PEOPLE: I was told that the Privileged and the People formed Two Nations, governed by different laws, influenced by different manners, with no thoughts or sympathies in common.” - Benjamin Disraeli (Earl of Beaconsfield), (1804-1881), Sybil (1845). - All "peoples" or "nations", so far organized in territorial States, are not uniform bodies but constituted out of many more diverse groups rather than just two classes. All of these diverse groups, by rights, should be free to rule themselves, exterritorially and autonomously. Since they are living mixed with others in the same population of the same country, this can be done only with exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. Territorial monopolism should be totally abolished. With it the targets for WMD’s would also disappear. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 13.3.09. - PRIVILEGES, CLASSES

PEOPLE: I wish men to be free as much from mobs as kings - from you as me.” - Lord Byron, Don Juan. - MOBS, MASSES, MAJORITY, VOTING, FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

PEOPLE: If I were to attempt to put my political philosophy tonight into a single phrase, it would be this: Trust the people. Trust their good sense, their decency, their fortitude, their faith. Trust them with the facts. Trust them with the great decisions. And fix as our guiding star the passion to create a society where people can fulfill their own best selves - where no American is held down by race or color by worldly condition or social status, from gaining what his character earns him as an American citizen, as a human being and as a child of God.” - Adlai E. Stevenson, speech at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 13, 1956. - Stevenson, The New America, ed. Seymour E. Harris, Jr., pp. 13-14 (1971). - Rather, trust free people, i.e., only the voluntary groups among them, to do what is best for them or what they believe to be best for them, if given the right, liberty and opportunity to do so - always at their own expense and risk. Politicians usually can be trusted only to act wrongfully, ignorantly and out of errors and prejudices - and to do so at the expense and risk of most other people - and for this they expect to be well paid, frequently re-elected and finally pensioned off in affluence. Even if they were condemned to life imprisonment or death, their punishment could never make up for all the wrongs and wrongful punishments they inflicted upon their innocent victims, under the pretence of helping them or acting in the interests of the public. - J.Z., 13.10.02. – Belief in “the people” is mostly only a belief in an idealistic spleen or myth. See for instance the “quality” of the election slogans millions of them still fall for. – The denial or restriction of your individual rights and liberties should never be entrusted to their majority votes, although their confirmation, in a referendum, might be. – Neither they nor the politicians get a chance to read and comprehend all the laws that are passed in the name of the people, mostly against their individual rights and liberties and “the people” have so far put up with this condition and have not demanded the right of individuals and of communities of volunteers to secede from and freely compete with the messes territorialism keeps producing. – Obviously, not all individuals of the whole population can be trusted, least of all the politicians. - J.Z., 8.3.09. – It is essentially only that all the pioneers among the people become quite free to do their own things for or to themselves, always only at the own risk and expense. Then we would soon see improvements in political, social and economic systems that are comparable to the progress in natural sciences and technology, which is also based upon experimental freedom. - J.Z., 27.1.11. - PANARCHISM, VOTING, MAJORITIES, DEMOCRACY, SECESSIONISM, POLITICIANS, TRUST

PEOPLE: If in a democracy “the people” really governed, they certainly would not need a government on top of them, looting, misinforming and misdirecting them. “The people” is, naturally, an illusion, too, or a false pretence, one that does not distinguish between the great varieties among people, including freedom-loving ones and masses of all too obedient statists and various authoritarians. All the various groups have the right to self-government or self-determination, no more and no less, but do not and cannot achieve it through territorial democracy. Only exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers could provide it. – J.Z., 27.4.93, 19.2.08. 5.1.12 6.7.12. - DEMOCRACY, GOVERNMENT, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION

PEOPLE: If the (*) Vietnamese want a Communist Government let them have it. – Mr. Whitlam, 17.7.65. – All notions of “the” people lead to such huge misjudgments. – J.Z., 27.7.92, 5.1.12. – (*) With such and similar remarks this former ALP Prime Minister of Australia revealed his enormous ignorance and prejudice, especially when it came to totalitarian communism and its coercive spread. However, not only he was but all territorialists are mislead by their territorialist flawed assumptions and premises and never check them sufficiently against the facts. – J.Z., 27.7.92, 26.3.08. – Even now, all the murders committed by the Vietcong and the invading professional forces of the North-Korean totalitarian regime in that war have not yet been sufficiently published, to my knowledge. Mostly not even territorial democracy was the real aim of these “freedom fighters” and of the South-Vietnamese regime and the U.S.A. had, alas, only at best a territorial democracy as its war aims, an aim quite unsuitable to the very diverse population of that country as well. With panarchism and full monetary and financial freedom as its war aim, combined with a sound and business-like land reform program, this war could have been successfully ended within a few months at most, with little loss of life and destruction and at little cost. All of the other communist rule regimes or attempts to establish them could then also have been dissolved rather fast. Alas, due to enormous ignorance, incompetence and mistakes made and wrongs committed [e.g., indiscriminate area bombing, use of torture, suppression of peaceful dissent and ethnic groups] by the anti-communist alliance and its governments, this led finally to the withdrawal of the U.S. forces and left the country and its survivors to the totalitarian communists, who certainly did not and do not allow individual secessionism or at least free emigration from their regime. Whatever improvements have occurred there since then is rather due to the degrees of economic freedom that were permitted, of necessity, rather than to the principles and practices of totalitarian communism and its anti-economics, just like in China. – J.Z., 6.7.12. – VIETNAM WAR

PEOPLE: If the government doesn't trust the people, why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?” - Bert Brecht. - That could be done under panarchism! - J.Z.17.11.82. - Members of the government could also abdicate and secede, if they wanted to, as a body, being dissatisfied with their citizens. It would not “dissolve” the people but become independent of them, by leaving them alone. They could then offer themselves as an alternative government and – in a kind of free enterprise competition, for other forms of governance for volunteers], lay out subscription lists, and thus each of their diverse groups, select a new people for themselves, the ones more to their own liking, perhaps from all over the world. But to be successful, they would have to make better or more popular offers than their competitors. - Panarchism requires a total rethinking of political affairs. Most of the old phrases and attitudes do no longer fit it. Only basic human nature corresponds to it. - J.Z., 7.4.84, 5.1.12, 6.7.12. – A more natural way would be for groups of dissenters, all volunteers, thus deserving the term “people” to secede from any existing territorial government - but without making any territorial monopoly claim and then to establish themselves as exterritorially autonomous societies, communities or competing governance systems - under their own personal law. That cannot be interpreted as aggression. It even helps the remaining rump government by ridding it of all its opponents and “troublemakers”. It could then go on working for its remaining voluntary members, based upon their thus and indirectly granted unanimous consent, which would be a genuine mandate. – If it could not even satisfy these volunteers, then it would suffer further secessions from it, quite deservedly. But if it could satisfy them, then it might turn into a successful society, even form an international federation, one of several, all with voluntary members only, wherever they may live and work. Just like an insurance company or a protective agency could have members and subscribers and beneficiaries all over the world. - J.Z., 17.4.08, 5.1.12, 6.7.12. - GOVERNMENT, INSURANCE ANALOGY, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, JOKES

PEOPLE: If the people were really sovereign then there would no longer be any rulers and any ruled.” - Daniel Guerin, Anarchismus, Begriff und Praxis, edition Suhrkamp, 1967, p.17, on Proudhon. – People can be sovereign only in communities or societies of volunteers. Territorialism and its “representation” deprives them of their individual and voluntary group sovereignty, i.e. of their chance to form genuine societies, communities and self-governing bodies in all spheres territorially monopolized. Where are the genuine successes of territorialism? Certainly not in is wars, inflations, deflations and tax and hand-out policies. – J.Z., 11.3.09, 27.1.11. – Q., TERRITORIALISM, NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, REPRESENTATION, SOVEREIGN PEOPLE

PEOPLE: If there is any one feature which we can distinguish in all Christendom, under different names – trades unions, cooperation, and internationals – under all flags, there is one great movement. It is for the people peaceably to take possession of their own.” – Wendell Phillips, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.166. - Firstly, “the people” do not really exist and all of the population of a territory or even most of them, do certainly not take care of all their individual rights and liberties, they do not even bother to learn to know them! Nor has any territorial government ever stood up for all of these rights and liberties. On the contrary. But those, who do know and appreciate at least some of their rights – or believe that they do, should always be free to practise them, as far as they can or want to, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, in their own communities of volunteers, not confined to any territory on earth and always at their own expense and risk. Once that kind of freedom has been realized for a while, then it would be clearly demonstrated that there exists not just one “people" in a territory but dozens or even hundreds of them, all of them previously more or less forced to live under one territorial government. Moreover, what does really belong to the trades-unions, except the labor contracts of the voluntary members? – And what do the Internationalists own, except the utilization of this planet, together with all its other people? – They, too are split into numerous different movement and each has at most only that authority over their own voluntary members which their members conceded to it. - J.Z., 27.2.08, 27.1.11. – No party, faction, group, movement, government, State, society, community, religion, ideology, ethnic or racial group or federation can rightfully claim to rule over the whole population of a country, continent or Earth and all their resources – even though all too many still try to do so, quite wrongly and forcefully, with their territorial monopoly constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and armed forces, their “unification” and “liberation” or “revolution” attempts. – J.Z., 6.7.12.

PEOPLE: If you don’t want to despair about them then you have to learn to laugh about their antics. – J.Z., 25.1.99. - Mencken did so but that was not good enough. He should have proposed: All your antics, all your systems, ideologies, faiths, utopias and reforms should only be applied in genuinely "intentional communities", i.e. all of volunteers only, all confined or authorized by full exterritorial autonomy or experimental freedom for all. They might be confined to their members in a village or they might be spread all over the world. - J.Z., 27.1.11. – It was, I believe, Lichtenberg, who said something similar: Whoever does not wish to despair about human beings, should carry humor like a shield before him. – J.Z., 24.1.12. – All their “games”, sports, theatric performances, operas, circus acts, duels, mutual slaughter games of gladiators etc. to be undertaken only by voluntary victims and subscribers and always only at their own expense and risk, not by involuntary slaves, serfs or mere territorial subject citizens. – J.Z., 6.712. - POLITICIANS & BUREAUCRATS

PEOPLE: In a political sense, there is one problem that currently underlies all of the others. That problem is making Government sufficiently responsive to the people. If we don't make government responsive to the people, we don't make it believable. And we must make government believable if we are to have a functioning democracy.” - Representative Gerald R. Ford, address at Robert A. Taft government seminar banquet, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida, December 16, 1971. - Gerald R. Ford, Selected Speeches, ed. Michael V. Doyle, p. 170 (1973). - We make it responsive to its subjects by reducing its membership to voluntary subjects, i.e., allowing all individuals to secede - and to join or form alternative governments, societies or communities for themselves, all self-governing under their own personal laws and this at their own risk and expense. - Without that radical change NO territorial government, not even a majoritarian democracy, will be good enough to continue ruling or can rightfully claim to have a mandate by the whole population, which is not sufficiently represented by any temporary majority of voters, who are, always, only given all too limited choices and information. - The existence of "the people" is another unchecked and quite false premise. Only individuals and their voluntary associations have any real existence. All others are mere mental constructs or abstractions. - J.Z., 11.10.02, 24.11.02, 12.3.09. - PEOPLE VS. GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUALS & MINORITIES VS. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, DIS.

PEOPLE: In the last analysis, my fellow countrymen, as we in America would be the first to claim, a people are responsible for the acts of their government.” - President Woodrow Wilson, address, Columbus, Ohio, September 4, 1919. - The Messages and Papers of Woodrow Wilson, ed. Albert Shaw, vol. 2, p. 728 (1924). - Only if "the" people had enough freedom of expression and information opportunities, as well as enough freedom of action to act quite differently, i.e., to secede and act exterritorially and autonomously, could the remainder, all voluntary supporters of a government and its actions, be held collectively responsible for its actions, as far as the adult voters are concerned. But hardly children and those, who did not vote or those, who voted against a party or a government. - J.Z., 13.10.02. – DIS., COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: PEOPLE, VOTING, COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT'S DECISIONS & ACTIONS? SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

PEOPLE: Individual choices, within the own affairs, characterized by the compilation and publication of much improved individual human rights codes, all free choices undertaken clearly at the own risk and expense (if not, subject to arbitration settlements), should be above and beyond the choice of "the people" and its "representatives". - J.Z., 5.2.90, 5.2.93. – POLITICIANS, REPRESENTATIVES & INDIVIDUAL CHOICES, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE: Isn’t it about time we found Congress in contempt of The People?” – Anonymous - Only voluntary members of societies and communities would, in most cases, not feel contempt for their authorities and representatives and would only rarely have any real reason to do so. If so, they would be free to secede. - J.Z., 27.1.11. - CONTEMPT OF THE PEOPLE, IN GOVERNMENT, PARTIES & PARLIAMENTS, CONGRESS, VOLUNTARISM, MANDATE? REPRESENTATION?

PEOPLE: It is ridiculously asserted that the voice of the people is the voice of truth and of God; universal consent cannot convert wrong into right.” - Godwin. - However, within communities and societies of volunteers their will, their intentions, their belief, their convictions or ideology, could and should be their supreme guide, as long as they respect or tolerate the different choices other people make within their own communities of volunteers. Only such communities deserve the term "peoples". - J.Z., 27.1.11. - CONSENT, WRONG & RIGHT, MAJORITIES, PUBLIC OPINION, POPULAR ERRORS & PREJUDICES, DIS.

PEOPLE: It’s up to the people, not governments.” – Paul Unger, THE RECORDER, Sydney University. Probably in the 70’s. – Alas, some of the most important decisions, which territorial governments almost always decide quite wrongly, are not left up to the people but should be. By this I do not mean the whole population of territories but those people who, if free, would associate in voluntary communities, societies and competing governments, all under personal laws only and under full exterritorial autonomy, i.e., without any territorial monopoly. Then, these volunteers would not only be free to act morally and rationally among themselves, in their own affairs, but should also be free to submit to their favorite guru, dictator or great leader, pope or prophet or whatever ism, faith or creed, as long as they do their own things only for and to themselves. – J.Z., 27.2.08, 27.1.11.

PEOPLE: Let the People serve the People.” – Antony Fisher, The Case for Freedom, p.29. – But not as dinner, or as voting cattle, tax slaves, military slaves etc. – Rather, let different kinds of people, autonomously and voluntarily associated, serve all their different kinds of people in their own ways. - J.Z., 26.2.08. Even in a free market no longer confined, as in the best cases so far, to ordinary consumer goods and services, but extended to include whole societal, community and governance services, all only by and for volunteers and under full exterritorial autonomy. – That would allow even all kinds of statists to do their foolish and prejudiced things – to themselves, under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy, for all non-statists and different kinds of statists would then have seceded from them. – J.Z., 6.7.23, 6.7.12. – PANARCHISM: LAISSEZ FAIRE EVEN FOR WHOLE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS, DIS., NOT JUST PRIVATE OR COOPERATIVE PRODUCERS & EXCHANGERS

PEOPLE: Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to liberty.” – Benjamin Franklin. – They should be given the chance to do so, one by one and group by group. - J.Z., 27.1.11. – Those with lesser ambitions should also be free to do their things among themselves – and to suffer the consequences. – J.Z., 6.7.23. - LIBERTY, ENLIGHTENMENT

PEOPLE: Many people do know much but from wisdom they are still far removed. Other people are merely a game for you. No one has fully learnt about himself.” – Goethe, Sprueche in Reimen. – J.Z. tr. of: “Ihrer viele wissen viel, // Von der Weisheit sind sie weit entfernt. // Andre Leute sind euch ein Spiel; // Sich selbst hat niemand ausgelernt.“ - Let each apply his knowledge, errors, wisdom, ideas and system only among like-minded people. That way all will be on the road to enlightenment and progress, much faster than through any territorial monopoly and rulership system. - J.Z., 27.1.11. - KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, MERELY PLAYING WITH OTHERS, SELF-KNOWLEDGE IS MISSING, DIS., RED

PEOPLE: No European knew that security could be needed or provided for the individual from the (*) collected will of the people. … they made the majority irresistible, and the plébiscite a tyranny.” – Lord Action, Lectures on the French Revolution, ed. by Figgis & Laurence, MacMillan, 1932, p.104. – (*) territorially! – J.Z. - For instance, a referendum does not lead to a tyranny when it is applied only within a community of volunteers from which each dissenter is free to secede. - J.Z., 27.1.11. – Or when it merely legalizes genuine individual rights and liberties that were formerly suppressed by a territorial government. Some otherwise intelligent and libertarian opponents of direct democracy have still not sufficiently considered these rightful possibilities for a referendum. Naturally, it can never be rightfully utilized to suppress genuine individual rights for a whole population or parts of it when these people are neither criminals with involuntary victims or other aggressors or foreign aggressors. Even in the latter case, panarchists would distinguish between the territorial governments which abuse their military forces for aggressions and these conscripts or volunteers of a military machine of a territorial government. Panarchists have xyz options to dissolve such machines without any major slaughter. – J.Z., 6.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVISM, POPULATIONS, MAJORITY, DEMOCRACY, PLEBISCITE, REFERENDUM, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THEIR PROTECTION, “THE PEOPLE” INSTEAD OF DIVERSE POPULATIONS OF A TERRITORY, DEFENCE, LIBERATION, DES., MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, REVOLUTIONS, APPEALS, WAR AIMS, SECRET ALLIES, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

PEOPLE: No one in this world, so far as I know- and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me- has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” - H. L. Mencken. - Alas, he never arrived at the rightful conclusion to let all the fools do their foolish things only to themselves, while all the supposedly wise and enlightened people try to put their best knowledge and ideas into action, also at their own risk and expense. He remained a cynical and amused territorialist instead of becoming a panarchist or polyarchist, favoring experimental freedom and voluntarism in politics, economics and social affairs. If he had, his kind of panarchy would, certainly, have been one of the better ones. He never checked his territorialist premise sufficiently. But in this he was and is far from being alone. - J.Z., 27.1.11. - POLITICS, INTELLIGENCE, FOOLISHNESS, STUPIDITY, IGNORANCE

PEOPLE: No one speaks for the people. Not even you.” – From an old movie on Daniel Boone. – Let all individual speak and choose for themselves, in all spheres. – J.Z., 7.3.09. - Let all dissenters secede and thus separate themselves from “the” people, by forming their own kinds of people, all only volunteers and with none of them claiming a territorial monopoly! – J.Z., 10.3.09. REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS, CONSENT, DEMOCRACY, PANARCHIES & SECESSIONISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: No such association, or organization as “the people of the United States”, having ever been formed by any open, written, authentic, or voluntary contract, there is, on general principles of law and reason, no such association or organization in existence. And all oaths that purport to be given to such an association are necessarily given only to the winds. …” - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI/39, in Works I.

PEOPLE: Nor should we listen to those who say, ‘The voice of the people is the voice of God’, for the turbulence of the mob is always close to insanity.” – Alcuin, Epistolae, 166-9. - - And the basic insanity consists in applying “the voice of the people” not only to those actually mouthing it or giving their individual consent to it, i.e. only to like-minded volunteers of a certain kind but, instead, to all others of the whole population that lives in a certain territory, no matter how much they do disagree with these volunteers. A uniform population that could, quite rightfully, be called a single “people”, is simply a fiction that is useful only for territorial politicians. – J.Z., 6.4.89, 22.2.08. – The term is as misleading as that of the “common interest”, the “public interest”, the “national interest” and of politicians as protectors of the people and bureaucrats as their public servants.  – J.Z., 24.1.12. - DIS., PANARCHISM. TERRITORIALISM,

PEOPLE: Not in my name, not with my taxes.” – Slogan from a peace rally -  J.Z., 16.2.02. – Reminds me of a remark by Ulrich von Beckerath that the unarmed and unorganized voter is merely a comical figure in they eyes of the rulers. – J.Z., 21.10.07. 27.1.11. - IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE, MILITIA, GOVERNMENTS, DEMOCRACY, CONSENT, MERE PROTESTS & DEMONSTRATIONS & SLOGAN SHOUTING

PEOPLE: Nothing is in reality less democratic than the people – he used to say, and he did not allow himself the least delusion as regards their slavish love of authority.” – Zenker, on Proudhon, p.74. – As if at least some freedom, peace and justice lovers were not also part of any territorial population. – J.Z., 6.7.12. - STATISM, AUTHORITARIANISM, LEADERSHIP, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, THE SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS

PEOPLE: Now government is a master OVER the people, an oppressor UPON the people, and a destroyer OF THE SPIRIT OF MANKIND.” - Anderson/Miles, Constitution. p.41. – It is right only for its remaining statist supporters. They alone should have to bear all its wrongs, irrationalities and imposed burdens. – J.Z., 6.7.12. _ PEOPLE & GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: Nuclear devices are not anti-tyranny but anti-people "weapons". This is rather obvious: They are not designed to destroy only e.g. a dictatorial government, one that is conscripting its subjects, their earnings and property, to fight us, but instead, they are designed to wipe out, en masse, these primary victims of any tyranny, and, by this threat, they do incite even the primary victims of tyrants or dictators to fight our citizens in the same way or to give their tacit consent to such a procedure, all this fully in accordance with the wrongful principle of collective responsibility. The governmental decision-makers, sitting in the safest shelters, may even survive on both sides, at least for a while. The people - every individual - have the right and duty to destroy these anti-people “weapons: and to take all steps necessary to prevent their reconstruction. - The people cannot longer rely on any territorial government to help them out of this danger. Territorial government established and maintained it. They must help themselves and for this they must become sufficiently enlightened and then also armed, trained and organized with rightful weapons. - In every statist or national territory there exist at present not just one people but a "majority nation" or a dominant minority group, as well as a conglomerate of xyz national and other minorities, a coercively "united" diversity which, by its very nature, creates dissatisfaction and unrest, in which at least some people are resorting even to terrorism, resistance and revolutionary and civil war attempts, as well as international wars. Individuals should be free to secede from any of these enforced territorial forced groupings and to join or establish communities, peoples, nations or utopias of their own individual choice, wherever they happen to live. They should also become free to initiate their own kind of panarchy. All these communities should be fully autonomous on an exterritorial basis. At present we do not really have "a people" or "a society" but, more or less, only a territorial slave State or more or less despotic territorial regime, in spite of various democratic or republican features and pretences. Their territorial nature renders all of them despotic. Often this is openly revealed only when they establish concentration camps, as the British did in South Africa during the Boer War, the U.S. government, during WW II for American citizens of Japanese descent and the present Australian government for "illegal immigrants". - I can understand it when territorial governments are mad enough to engage in a nuclear arms race. But I cannot fully comprehend the consent of the victims. Did the European Jews approve of the establishment of extermination camps for themselves? That's what the tacit approval of nuclear strength by most citizens amounts to. - Are we, like most dogs, loyal to our masters even when they prepare to shoot us? Do we really want weapons, which are essentially "anti‑people weapons" or mass murder devices? - Let us put such questions openly and clearly and repeatedly, if necessary - in one referendum or repeated efforts of this kind. On the replies hinges the fate of mankind. - I do hold that most of the people are inherently peaceful - when reasonably civilized and educated and not misled by governmental mis-education, propaganda, myths and censorship and when they are not organized in an inherently antagonistic way, as they are in territorial organizations, which set each group against all others. - I believe that at present only the territorial powers of the present governments and their own powerlessness, prejudices and ignorance drive “the” people, much against their will, towards nuclear war and to the brink of it. – [Actually, in no country do they have any direct say on this. Such decisions are still monopolized by all territorial governments, including all democratic ones. – J.Z., 6.7.12.] To that extent, at least, they are still despotic. Admittedly, most people are less warlike than their rulers are and this fact could be used by direct democratic methods in order to gradually preserve or establish peace and, rather soon, eliminate the danger of nuclear war. - See: APPEALS AUTONOMY, BROADCASTING, CITIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, CONSENT, DECISION, DECLARATIONS, DEFENCE, DEMOCRACY, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, DISARMAMENT, DISOBEDIENCE, ENEMY, EXTERMINATION CAMPS, EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, GOVERNMENTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, IGNORANCE, LEADERSHIP, LIBERATION, MILITIA, MINORITY AUTONOMY, MYTHS, RATIONALISM, NEGOTIATIONS, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, OBEDIENCE, OPEN AIR SPEAKING, PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY, PEACE DECLARATIONS, POWERLESSNESS, PREJUDICES, PROPERTY CONCEPT OF CITIZENS, PUBLICITY, REFERENDUM, REPRESENTATION, RESPONSIBILITY, RESISTANCE, RULERS, SECESSION, SELF-DEFENCE, SELF-HELP , SEPARATE PEACE, SOCIAL CONTRACT, STATE, STATISM, SUBORDINATION, TARGETS, TERRITORIALISM, TRUST, TYRANNICIDE, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, VOTING, WAR AIMS, WARFARE, WEAPONS, WELFARE STATE. – J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS Nos. 16 & 17, on - Somewhat revised: J.Z., 27.1.11, 6.1.12 6.7.12. – Most truths are interlinked and so are most errors and prejudices. – J.Z., 6.7.12.

PEOPLE: One distinction Sampson (R. V. Sampson: The Discovery of Peace) does not make, which I think is especially important in this time of people-power groups (woman power, black power, Indian power, kid power, etc.) is between the struggle for power over one’s own life, and the struggle for power over other people’s lives. …” - Ann Morriset Davidson, WIN, May 16th, 1974. – Territorialism amounts to an all too well organized and already traditional system of power over other people’s lives, all those living in a territory. It does not recognize all their individual rights and liberties but, rather, plays a legalized football with them, kicking them around, as much as they can get away with, reducing most people to sheep or mere property, tax slaves or serfs. It does not permit them to secede from the territorial “lords”, their legalized feudal regimes and territorial system and does even greatly restrict free migration. Anyhow, in other countries they would also become ruled by territorial lords of just another color. – J.Z., 6.1.12. - PEOPLE POWER, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

PEOPLE: One of the worst things for almost all people is that they have one or even several TERRITORIAL governments working “for” them. – J.Z., 23.2.97, 13.2.08, 27.1.11. - POLITICIANS, GOVERNMENTS

PEOPLE: Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people.” – William F. Jasper. - For exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers this would work, most likely. But under any territorial government too much in genuine individual rights and liberties is already given away right from their very constitutional but still territorial beginnings. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06, 6.1.12, 6.7.12. - PEOPLE TO GOVERN THE GOVERNMENT VIA THE CONSTITUTION: THE REMAINING SELF-DELUSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS. TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM:

PEOPLE: Over the years, city and country listeners numbering in the hundreds of thousands were invited to nominate, by phone or by letter, any popular initiative taken by a Federal Government, Liberal or Labor, since the end of the Vietnam War. Any initiative that had grassroots, bi-partisan support … Something that we had wanted a government to do, that we couldn’t do for ourselves. - And no-one could think of a single example since the days when the rail gauges were standardized. – No doubt our government had done something worthwhile over the years – it was just that nobody could remember what it was.” – Brian Wilshire, The Fine Print, published by Brian Wilshire, PO Box 209, Round Corner, NSW 2158, Australia., 1992., p. IV & V. - & GOVERNMENT, POPULAR INITIATIVES, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENT, CENTRALIZATION

PEOPLE: Pandering to “the” people costs individual people their rights and liberties. A “people” or a government, which does not permit individuals to secede from it is not any better than the few Islamic fanatics are, who do not permit individual secession from their faith. The territorialist and democratic “people” constitute only a wrongful and harmful pseudo “people”, not a genuine community, just like any intolerant religion constitutes only a pseudo-religion. Neither their ideas nor their practices and institutions ought to be tolerated any longer - when applied to any peaceful dissenters. All dissenters must become free to do their own things, in accordance with their beliefs and convictions, exterritorially, under their own personal law. – J.Z., 9.1.05, 27.1.11. – INDIVIDUALS, CHOICE, SECESSION, TOLERANCE, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, SECESSIONISM, FANATIC & INTOLERANT MUSLIMS, A MINORITY BY NOW. TOLERANCE, DOING THE OWN THINGS AT THE OWN EXPENSE & RISK. FULL MINORITY AUTONOMY – BUT ONLY EXTERRITORIALLY.

PEOPLE: People above any government. – J.Z., 23.4.92. – Any peaceful individuals above any territorial governments! – J.Z., 26.3.08, 27.1.11. – In reality or practice, so far, most people are under the heels of territorial governments. – J.Z., 30.12.11. - TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: People all too often are just like ants, running around in the grass etc., on their daily errands and without awareness of or interest in the larger issues, even if their lives, liberties and rights are severely threatened or restricted by what happens on the larger scale. I saw ants trying to build their nest on a drive way. And people still try to build their future upon the foundation of territorial Warfare States, with all too many of these armed with ABC mass murder devices. – J.Z., n.d. & 25.10.07. - MAN, MASSES, MAJORITY, KNOWLEDGE, INTEREST, UNDERSTANDING, INDIFFERENCE, NONCHALANCE, HORIZONS, PUBLIC OPINION, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

PEOPLE: People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.” - Lao Tzu, The Way of Lao Tzu, 65. - - Only once "the" people - or enough of the people - have enough knowledge will it become too difficult or impossible to dominate them. - J.Z., 13.10.02. - Let any segment of "the" people be free to secede and do their things for and to themselves, under full experimental freedom for all. - If experiments remain the monopoly of territorial governments only, then we are likely to continue to proceed, as before, from one disaster to another, because they will be conducted merely upon the consensus of the lowest common denominator, i.e., upon the most popular prejudices, errors and myths, among the men on the street as well as among the top "experts" or consultants of territorial governments. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 6.1.12. - KNOWLEDGE, IGNORANCE, GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS AS A PRECONDITION FOR GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, DIS., KNOW-IT-ALLS, GOVERNMENTALISM, STATISM, LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS & THEIR PRETENCE OF KNOWLEDGE, EXPERTS

PEOPLE: People are not as stupid as politicians think they are.” – John Curvers, quoted in TANSTAAFL, 3/76. - But under territorialism they are not free to secede from politicians they no longer trust and do their own things among like-minded volunteers, at their own expense and risk. Since that would also mean voluntary taxation, it could mean a rush of secessionists, building up their own kinds of voluntary taxation and otherwise also reformed communities, societies and competing governments, all of volunteers only and all of them without a territorial monopoly. Like it happened in some violent revolutions, the former territorial leaders might find themselves almost alone. Unless they still had something to offer to those, who believed in them. With them they could continue their utopia, potentially gaining many new converts but also under the threat to losing all followers if they disappoint them, once again, all too much. They would be exposed to the same kind of risk that every free enterprise business has. It either satisfies enough voluntary customers or it has to close down. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 6.1.12, 6.7.12.

PEOPLE: People are not property that belongs to one or the other territorial government, whether they like it or not. Historically “populations” could even be acquired by rulers through marriages or inheritance, like herds of sheep or cattle! Obviously, all such notions and practices are wrong and dictatorial. - All people still believing in authoritarian systems should only be free to choose them for themselves, under personal laws and institutions, but not, with their votes or otherwise, to impose them upon all kinds of non-aggressive and non-criminal dissenters, who would rather do their own things for and to themselves. – The people of whole island States like Taiwan, should also not be considered as mere property of the regime of mainland China or of any regime territorially ruling Taiwain’s (Formosa’s) population. Those, who want to live under the Red China’s laws and institutions should be individually free to do so in Taiwan. Those who prefer other systems for themselves, should also be free to do so where they live now, under their own personal laws and, finally, also in China or anywhere else in the world. With that kind of individual choice for all its inhabitants, Taiwan would also set a shiny example for Mainland China and for the rest of the world. Why should we even assume that the people of half a small island, like East Timor, should live under a single territorial government when, obviously, they have also enough dissenters among them to lead to civil unrest and assassinations? Let all kinds of people live in their own ways and systems, under their self-chosen personal laws and institutions – and all frictions will be minimized, as they are in all other spheres where this kind of tolerance is practised. – J.Z., 14.2.08. – How many true believers in communism remain within China’s 1.3 billion people? – J.Z., GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL DISSENTERS, TAIWAN, CHINA, Q., PEOPLE AS PROPERTY

PEOPLE: People are people and you can’t do anything about it.” – D.Z., 13.2.75. (With all the “wisdom” of someone at about 11½! – J.Z.) – No one should even try to change the nature of man. But should we not try to achieve that all the different kinds of people can peacefully live in accordance with their own natural characteristics, interests, abilities and aims, while and allowing all others to do the same for themselves? – J.Z., 27.2.08, 27.1.11. – Then their own changes will be even more up to themselves than they are already even today. – J.Z., 15.3.09, 24.1.12. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, LAISSEZ FAIRE, PRIVACY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, DIS.

PEOPLE: People are self-propelling, self-actualizing. They somehow arrange themselves so that the necessary work of society is done, as if, as Adam Smith would say, they were guided by invisible hands. …” - Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.72. - - It works, e.g. for the production of pens or cans of beans – but not yet for the production of whole alternative societies, whole different political, economic or social systems. They should be so free. Even the various minorities among them should be as free. They should be so free but they are not, under territorial domination and monopolies. The list of the jobs they, or, rather, their supposedly representative territorial governments, have left undone would be very long. Let’s start it with ABC mass murder or anti-people “weapons” in the hands of a few, mostly government officials, even in supposedly democratic States. You start your own long list and might send it to me. – But let us not all too much rely merely on a God, an invisible hand or in a faith in a free market, a faith, which is still all too incomplete in most people’s minds. Let us, finally, compile, optimally express and thorough publish all the genuine individual rights and liberties that are natural and necessary for human beings, for their long-term survival, progress and enlightenment, to the extent that they have so far been formulated by someone, somewhere. Let us do so as clearly and comprehensively as would be possible by now. Compare the drafts in my digitized anthology of over 130 PRIVATE human rights drafts, as opposed to governmental ones, in the enlarged and revised PEACE PLANS 589/590. See this Anthology of Private Human Rights drafts reproduced on a CD, which is online at Consider them at least as raw material towards an as good as possible declaration of such rights as could and should be achieved by now. Take enough interest in these rights and liberties to help formulate them fully and optimally. After all, your own rights and liberties and those of your family and friends, even your very survival is at stake. If you do not take a sufficient interest in your own affairs, all your genuine individual rights and liberties, then mankind will sooner or later come to perish as a failed experiment with somewhat but not enough rational and moral people. Then, maybe, the surviving cockroaches or rabbits might do better, in a few million years. - J.Z., 27.2.08, 6.1.12. - HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, MANKIND’S SURVIVAL, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, DISARMAMENT, INVISIBLE HAND, FREE MARKET, INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

PEOPLE: people can be confidently relied upon not to conform to any preconceived pattern.” – Lloyd Biggle Jr., The World Menders, I, p.27 of ANALOG 2/71. – Alas, as territorial statists most of the individuals of population of whole territories still conform all too much to territorialist notions, systems, methods, institutions, laws and practices. And this in spite of all their external differences, not to speak of the numerous internal ones and those of their religions, ideologies and other beliefs and interests. – But then they are not yet free to sort themselves out in accordance with their own individual preferences into their own kinds of communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 14.4.08. DIVERSITY, MAN

PEOPLE: People do not lack strength; they lack will.” - Victor Hugo. - Freedom is not only a matter of will but also of opportunities, choices, rights, liberties, laws and institutions. In all too many respects and even in the "freest" territorial States many individual liberties are still outlawed and prosecuted or monopolized. E.g. central banking vs. monetary freedom, territorial rule vs. individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy, decision on war and peace, armament and disarmament, international treaties monopolized by a few people, at the top. All genuine individual rights and liberties are not yet declared by any territorial government, nor would any of them welcome ideal militia forces for the protection for these individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 13.10.02, 27.1.11. - Territorial States are simply the worst kind of organizations for all people desiring freedom, self-determination, self-rule, self-responsibility, freedom to act, freedom to experiment. - J.Z., 27.11.02. – They are also short of the required knowledge, ideas and principles and of sufficient interest in what are, really, their own affairs, when it comes to large and important matters. They rather occupy themselves with relative trivia, games, entertainment, tourism, drugs, smoking, drinking, dancing, music, pictures, movies, songs, poems, fashions, sports etc. – No wonder then that most of the other, the important affairs in their lives, are seriously and wrongfully mismanaged, territory-wide, by the rulers of whatever party or ideology. - J.Z., 7.3.09, 6.1.12. [Just compare the things and notions that most people are concerned with on Facebook pages. – J.Z., 6.7.12.]  Territorial governments do not lack strength and will, but both, the territorial rulers and their “property”, their subjects and victims, are, largely, wrong, misinformed, prejudiced and should all to little knowledge of and interest in ideas, options and institutions, principles, rights and liberties which really do matter. Such governments do not and cannot truly represent or protect their involuntary victims. – They should only be “free” to do whatever they like to do with their voluntary victims. Good riddance, if, as a result, only both of these kinds of “humans” would disappear. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 6.1.12, 6.7.12. - WILL, DIS., DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, STATES, DIS., INTEREST IN THE OWN AFFAIRS.

PEOPLE: People grow bigger, too, if one does not cut them down. Cut governments down, not people. Cut government powers, not the powers of individuals over their own affairs, their contracts, their voluntary associations, their use of their individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 14.7.94, 26.3.08. – The territorially owned, herded, exploited and abused populations do not deserve the term “people” or “peoples” they are at most merely “sheeple”. – J.Z., 6.1.12. - GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, POWER, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, FREELY & PEACEFULLY COMPETING GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS, SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS.

PEOPLE: People have the right to be people, individuals, voluntary associates, managing all their own affairs, i.e., they have the right not to be interfered with by any territorial politicians and other criminals. – J.Z., 29.8.82, 27.1.11. – POLITICIANS, INTERFERENCE, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT EXTERRITORIALLY

PEOPLE: People have to be what they would like to be.” – Gwyn Dwyer, ABC talk on communism, 22.3.80. - They do not have to but they should be free to try realize their ideas – at the own expense and risk. Panarchism does not ask for more – but also not for less! – J.Z., 26.2.08, 15.3.09. - DIS.

PEOPLE: People in large masses may as well be sheep. Their collective intelligence drops to that of the weakest-minded member of the group. They bleat, they panic and are easily herded to safety, or to the slaughter.” – Alan Gunn, quoted in: Michael Z. Williamson, Freehold, p.376. - Let all the dissenters opt out to do their own things, undisturbed, among themselves, at their own risk and expense, thereby enlightening themselves and many outside observers as well. - So far they are the products of territory-wide prisons or kindergartens, which made them largely ignorant, prejudiced and irresponsible. - J.Z., 27.1.11. - MASSES, MASS PSYCHOLOGY, PANIC

PEOPLE: People is a very misleading term. Only volunteers can form “a” people. All coercive associations of individuals are merely large or small empires, authoritarian regimes, dictatorship or totalitarian regimes, even if camouflaged as direct or representative democracies or “people’s democracies”. Either minority- or majority despotism prevails in them, territorially imposed. – J.Z., 5.4.95, 26.3.08. – VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL & ASSOCIATIONAL FREEDOM – IN EVERY SPHERE!

PEOPLE: People learn over millennia, not in a few years.” - Robert Sheckley, Potential, ASTOUNDING SF, Nov. 1953, p.78. - Only some individuals and minority groups can learn in much shorter periods. That's why we need experimental freedom, panarchism, polyarchy or exterritorial autonomy and individual secessionism, voluntarism, multi-archies, competing governments and societies. - J.Z., 30.1.02. - IDEAS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATION, LEARNING, LIBERTARIANISM, GRADUALISM, CHANGE, PANARCHISM, DIS.

PEOPLE: People may outlaw the State.” – Edward Mayers, founder of “NONCONFORMIST” and Richard Hamilton, a reverend. – That’s certainly preferable to people being treated and exploited as the territorial government’s property. – J.Z., 7.3.09, 6.1.12. - PEOPLE VS. STATE, OUTLAWRY OF THE TERRITORIAL STATE, FOR ALL! ONLY EXTERRITORIAL STATES OF VOLUNTEERS ONLY STILL TO BE PERMITTED.

PEOPLE: People need defence and secession options - mainly against their own territorial governments. With them they would not longer have to be afraid of most foreign governments but would become able to defend themselves effectively against them as well, together with most of the victimized subjects of foreign despotic governments. The exterritorialist, voluntary and tolerant road to internal and external freedom, peace and justice ought, ought finally, to be taken. – J.Z., 7.8.03, 18.10.07. - & GOVERNMENTS, PEACE, DEFENCE, WAR, ENEMIES, MILITIA, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, PEACE, FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, JUST WAR & PEACE AIMS, DECLARED IN TIME, MILITIA, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, SECRET ALLIES, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

PEOPLE: People never believe in volcanoes until the lava actually overtakes them.” – George Santayana - - They do believe all right in the existence of volcanoes, dictatorships, wars and nuclear weapons but not that they will erupt and threaten them, soon, or that they could or should do something to prevent or reduce these risks. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – Most of us are, after all, the descendants of slaves and serfs and still enjoy only a fraction of or individual rights and liberties, seeing how they are restricted by thousands of wrongful laws and that all genuine individual rights and liberties were never fully and clearly enough declared or sufficiently published. – J.Z., 13.3.09, 6.7.12. - Also consider, how many people during our history took the emigration road. Not all of them remained "nailed" to the spot. If they could freely secede from local lords, and also freely experiment with their own ideas and opinions, they would soon outnumber the emigrants and would not have to leave their family members, friends and associates behind but get rid of local taxes, laws and oppression in the process. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 6.7.23. - APATHY, IGNORANCE OF AND LACK OF INTEREST IN THE OWN AFFAIRS, DIS., SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS, IRRESPONSIBILITY,

PEOPLE: People want peace so much that governments had better get out of their way and let them have it.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower – I feel certain that this was only written by one of his ghost writers and for propaganda purposes. J.Z., n.d. - He did not abdicate, either or demanded the reduction or abolition of the power of all Presidents and other territorial leaders. – J.Z., 19.5.08. -– PEACE, GOVERNMENTS, DECISION-MAKING ON WAR & PEACE, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

PEOPLE: People want to do more than curtail it  – they want to be the government.” – Karl Hess, PENTHOUSE 2/76. – Only like-minded people can form their own rightful self-government or free societies, as long as they do not claim any territorial monopoly. A “people” or population, territorially divided, possibly a thousand-fold, can never achieve genuine self-government through a single and “united” or “uniting” territorial government. –J.Z., 31.3.94, 18.2.08, 6.7.12. - GOVERNMENT, POPULISM, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, UNITY, NATION-BUILDING, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, DIVERSITY IN ALL POPULATIONS, PANARCHISM

PEOPLE: People who tolerate compulsory State membership or subordination, the monopolization of exchange media and value standards, the imposition of tributes, State education, State libraries, government transport systems and government decision-making on war and peace, armament and disarmament, even when it comes to ABC anti-people “weapons” or mass murder devices, are already very well conditioned for any further abuses by their territorial governmental “protectors” and care-takers. – J.Z., 18.12.93, 15.2.08, 27.1.11, 6.7.12. - IGNORANCE, APATHY, CONDITIONING, STATISM

PEOPLE: People, like sheep, tend to follow a leader - occasionally in the right direction.” - Alexander Chase, quoted in ANALOG, 12/88, p.133. - Luckily, "the people" are rarely if ever a unified and territorial nation. All contain numerous diverse minorities and, usually, millions of people, all of them different. Thus, when each is finally freed to follow his own leaders, but only under exterritorial autonomy for their voluntary communities, then numerous experiments can be undertaken freely, at the same time and in the same country. As a result, enlightenment will tend to spread rather rapidly and when it does not, in some of these personal law associations, then the dissenters can freely secede from them and join or establish more successful ones. - In the long run there would be less and less sheep as well as less misleading leaders. - J.Z., 28.10.02. - PANARCHY & LEADERSHIP, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

PEOPLE: Politicians love to declare that the “people have chosen for themselves at the polls.” But the “people” don’t have a mind; only individuals do. – Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom, p.73. – Even today individuals are not given or have established their individual choice of alternative governments and societies but merely “the right to vote”, as one territorial and collectivist voter, with one “free vote” among millions, over all the affairs of millions, indirectly, through “representatives”, but no fundamental vote of all the affairs over the voting individual. To that extent “the free”, territorial and collectivist right to vote is a denial of the right to vote. – J.Z., 26.2.08, 6.1.12. – POLITICIANS, VOTING, PANARCHISM

PEOPLE: Politics always means taking from some and giving to others, says Prof. Tom Di Lorenzo. Only the free market can truly reveal the will of the people.” - FREEDOM NEWS DAILY, 16.12.01. - Only if the free market for competing governments and free societies is included! - J.Z., 29.1.01. - WILL OF THE PEOPLE, PUBLIC OPINION, FREE MARKET, POLITICS, PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENT, SELF-GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY, REPUBLICS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: Restore this nation to the people.” – Dr. Paul T. Hendershot, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 1/77. – But not as a single territorial collective! – J.Z., 10.4.08. – As many “peoples” as there are diverse groups, societies and communities of volunteers! – J.Z., 15.3.09.

PEOPLE: SELF-INTEREST & STUPIDITY: He could not tell them. No one could tell them. Only time, and Mars itself. And in the meantime they would act in obvious contradiction to their own best interests. It happened all the time, but how could it, how? Why were people so stupid? …. How can people act against their own obvious material interests? – Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars, HarperCollinsPublishers, 1992, p. 537. – They can and they do, in many ways and do have the right to do so. Let them do this, at their own risk and expense. That is one of the many ways for them to learn, particularly if they have been brought up immature, in an authoritarian, despotic, tyrannical or even totalitarian system, like children with overly strict parents, in a kind of nation-wide and perpetual kindergarten, run by territorial governments at the federal State and local level. – Instead, we should let them think, choose and act freely in their own interest, in all their own affairs, always within their own and genuine individual rights and liberties in every sphere. Then they will learn from their own experience, their own errors and mistakes, as well as those of others around them, as far and fast as they are capable of learning. Then they would and should enjoy all the negative disincentives and positive incentives of this situation for their own enlightenment towards becoming self-responsible and mature people. – The author partly answers himself [or herself?] on the next page, by saying: “It was a world of acts, and words had no more influence on acts than the sound of a waterfall has on the flow of the stream.” – That is only partly true, an exaggerated statements. The relatively few correct words and ideas do have their influence upon the actions of people, but, all too often, only an influence on a few of them, while the multitude become more or less the victims of an immense number of incorrect terms and false and misleading ideas, for all too long, sometimes for their whole lives. Once full individual freedom to act self-responsibly, ungoverned, independently, within one’s genuine individual rights and liberties, is added to full freedom of expression and information and both options become extensively used, although, initially only by a few pioneers, then the situation will soon change. These pioneers will be very successful and will induce, sooner rather than later, more and more of the others, who are observing them and notice the successes of their methods, to follow these attractive practical examples, rather than the deterrent examples still set by the remaining ignorant or foolish people fools, e.g. some drug addicts or true believers. Panarchism offers them that option. To merely imitate successful actions does not require a high intelligence and great knowledge. There will no longer be any governmental barriers against productive self-improvements, material and mental ones but, instead, high individual rewards for both. – The author also admitted, on page 538: “ … imagination was a powerful force in human life.” - J.Z., 24.1.12, 7.7.12. - LEARNING, ENLIGHTENMENT, FAILURES, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, ERRORS, PREJUDICES, Q., PROFIT, INCENTIVES, DISINCENTIVES, FREE MARKETS, FREE ENTERPRISE, ALL SELF-HELP OPTIONS FOR VOLUNTEERS, LAISSEZ-FAIRE, FREE ENTERPRISE CAPITALISM & SELF-MANAGEMENT OPTIONS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIAL COMPULSIONS, FREEDOM OF CHOICE, ACTION, EXPERIMENTATION, IMITATION

PEOPLE: separating the peoples from the governments …” - Salvador de Madariaga, The Blowing up of the Parthenon, p.59. – Formally, quite openly, as part of well in advance and believably declared quite rightful war- and peace aims and as the platforms for all kinds of governments in exile, set up against any single territorial and totalitarian or dictatorial government. – All individuals must become free to make their own choices regarding the political, economic and social systems they want to become involved with. Any form of government, society or community – as long as it does not claim any territorial monopoly. As ideal alternatives to the present despotic regimes as the suppressed wish for themselves and all of them only for volunteers! – J.Z., 1.7.92, 24.2.08. – PEOPLES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL WHO WANT IT AGAINST TERRITORIAL DESPOTISM, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE – OF ALL KINDS, REALLY REPRESENTING THEIR PRESENT & FUTURE VOLUNTEERS ONLY. SECRET ALLIES, CAPTIVE NATIONS, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION, DES., JIU JITSU

PEOPLE: So far, and in theory, individually and collectively, they almost unanimously agree upon the territorial model, which brought and brings them nothing but problems, while costing them a lot, not only in money but in rights and liberties, health and lives. The territorial system mongers and power addicts do, individually and collectively, ignore, condemn or outlaw the voluntaristic and exterritorial autonomy model of panarchism, which could offer them all the diverse solutions which some to many of them do really want. Only to the extent that they already do have this liberty, are they the “masters” or “creators” of their fate, the cause of their own miseries, mainly caused by their ignorance, prejudices insufficient interest in their own larger affairs and relationships, resulting in multiple large and lasting miseries. So far they are “free” only in xyz minor and private affairs , which the territorial governments still respect. They still have to learn to become genuine masters of their own lives, as far as that is possible for humans, individually and in more or less advanced and enlightened minority groups, by adopting the exterritorial model of individual sovereignty, freedom of action, freedom to experiment, the only model which closes no individual rights and liberty options to them. - J.Z. 1.7.92, 15.1.93, 23.1.12, 7.7.12. – As territorialists all the territorialists do get the territorial governments they do deserve, i.e., inherently totalitarian ones, often only with those "differences" as existed between e.g. the Hitler and the Stalin regimes. I know that some do provide greater differences - but this territorial and as such inherently totalitarian foundation is the same for all of them and most anti-totalitarians remain blind to this fact. - J.Z., 10.12.03, 8.4.08, 6.1.12. – PUBLIC OPINION & GOVERNMENTAL EDUCATION, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTALISM SHEEPLE, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, INDIVIDUAL VS. COLLECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE ENTERPRISE & PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION MENTALITY, SELF-HELP, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY

PEOPLE: So long as we need to control other people, however benign our motives, we are captive to that need. In giving them freedom, we free ourselves.” – Marilyn Ferguson. - Compare the saying: "Every leash has two ends." - PEOPLE CONTROL RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF THE CONTROLLERS AS WELL

PEOPLE: So the government is not the people. The people are the rest of us who are not in government. They’re not us. There is just a group of people out there who call themselves “the government”. – Murray N. Rothbard, in PENTHOUSE interview, 10/76. - And "the" people are really only xyz diverse groups of like-minded people, forcefully “united” under a single government and territorially deprived of genuine self-determination of what they consider to be their own affairs, under the pretence that they do have "the" right to vote, each of them only as one among millions, for "representatives", who would pretend that they would constitute genuine "self-government" for them. The individual personal law and panarchy preferences would mostly differ very much from the territorial legislation and establishment imposed upon them. - Territorial governments treat and abuse, oppress and exploit them as their property, their subjects, their tax slaves, military slaves etc. and do not allow them to secede and set up genuine self-governments and self-managed societies and communities. - Territorial governments treat people as their property, as mere slaves, serfs or subjects, without many of the most important and genuine individual rights and liberties, which remain even undeclared in the governmental bills of rights. - J.Z., 27.1.11, 6.1.12, 25.1.12, 7.7.12. - GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, MANDATE, VOTING.

PEOPLE: Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason that it cannot be alienated. … The deputies of the people, then, are not and cannot be its representatives; they are only its commissioners and can conclude nothing definitely. Every law which the people in person have not ratified is invalid; it is not a law. (*) The English nation thinks that it is free, but is greatly mistaken, for it is free only during the election of members of Parliament; as soon as they are elected, it is enslaved and counts for nothing. The use which it makes of the brief moment of freedom renders the loss of liberty well-deserved.” – Rousseau, Contrat Social, Book III, chapter XV, translated by Tozer, p.187. - - Quoted in: Jacques Maritain, Man & The State, ed. by Richard O’Sullivan, London, Hollis & Carter, 1954, p.42. - - (*) The correct ratification must be done through peaceful individual people, as their own sovereigns, selecting for themselves, together with like-minded people, the kind of political, economic and social system that they do want for themselves or establishing it for themselves if it does not yet exist. – J.Z., 29.9.07, 10.10.07. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, ROUSSEAU’S VIEW, REPRESENTATIVES, DEPUTIES, LAWS, LEGISLATION, VOTING, PARLIAMENTS, POLITICIANS, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, REFERENDUM, PANARCHISM

PEOPLE: the absolute necessity for people to take control over their own lives, and the dismantling and final elimination of state authority over the life of man.” – Jerome Tuccille, Radical Libertarianism, p. 35/36. - Former governments could be rightfully continued as agents for their remaining volunteers, confined to them and to exterritorial autonomy. Only thus could they become rightfully competing governments, as one form of self-government or self-management for sovereign individuals, all of them volunteers, who would still be foolish enough to wish to continue statism. When so confined they would wrong and harm only themselves and, sooner or later, would learn their required lessons from the own costly and risky experiments they chose for themselves contrary to all historical experience with them. - J.Z., 27.1.11. – Any ism for its volunteers, but only exterritorially, i.e. without any territorial monopoly power over dissenters! – J.Z., 7.7.12. -  DIS., STATISM, VOLUNTARY EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIAL COERCION

PEOPLE: The American people are the only animal that can be skinned more than once.” - 19th century Western saying, quoted by William E. Simon, A Time for Action (*), p.77. - The people, collectively, legally and territorially, can be “conned” (deceived) again and again, even for many decades to centuries, e.g. by price controls, "inflation-fighting measures" of governments, their "protectionism", by compulsory unionism, voting methods, representation systems, and election promises, the false-pretences of central banking, of defence by defence departments and of protection by monopoly police forces, of justice by governmental courts etc., while otherwise, as sovereign individual customers and consumers of State services and disservices, free to secede and to combine exterritorially with other but like-minded volunteers, under self-chosen personal law systems, they could and would be almost be bound to learn fast, in most cases, always one by one, from their own mistakes and those of others and that at their own speed. Furthermore, then they could also, immediately or very soon and individually benefit from their own enlightened choices and by their own - quite peaceful and tolerant - "one-man revolutions". Only good restaurants are almost always full or even booked in advance. Only the bad ones are almost deserted and soon go bankrupt. This is as it should be, in every sphere. It is the inevitable result of consumer sovereignty in this limited sphere. Let consumer sovereignty be applied to all public services. - Even to whole political, economic and social systems! - J.Z. 1.7.92, 10.12.03, 13.2.08, 28.1.11, 6.1.12, 25.1.12. - (*) Action? What kind of action? Liberating or further enslaving? Territorial or exterritorial? Tolerant or intolerant? Etc. – J.Z., 23.1.12. - MOBS, VOTING CATTLE, SHEEPLE, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, ONE-MAN REVOLUTIONS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOTING, ENLIGHTENMENT, EDUCATION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EMANCIPATION, FREE CHOICES FOR INDIVIDUALS IN ALL SPHERES.

PEOPLE: The animosities of sovereigns are temporary and may be allayed; but those which seize the whole body of a people, and of a people, too, who dictate their own measures, produced calamities of long duration.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to C. W. F. Dumas, 1786. – Individuals need protection against “the people” as well as against territorial governments. – J.Z., 3.11.85. – At most the majority of the population is involved and a mass of popular errors, myths and prejudices, which tend to last longer than those of individuals, who last, with them, at most for the term of their natural lives. – J.Z., 26.3.08. Their best protection against the State and the majority, which still supports it, would be a) the freedom to opt out, once they realize that one or several of their genuine rights and liberties are still infringed, and b) the freedom to join or establish alternative societies, all of them without a territorial monopoly but with full exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers. These would tend to set, in many cases, better examples of self-management or self-government, so that more and more people would join them as sovereign consumers of services formerly monopolized by territorial governments. Their foreign policies would be very different, too. They would ally themselves with all movements that strive only to achieve exterritorial autonomy for their own volunteers and are thus inherently just, tolerant, peaceful and progressive (at their own speed). Thus their own numbers and that of their allies would multiply and those of their enemies would shrink. However, several international alliances might result, e.g. one of predominantly religious communities, another one of secular societies and one of local militias to uphold genuine individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they are claimed by the members of exterritorially autonomous groups of volunteers. - Bad examples set by some of them, may, like fashions and other fads, spread fast for a while but will not persist for long in the face of free competition from much better societies. -J.Z., 28.1.11, 7.7.12.

PEOPLE: The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.” - George Washington. - Panarchism just replaces "the people" by "individuals" (who are not criminals with involuntary victims). - J.Z., 14.10.02. – Individuals should also be free to choose among a multitude of exterritorially autonomous competing governments, societies and communities that would be offered under full freedom in this sphere. – They should not only be free to try to reform the one they are presently members of. Nor should they be confined to establish only new territorial governments. On the contrary, all territorial States and their governments ought to become dissolved, as inherently despotic. Their statist institutions and policies, laws and regulations could then be continued, at least of a while only among all their remaining diverse volunteers, provided they are rational, moral and tolerant enough to be satisfied with that, i.e. to no longer try to force their statist preferences upon dissenters. Hopefully, their numbers and statist convictions will then tend to shrink fast but, anyhow, only they will have to suffer under their beliefs and corresponding “actions”. – J.Z., 7.3.09, 28.1.11, 6.1.12, 7.6.12. - SELF-GOVERNMENT, RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONALISM, CHOICE OF GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY UNDER EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL ISMS

PEOPLE: The common people suffer when the powerful disagree.” – Phaedrus, Famulae Aesopiae, c. 40. -  Let the powerful “suffer”, at least the loss of power over peaceful dissenters, whenever “the people” disagree or minorities and individuals among them do and thus secede from the power addicts and their voluntary victims and establish competing alternative societies, communities and governance systems to them, among themselves, in all the varieties that they do prefer for themselves. – J.Z., 31.11.85. 10.7.86, 26.3.08, 6.1.12, 7.7.12. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry - Let each of constitution of peaceful volunteers compete freely and exterritorially with those of others. There is no moral or rational reason to impose a single territorial constitution upon all of the diverse peoples that make up the population of every country. They were only established and maintained for the convenience of territorial power addicts, who, unfortunately, found all too many voluntary victims, for all too long. We cannot afford any nuclear powers and any nuclear targets any longer and the continued application of collective responsibility notions to innocent people, who would rather be peaceful secessionists and do their own things among themselves. - J.Z., 28.1.11. - CONSTITUTIONALISM, GOVERNMENT & POWER, EXTERRITORIAL CONSTITUTIONALISM FOR VOLUNTEERS ONLY.

PEOPLE: The core of the cold war is not capitalist versus socialist, but the question, who is the oppressor of the masses? (*) Whoever believes that the common people have as much right as the elite, and is willing to fight against injustices and indignities to them, will win in the end.” – Lin Yutang, Memorial, READER’S DIGEST, 1976. - - (*) Who or what? Three instances, the postal monopoly, monetary despotism and protectionism – do indicate that it is not a matter of persons but of beliefs, errors, prejudices, laws, systems, methods and all too legalized and enforced institutions. – J.Z., 21.2.08. - Let all INDIVIDUAL people become free to choose for themselves the kind of oppressor, exploiter or liberator they wish for themselves. The number of serious dissenters, opponents, revolutionaries and "freedom fighters" as well as terrorists would then be greatly reduced, perhaps even close to zero. - Each party or movement would then be free to rule over all its supporters, as long as it has any. What rightful complaints could they still have then? - They might all become almost as peaceful and tolerant as e.g. spoon and stamp collectors are. - J.Z., 28.1.11, 6.1.12. - ELITE, MASSES, RULERS, OPPRESSION, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, RIGHTS, INJUSTICE, DIS., TERRITOIRALISM

PEOPLE: The fact is that the people do not really need a government at all.” – GOOD GOVERNMENT. Date? Author? Alas, not noted by me. – Obviously, all States, governments and politicians need people to function, or rather malfunction, as territorial governments. – If all of them would be confined to volunteers only and also to personal laws and exterritorial autonomy, they would not be so bad, or wrongful and harmful as they are now under territorialism, with its numerous diverse and involuntary victims. - J.Z., 27.2.08, 28.1.11, 6.1.12, 7.7.12.

PEOPLE: the flock that submits and always obeys whoever is in command.” - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, p.134. – Almost always! – J.Z. – Under territorialism there are, after all, violent revolutions, civil wars, putsches, military uprisings, terrorist acts, because under it there will always be dissenters and dissatisfied people, not only volunteers. - J.Z., 28.1.11. – A uniform and territorial people is and remains a mere fiction upheld in the interest of the ruling or aspiring power addicts. – J.Z., 7.7.12. - OBEDIENCE, SUBMISSION

PEOPLE: The Fundamental Rule Of The English Constitution, … namely that All Law must spring from the people, and be administered by the people.” – J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-government and Centralization, p.21. – The “people” is here still meant all too locally and territorially. Consistent voluntary associations and communities, with different methods, aims, personal laws and institutions are not involved, but merely local or geographical ones. But persons conscripted or otherwise forced to join a local government or to become subjected to its laws, whether they agree with them or not, do still not form a genuine “community” i.e., one of volunteers. As territorialists they are morally and practically inferior to stamp or coin collectors. They might, instead, constitute e.g. a local and dissenting racial, religious, political or ideological dissenting minority, which should also have the right to self-government or full exterritorial autonomy. Forcing them under one local government would also be only a parody of true self-government, consent, mandate or representation. People, who are not volunteers, are not “one people”. They can well be several peoples, at least two, a dozen or even more different ones, with many to most of them wishing to preserve their separate identity, just like e.g. footballers, tennis players and cricketers want to preserve theirs, or members of various nationalities or religions in foreign countries. Last Sunday we had in Mittagong, N.S.W., a festival for local Scotsmen. All kinds of visitors were welcomed – if they paid their way. They had hired a sufficiently large field for their displays. They, just like the already recognized numerous other voluntary associations and organizations, jazz, chess, table tennis and basket ball clubs, do have the right to make their own constitutions, rules and institutions and to have their own judges or referee or arbitration or jury systems. Those, who want to associate on a territorial basis ought to be free, too, do so but not free to claim a territorial monopoly over all local inhabitants but just a united organization for all their volunteers living in a territory. Likewise the various internationalists, federalists and cosmopolitans: They, too, could at most, if that is conceded to them by their voluntary members, claim a collective sovereignty only over these members. Numerous other associations and clubs and organizations manage to do that, without getting into conflicts with each other, as long as they do not, e.g., as some trade unions do, claim a monopoly for certain jobs, trades or professions for their members. – J.Z., 30.6.92, 18.2.08, 7.7.12. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, CONSTITUTIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: The Government of the United States (or of France or Russia or any other nation over a significant period of time) will be and do whatever most of the voters want or will tolerate. No mechanistic scheme or written document can ever for long prevent the effective minority (usually called the majority) of a people from doing whatever it is they want to do.” – Dean Russell, THE FREEMAN, 12/73. - As if we had not had and still have some despotic, tyrannical and even totalitarian regimes imposed upon numerous dissenters for all too long. During the last century they murdered over 200 million people. Should we console ourselves with the thought that these victims were merely not "effective" enough? - Any existing wrong or nonsense will find those, who excuse it or simply accept it as inevitable. I regret that even Dean Russel did this, here. - J.Z., 28.1.11. - DIS.

PEOPLE: the greatest good for the greatest number, which ought to be fairly simply to arrange, if people were not so trapped in emotions, religions, governments and other mass delusional systems of that sort.” – Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, p.85. – Why should only the greatest number in a territory get what they want in the form of political, economic and social systems? As consumers for ordinary consumer goods and services they do already have individual choice. Why not also such free choice for all services now territorially monopolized by Federal, State and Local governments and their constitutions, laws and institutions? – Admittedly, presently they are trapped still, by territorialism. - J.Z., 11.9.07. 28.1.11. - EMOTIONS, RELIGIONS, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, DELUSIONAL SYSTEMS, THE UNIFORMITY SPLEEN, PUBLIC INTEREST, COMMON INTEREST, MAJORITIES, DEMOCRACY, PEOPLE TRAPS, FULLY FREE COMPETITION ALSO AGAINST ANY TERRITORIAL MONOPOLISM, Q.

PEOPLE: The insistent requirements of insatiable governments have reduced the people to tenant status that trembles at mention of another rise in their liability.” – I. R. Ybarra, in Fred Woodworth’s THE MATCH. (6/75? 78? 70? – My handwriting! – J.Z.) - The population in any territory vastly outnumbers its feudal landlords and could easily make them tremble, if they wanted to. Instead, they could and should peacefully secede and then each of its diverse groups could peacefully do its own things. They need only revolutionize their knowledge, ideas and opinions. - J.Z., 28.1.11. – Landlords should be come free to issue and accept their own kind of rent money or clearing certificates, while tenants should be free to refuse or discount such alternative monies and offer to pay the agreed-upon rent, expressed in an agreed-upon value standard in their own kinds of clearing certificates, at their market rate and redeemable only in whatever wanted consumer goods, services and labor they have to offer. That, too, would greatly improve the relationships between landlords and tenants. Both would no longer be dependent upon monetary despotism, its monopoly, coercion, inflations, deflations and stagflations and general economic crises. – J.Z., 7.7.12. - TENANTS, LANDLORDS, TERRITORIALISM, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, SERFDOM, FEUDALISM, MONETARY FREEDOM VS. MONETARY DESPOTISM

PEOPLE: The majority of them were … those who have been obeying since the beginning of the world, the doormats of every power, the tools of all ambition, …” - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, p.310. - It is enough for determined minorities to secede and set attractive examples when doing their own things exterritorially. The majority, with all its remaining factions, is bound to sooner or later follow the best examples set by the first pioneers, always one by one, at their own speed, in accordance with their degree of enlightenment. - J.Z., 28.1.11. - ENLIGHTENMENT OF PUBLIC OPINION, GRADUALLY, THROUGH FULL EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

PEOPLE: The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.” – U.S. Senator William Borah – As voluntary members of panarchies, free also to secede from them, they would not put up with taxes in their panarchy which they consider to be wrong or excessive. – Diverse forms of voluntary taxation would inevitably result. – J.Z., 7.3.09. - TAXES & LAWS, PATIENCE, SUBMISSION, PASSIVITY, STATISM

PEOPLE: The masses of the people resemble a wild beast, which, naturally fierce, and accustomed to live in the woods, has been brought up, as it were, in a prison, and having by accident got its liberty, not being accustomed to search for its good, and not knowing where to conceal itself, easily becomes the prey of the first who seeks to incarcerate it again.” – Nicolò Machiavelli, The Prince, iv, 1513. – Let the few dissenters do their own things among themselves. The others will gradually or even soon learn from their examples. – J.Z., 0.7.86, 26.3.08. - REVOLUTIONS, LIBERATION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: The nations (peoples) do not rebel, they submit. There are only rebellious tyrannies. – C. V. Volney, Die Ruinen, p.73. – (“Die Nationen empoeren sich nicht; es gibt nur rebellische Tyrannen.“) - This is the possible and even likely result under territorialism. But once the first reformers, innovators and pioneers are free to do their own things among themselves, at their own risk and expense, their successful examples will be followed by more and more of the rest of the people. Almost all other progress in every other sphere field advances in this way. Let us break the remaining immoral and irrational territorial barriers against this free development. - J.Z., 28.1.11, 7.7.12. - REVOLUTIONS, REBELLIONS, TYRANNIES, OBEDIENCE, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, TOWARDS EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS. DIS.

PEOPLE: The origin of all power is in the people, and … they have an incontestable right to check the creatures of their own creation.” – Mercy Warren, 1788. – But they have to be organized for this, not only by elections, recalls and referendum, juries and free media – but voluntary membership, exterritorial autonomy for volunteers and by a proper militia for the protection of all genuined individual rights and liberties, to the extent that these are already recognized and claimed by communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 28.3.80, 7.7.12. - Most importantly, by sorting themselves out, individually, into the kind of societies, communities, systems and institutions, which their volunteers do do really want for themselves and within which they can freely practise their beliefs or convictions, voluntarily, tolerantly, peacefully, among themselves, at their own risk and expense, without any territorial monopoly for their societies etc. – One territorial “suit”, “dress” or “shoe” does not fit the whole population of a territory. – J.Z., 27.2.08, 28.1.11. - POWER, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, FREE CHOICE OF INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT OR SOCIETY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY & FREE ENTERPRISE IN EVERY SPHERE, EVEN FOR THE MULTITUDE OF VARIOUS STATISTS – TO DO THEIR THINGS TO THEMSELVES.

PEOPLE: The people - that great beast!” - Alexander Hamilton. - Only when coercively kept in great cages, called nation-states, and treated like a mob, one that can effectively act only as a mass, i.e., mindlessly or more or less misled and misrepresented. - [How often have they let themselves be used and abused as cannon fodder without any rightful war aims being declared by their rulers and wrongful war aims being pursued by their in this respect quite despotic rulers, with many human sacrifices to obtain them? "Glory" and medals do hardly make up for these great wrongs, risks and losses. - J.Z., 6.1.12, 7.7.12.] Let individuals and their voluntary groups opt out and do their own things for and to themselves - and we will come to see many rightful and sensible actions by them, not only internally wrongful and harmful ones. Only then, voluntarily, autonomously and exterritorially, under personal constitutions, laws, administrations, jurisdictions etc., will the rightful and sensible forms of organization and actions tend to spread widely and fast. - J.Z., 13.10.02, 28.1.11, 6.1.12. – NATION STATES, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, DIS.

PEOPLE: the people accept or submit or adjust.” - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, p.10. – We can only rely on the few moral, thoughtful and active individuals among them. – And so far these are not free to do their own things for themselves, under any territorial system, free to set attractive examples for others. - J.Z., 16.9.82, 26.2.08, 6.1.12, 7.7.12.

PEOPLE: The people are a genuine people only when every member or subject, apart from children, madmen and criminals, is a volunteer. - J.Z., 30.6.92. – VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL VS. TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY OF RULERS


PEOPLE: The people are a many-headed beast.” – Alexander Pope: The First Epistle of the First Book of Horace. – Quoted in Seldes. - Territorialism and militarism can, certainly, turn them into beasts. When individuals are quite free to sort themselves out, with each group of volunteers free to do the own things, at the own expense and risk, we would finally see how peaceful, tolerant, civilized and progressive at first some and then more and more people can be. Territorialism preserved all too much authoritarianism, tyranny, monopolism, corruption and exploitation, even barbarism in all too many spheres. - J.Z., 28.1.11, 7.7.12. - HUMAN NATURE, IS MAN BASICALLY AGGRESSIVE OR PEACEFUL? DIS.

PEOPLE: The people are deceived through names, not through things.” – James Harrington. (J.Z. tr. of: “Das Volk wird durch Namen betrogen, nicht durch Dinge.” - The people require visual and not conceptual truths. – Rivarol - („Das Volk bedarf anschaulicher und nicht begrifflicher Wahrheiten.“) – Let pioneers set practical examples of what liberties and rights can achieve as volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy, beginning with their free individual and group secessions. The rest of the population will sooner or later follow their examples, at their own speed, in their own communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 28.1.11, 7.7.12. - NAMES, WORDS, TERMS, DEFINITIONS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES, PANARCHISM

PEOPLE: The People are free. It’s the proudest boast. Any of them can tell you that freedom is what makes them People and not fraki. The people are free to roam the Stars, never rooted to any soil. …” - Robert Heinlein, Citizen of the Galaxy, inside cover. – They should be free to migrate and to immigrate, also to settle, anywhere, without expropriating or dominating any other reasonable beings, always under their own personal law and exterritorially autonomous institutions. Unless they prefer to almost permanent travel, like many elderly couples do now, with their caravans. - J.Z., 28.1.11. - FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM

PEOPLE: The people are the very substance, the living and free substance, of the body politic. The people are above the State. The people are not for the State. The State is for the people.” – Jacques Maritain, Man & The State, ed. by Richard O’Sullivan, London, Hollis & Carter, 1954, p.23. - Where are “the people” free? Where are they above the territorial State rather than under it? As involuntary taxpayers or tribute slaves they are the feed of the territorial State as a beast of prey, or Moloch of the ancient cult, demanding human sacrifices. Where is the territorial State for the people rather than against the people? Moreover, who or what are “the people”? Certainly not simply all the inhabitants of a certain territory. For they are split among themselves in a thousand different ways, not only as members of races, religions, but according to individual physical and mental abilities, interests, inclinations, errors, prejudices, ideas, consumer preferences, hopes and aspirations. No two of them are quite the same – and only their voluntary associations and communities should count – for themselves - and they would and should be of no interest as a threat to others. With all individual people free to pick and choose their own paths and associations and personal law systems, to proceed freely under them, i.e. under their own rules, and being given no votes at all on the lives of the people in other communities of volunteers, all of them being exterritorially autonomous, the motives and reasons for arguments and conflicts become minimized. They could peacefully coexist, just like different sports teams or players, all playing their own games, quite independently and placing their own bets. Trying to bring them all together, constitutionally, legally and juridically, under one supposed ideal for all, does merely multiply internal and external conflict, as we have seen for centuries e.g. in the sphere of religion, also in politics and in ideological clashes. – Political, social and economic system-mongering and unification attempts aren’t any better than coercive religious unification attempts have been and still are – The unified and strong territorial State, as well as "the people”, are merely unrealistic abstracts and mere propaganda concepts, which allow the territorial rulers, all of them power addicts and as such mad, to continue with the false pretences of choice, consent, mandate, representation and "free" voting, of one territorially united and single people. It is the territorial and “unified” State that is against many to most of the people, or, rather, population, in all its varieties, living in any territory. Essentially, it is even the main enemy of the majority or the fluctuating majorities, since it involves its members, quite unnecessarily and without justification, in permanent and costly struggles with numerous groups of dissenters. Just think of how much the war against drugs and the war against terrorism costs them now and the whole bureaucratic territorial machine. – Think of the costs of protectionism, often only for a small minority of producers and at the expense of the majority of the consumers, but upheld by majorities, influenced by misleading propaganda slogans. Think of the total tax burden, the bureaucracy and its regulations as additional and unjustified burdens, which we cannot freely shed via individual and group secessions. Even the mere levying process of compulsory taxes costs them enormously. Add your own favorite examples. – Territorial States cannot work for ALL the people in its territory. Panarchies can and let the diverse people sort themselves out into exterritorially autonomous affinity groups, all doing their own things, independently. – J.Z., 29.9.07, 11.3.09, 6.1.12, 7.7.12. – Q., STATE DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

PEOPLE: The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.” – John Locke, "A Treatise Concerning Civil Government." - Alas, they did, again and again and still do! Is any territorial government really civil or civilized? - Not too much should be delegated, certainly not the practice of basic individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. – Q., PEOPLE VS. GOVERNMENTS & THEIR POWERS.

PEOPLE: The people give themselves an insane government with insane policies.” - Barry B. Longyear, Sea of Glass, p.306. - Only as long as individuals and minorities are not free to opt out to do their own things and thus set not only as bad or worse but also some better examples. - J.Z., 22.1.02, 7.7.12. - GOVERNMENT, POLICIES, DEMOCRACY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVISM, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, MAJORITY, VOTING, REPRESENTATION, DECISION-MAKING, STUPIDITY, PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS OR SOCIETIES FOR INDIVIDUALS

PEOPLE: The people is a dangerous fiction – until this term is finally confined to the members of communities of volunteers only. – J.Z., 28.9.93. - VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW COMMUNITIES, NATIONS, POPULATIONS, UNITY, STATES

PEOPLE: The people is a great beast.” – Alexander Hamilton. – The same could be said about its leaders or those aspiring to become its leaders. – J.Z., 26.3.08. – Are there worse beasts of prey than territorial governments? – J.Z., 14.4.08. – Territorial governments are the largest and most dangerous, murderous and destructive beasts of prey. – J.Z., 15.3.09. - Q.

propagandized, lied to,

PEOPLE: The people of today are as peaceful as they ever will be, but still there are hangmen at the helm of the state. The warmongers of our time do not thunder from shaggy horses - they are doctors of philosophy like Mao, theologians like Stalin, schoolteachers like Mussolini, painters like Hitler, or jolly organizers like Khrushchev. But they have bled to death more men and women than the malefactors of all the past generations put together.” - D. Runes, "A Dictionary of Thought". - Most of the people are peaceful enough. They have to be propagandized, lied to, conscripted, disciplined, and taxed into wars. Military training of conscripts has been turned into an effective science or technology. It can turn even peaceful clerks into obedient, effective and aggressive soldiers, after a while. Most of their territorial, coercive, uniform, monopolistic and centralized or federated political institutions are not inherently peaceful but war promoting, suppressive, exploitative and aggressive. They are, largely, Warfare States and they are open to and standing invitations to takeovers by the worst kinds of criminals the power addicts, those, who are even power-mad. - J.Z., 26.7.92, 8.1.93, 6.1.12, 23.1.12, 7.7.12. – TERRITORIALISM, POWER-ADDICTION & POWER MADNESS, PEACE, WAR, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

PEOPLE: The people vote for those who tell them lies! The people vote for those who make fun of them! The people vote for those who spend billions to get elected with fireworks and pigeons! The people want to be slaves, they like to be slaves, they like it!” - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, p.313. – True for all too many people and for all too long periods. All the more it is important to let all dissenters have full exterritorial autonomy for their kinds of societies and communities, after they seceded from the territorial State. - There are always dissenters - our only hope! - J.Z., 28.1.11. - DIS., POLITICIANS, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, LEADERSHIP

PEOPLE: The people who own the country ought to govern it.” - Attributed to John Jay. - Frank Monaghan, John Jay, chapter 15, p. 323 (1935). According to Monaghan, this "was one of his favorite maxims." Unverified in the writings of Jay, although the essence of this is expressed in several passages. - Do "the" people rightfully and exclusively own any country, like one can rightfully own private, cooperative or partnership property? – What are then the “property rights” of e.g. the tenants, compared with those of the land lords? – Is the collectivist property, on the largest scale, any genuine property, including control by the individual owners? Or are only merely collectivist and State socialist fictions involved, even when held by anti-communists? - J.Z., 11.10.02, 7.7.12. - Let us privatize and voluntarize or individualize "nations", "countries", "peoples" and States! - J.Z., 24.11.02, 7.7.12. – The individuals in a country can rightfully own and control only their own properties, not the properties of the other owners in the country. Mostly they have even different opinions on how their own properties are to be used. Politicians can at most only represent their own followers, not the rest of the population. “The people” should become dissolved or replaced by communities of volunteers, all of them without a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 7.3.09, 6.1.12. – PANARCHISM, POPULATION, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, COMPETING SOCIETIES, COUNTRIES, OWNERSHIP, NATIONS, GOVERNMENT, SELF-GOVERNMENT, COLLECTIVISM, NATIONALIZATION, Q.

PEOPLE: The people will not rise to greater height before they have fully realized the depth of their decline.” – French historian Edgar Quinet, quoted by Rudolf Rocker in epilogue to his Nationalism and Culture, p. 554. - "The people" are a myth. Only individuals can improve, remain the same or deteriorate. Let volunteers experiment among themselves with all their spleens but also with their good ideas. Via experimental freedom for all, in the average or balance, progress and more liberty, justice, peace, prosperity, enlightenment, tolerance and harmony or peaceful coexistence will be thus assured - and also less taxes or no more compulsory ones. - J.Z., 28.1.11, 7.7.12. - DIS.

PEOPLE: The people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.” - Daniel Webster. - That is realized, practicable, just and peaceful only through the panarchic, polyarchic or exterritorial and voluntary framework. - J.Z., 11.10.02, 6.1.12. - Peoples are not a unified territorial entity but self-selected voluntary associations with exterritorial autonomy powers only over their voluntary members. Then they are genuine entities through the power of a common attraction, ideal or ideology. Territorial “peoples” are among the myths of despotism and tyranny. - J.Z., 24.11.02, 7.7.12. – In all the latter cases one should not speak of the people but, rather, of the population of a country, which, usually, is very diverse. Not even twins are quite alike. – Until cloning of humans is perfected, no two individuals are quite alike. - J.Z., 7.3.09, 7.7.12. - The "territorial imperative" is a myth for human beings. The "exterritorial imperative" is not a myth but indicates useful historical experiences of many and a great and practicable promise for our future. It is the main rightful change required for our political, economic and social systems, ending their inherently wrongful and despotic territorial forms. - J.Z., 6.1.12, 7.7.12. - & GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, CHOICE, SELF-DETERMINAT