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 - Q

(1973 - 2012)



Q & A: Why didn't panarchism automatically and fast spread from its first historical beginnings? FILENAME? Compare the correspondence with RCBJ & WHY? - A long and still unedited compilation of attempted answers to this question. Available upon request as an email attachment from me, in the interest of furthering more discussion on this question. - JZ, 11.8.05. – Available only IF I can find it in a mass of files, still not sufficiently assembled, ordered, named and accessible on this computer via a search engine as I had on my previous computer. But that historical riddle must become solved as well. – How many other truths are there, already ancient but not yet generally recognized? - JZ, 19.7.12.


QUANG, ROLAND HIAO-HI: 1904-, Essai sur le regime des capitulations en Chine, Paris, Librarie du Rucueil Sirey, 1933, 419pp. (Ann Arbor)

QUANGOs: QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: They perform similar functions to governments, e.g. the UN and the International Court at The Hague.  Frey says there are now at least 350 of them with more than 100 000 employees.  The Yearbook of International Organizations lists even more than 1000.  Alas, they represent governments rather than private volunteers. But none of them are territorial bodies and they do enjoy a considerable autonomy. QUANGOs rule exterritorially insofar as they pick and choose their victims among the whole population only in certain trades or professions or regarding particular consumer goods. Thus their rules do not apply territorially to whole populations. Instances: Egg Board, Wheat Board. But they are like territorial States in that each of them, rule everyone in a whole country, who belongs into their defined category. No voluntarism is involved and no secession from them is allowed. Thus all of them are at least morally disqualified. – JZ, 10.7.86, 19.9.08. – TERRITORIALISM, LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHOLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE, EXTERRITORIALISM, QUASI-AUTONOMOUS NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, BOARDS, BUREAUCRACY

QUEEN: The Queen does not want compulsory subjects but only voluntary ones, criminals with victims and other aggressors excepted. – JZ, 30.7.98. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, MONARCHISM

QUESTIONS: There are bogus questions and real questions. Politicians allow us only to decide on bogus or trivial questions not on real and important ones. For instance, whether Australia should become a republic or remain a part of the British Commonwealth, with the Queen as its figure-head and her Governor General as her representative for Australia. What annoys the ruling politicians is that in the Governor General there exists a constitutional counter-force against their excesses. An Australian federal government can be recalled by the Governor General and that does not suit the Australian power addicts among the politicians. They want to monopolize e.g. the call for another election. The dismissal of the Whitlam regime was a classical case for a Governor General. It was confirmed by the landslide victory of the opposition party in the election that followed that recall. For the dismissed it was a bitter pill to swallow. They were all power addicts. “Maintain your rage!” said the recalled Whitlam. How many other Australians were enraged about his recall? Even for individualist anarchists and panarchists like me the Governor General is at least one safety valve for the Australian people against governmental power abuses. Not a sufficient or quite satisfactory one, but one worthwhile, until we can secede from any territorial government like from a church, sect or football club. – Naturally, a government so dismissed for all of the people of Australia should have the right to continue ruling over its remaining voluntary followers. But that solution did not occur to the dismissed ALP government. It and the major opposition party, the Liberal Party, continued to think and rule only in territorial terms. – They do not know and appreciate anything better. – JZ, 24.6.91, 29.4.08. – The initiative for a referendum should, as a rule, come from the ruled people themselves and these, ideally, should all be volunteers only. – No referendum in a territorial State should be allowed to infringe genuine individual rights and liberties even further. But all should be allowed to extend them as much as they want to. – In all communities of volunteers it would be up to their volunteers to what extent they wish to apply all these rights among themselves. They would have to respect them only in the members of other communities of volunteers, to the extent that these do recognize them. - JZ, 28.1.12. - AUSTRALIA A REPUBLIC? REFERENDUM, GOVERNOR GENERAL, PANARCHISM, REPUBLICANISM, DEMOCRACY, COMMONWEALTH, QUEEN, MONARCHY

QUESTIONS: Who will be or should be the next President or Prime Minister? Who will be or should be the next party leader? Who will or should win the next election? The right questions to ask should rather be: Should there be a President or Prime Minister for all the people in a territory? Should there be a party struggle for territorial domination? – JZ, 30.4.08. – See the appended lists of Questions, in brown and green.

QUIGLEY, H. S., (Prof.?): Chinese Politics and Foreign Powers. Bibliography on Extraterritoriality, pp.94-96.

QUIGLEY: Prof., (H.S.?): Exterritoriality in China, AMERICAN J. OF INTERN. LAW, Jan. 1926, vol. XX, pp.46-68.

QUITTERS: Too many people quit in the pursuit of a worthy aim before they have even seriously begun. They turn the idea and the remaining opportunities down and do not even attempt to create new opportunities. On the other hand, in quitting from territorial and coercive organizations, whenever and wherever this is already possible, and even in merely exploring this freedom, we prepare ourselves for many of the possible and the desirable answers. Under this freedom, fully realized, even failed utopian attempts will have their lessons to tell. – JZ, 1.1.77, 30.4.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PERSISTENCE, COURAGE, REFORMS, REVOLUTIONS, RESISTANCE

QUITTING: The right to quit and the right to start are basic aspects of the right to life. – Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, XI. – More completely he expressed himself on page 155: “The right to quit is fully as important as the right to start. To deny any man either of these rights is to deny him his right to life. It is to freeze him into his position regardless of how ill-chosen it might be and to erect a barrier to opportunities irrespective of the wonderful promises they may hold. It is to immobilize and stop the growth of an erstwhile living human being. Making things out of humans is inhuman!” - Alas, he never applied this right to whole political, economic and social systems, i.e. to his kind of supposedly ideal “limited government” as well, still a territorial one, under the illusion that it would be possible, some day, merely by educational methods, to convince all or the majority of statists at once, that it could be their ideal as well. He did not stand up for the right of libertarians to separate themselves, non-territorially, from the statists and that of the statists to separate themselves, non-territorially, from the libertarians. But that was just one mistake in an otherwise very creative and effective life. Nobody is perfect. – At least in the monetary sphere he favored, in short and very general terms, full experimental freedom. - JZ, 30.4.08. – INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PANARCHISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

QUITTING: We need freedom for quitters. – JZ, 2.1.77. - It is as important and rightful as freedom for joiners. – JZ, 29.4.08. – But it is not correct to give and quit prematurely, before one has tried out all likely possibilities – if a case is really worthwhile. – JZ, 27.3.09. - VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, DISASSOCIATION, WITHDRAWAL

QUORUM: Enough people to start the quarrel.” – Anon. – A feature of authoritarian, centralized and monopolized decision-making – instead of letting dissenters go their own way, at the own expense and risk. That is already the usual way for shareholders who are free to sell their shares in the open market and invest the returns otherwise, as soon as they are dissatisfied with management decisions based on the approval of most other shareholders. – JZ, n.d. - Thus a number of people have already proposed exterritorially autonomous societies of shareholders, although most of them are not explicit about their inevitably exterritorial and, inherently, also cosmopolitan nature. - JZ, 19.2.11. - VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, MAJORITIES, MINORITIES, DECISION-MAKING, DEMOCRACY, SHAREHOLDER SOCIETIES, EXTERRITORIALISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, TERRITORIALISM, FACTIONALISM, PARTIES



[Home] [Top]