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 - X - Y - Z

(1973 - 2012)





YEAGER, WAYNE B., Letter of 26.12.90 & leaflet on the book: ABOVE THE LAW, The Complete Guide to Obtaining Diplomatic Immunity, 2pp, 182, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051. - I will not fiche this book since it is copyrighted and because I doubt that anyone can today quite legally and effectively acquire diplomatic immunity, outside of the sphere of territorial governments. - J.Z., 3.9.04, 28.8.12.

YOORS, JAN: The Gypsies, Simon Schuster, N.Y., 1967. JZL. - The author lived from the age of 12 for many years among the gypsies and reports on this experience. From the introduction rear cover: "... this race of strangers who have lived among us for centuries and remained apart."

YOUNG: They are the young caught in dead ends.” – Miles Carpenter. – We all are, young and old, caught in many dead ends, public opinion, majority rule, minority rule, political means, military power games, taxation, command economies, avalanches of laws, legions of bureaucrats, in a word, in territorialism: nation-wide prisons ruled by people unwilling to learn from history and from their own mistakes repeating the mistakes of history. Let’s reverse direction by allowing individuals and minority groups to opt out and do their own things for or to themselves, at their own risk and expense, regardless of the other sheep or lemmings. – J.Z., 7.4.77, 17.4.11 – Experimental freedom for all, whether young, old or middle aged. Panarchism for all, even for the remaining statists. No more but also no less. – Tolerance for all who are tolerant enough. – J.Z., 8.9.08.

YOURSELF: Be yourself and let them be themselves. – J.Z., 5/73, after reading IPA FACTS, 12/68: “If men would recognize the imperative need of others to be themselves, to be different, perhaps many of the ills of the world would vanish.” – No “perhaps” about it! Not only many but most! – J.Z., 5/73. – TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL.

YOURSELF: Give yourself a chance.” – George Boardman. – Find out about all your individual rights and liberties and then use them for yourself. – J.Z., 8.9.08. - CHANCE, OPPORTUNITY, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, HUMAN RIGHTS

YOURSELF: Speak for yourself, act for yourself, be yourself. – J.Z., 74.

YOUTH: I do beseech you to direct your efforts more to preparing youth for the path and less to preparing the path for the youth.” – Judge Ben Lindsay. – As if there could be only one path for it and is if they should not be free to choose their own path. – How can one prepare anyone for the avalanches of laws and regulations and all the bureaucratic institutions of today? But one should certainly open up a way for them to opt out from under all of them. – J.Z., 8.9.08. - EDUCATION, CHOICE, SELF-RELIANCE, SCHOOLS, WELFARE, PATERNALISM

ZELKO, BILL: Letter to Constitutional Revival, I June 79, 1p, on Jury Trial, 114, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZERO AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE ZAP: We want a society based on the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP). - Brad Spangler

ZERO GOVERNMENT: Fill all thrones and presidential chairs with – nobody! – At least as far as territorial regimes are concerned. - Unless you haven’t got your fill as yet. Then place them only on your neck and shoulders, but even then deprived of their territorial monopoly. – However, under the exterritorial autonomy of panarchism and personal laws you can put any kind of government – above yourself, at your own risk and expense, until you have finally learnt your lesson. – Zero Government only for those who do not want any for themselves. - J.Z., 3.10.74, 8.9.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE

ZERO GOVERNMENT: Naught was only lately invented and so was Zero Government. – D.Z., 10.5.74. - What we really need is only zero territorial government. - J.Z., 17.4.11.

ZERO GOVERNMENT: Zero government or self-responsibility for all those who want it and also Total Government for all its voluntary victims. – J.Z., 74. - TOTALITARIANISM, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE IN GOVERNMENTS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS, ANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM

ZERO GOVERNMENT: Zero governments to those who want none. All forms of governments to those, who want them only over themselves. – J.Z., 9.11.97, 8.9.08. – PANARCHISM

ZIMMERLING, D.: Die Hanse, Handelsmacht im Zeichen der Kogge, Econ Verlag, Duesseldorf - Wien, 1976, indexed, with bibliography, 400 S., JZL. - The Hanseatic League was a mercantile and largely exterritorially autonomous community, with its own armed forces. Alas, it strove not only to uphold and extend its autonomy but also to achieve and keep monopolies. Maybe it would still exist if it had not and would then have found many imitators, rather than provoking and producing many enemies. – But, as Ulrich von Beckerath pointed out to me, as a private association it was powerful enough to declare and win wars against some pirate-like kings. - J.Z., 3.9.04, 28.8.12.

ZIONISM: I’m pro-Jews but anti-Zionists, to the extent that Zionism expresses a territorial nationalism and racism. No territorial nationalism or racism at all – not even a Jewish one - is justified, no more so than it is for any Nazi or Soviet or other authoritarian territorialist creed. – J.Z., 27.3.89, 8.9.08. - ISRAEL, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

ZIONISM: Q.:What is Zionism? A.: When one Jew instructs another to collect money from a third to send to a fourth to Palestine.” – Benton/Loomes: Big Red Joke Book, p.77. - - Another answer:  A New Yorker who pays someone else to live in Israel.” – Leonard Klein. – I read in some Jewish writer the observation that no Jew had ever asserted that there was a religious duty for all Jews to go and live in Israel. And even the Zionist territorial nationals do not insist that their overseas donors all move to Israel themselves. Israel was a belated re-colonization attempt, at a time when colonialism went out of fashion. - If it is correct that all of mankind originated in Africa, should then all the people living in a Diaspora, away from Africa, engage in a re-colonization of Africa? - - Jews will do much more good, as above average intelligent people, spread all over the world, to stay where they are and spread whatever knowledge and wisdom they do possess and can and want to spread. They should not expose themselves to the threat of total extermination by moving to a small country at an age of mass extermination devices and all too much pervasive territorial nationalism and fanaticism. – J.Z., 8.9.08. – JEWS, JOKES, ISRAEL, TERRITORIALISM, CHARITY, FOREIGN AID, NATIONALISM

ZORN, KONRAD, DR.: Die Konsulargesetzgebung des Deutschen Reiches. (The Legislation on Consular Jurisdiction of the German Empire.), 3rd. ed., Berlin, 1911, Guttentag Verlagsbuchhandlung, text edition with notes & index, 594pp, indexed. - JZL.

ZUBE, JOHN, & BECKERATH, ULRICH VON, E. M. L./Z./S.: Draft of a New Declaration of those Human Rights and Natural Rights of Rational Beings which were so far discovered, by E. M. L./ Z.; S.; U. v. Beckerath & JZ, in PP 4 & page 43, also in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

ZUBE, JOHN, & FOLDVARY, FRED: Sketches extracted from letters, June 25 & July 18, 1986(?), 35, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, & K. R., extracts from correspondence: 22 Aug. 85, 15 Dec. 85, 27 Jan. 86, 15 March 86, 7 Apr. 86, 24 May 86, 15 June 86, 23 June 86, 15 July 86, 24 July 86, 28 Dec. 88, 1 Feb. 89, 5pp, 121-125, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.

ZUBE, JOHN, A Continuation of the Militia Discussion between Jim Stumm and John Zube, 20 Jan. 1988. Comments by John Zube to Jim Stumm, in RANDOM WRITINGS, No. 16, Dec. 1987, 24pp, 51-74, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833. - MILITIA

ZUBE, JOHN, A joke from The Transvaler-NDI and a note by JZ on South Africa, 61, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, A note on how to make the Soviets pay, 71, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, A note on the Commonwealth Constitution Act, page 117, on Casley's secession, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.

ZUBE, JOHN, A panarchist comment to: David Nicholls, Three Varieties of Pluralism, 1974, 121, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, A panarchist point of view of the German Poet and Folksinger KONSTANTIN WECKER, Dec. 1987, commenting on writings by K. W., 119, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, A review by John Zube of: Otto von Habsburg: The Social Order of Tomorrow, 1957, 113, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, A review on of my 2010 digitized book manuscript New Draft, 1,2 Mbs in RTF, zipped 299 Kbs. In plain text the review comes only to 46 Kbs. - JZ, 2010. – Until it appears online or on a CD, the book is available from me, free of charge, as an email attachment, to anyone interested in it. – JZ, 7.2.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, A Selection of Unconventional Thoughts on Democracy. 2004. Note: This selection of passages on Democracy gives plenty of food for thought. If, after reading them, you still think that democracy is the best political system ever devised by the human mind, then it is clear that your dictatorial or submissive tendencies are too strong to be eradicated. Nevertheless you should contemplate the fact that individuals exist who want to be neither masters nor servant and they deserve to fulfill their aspirations with different systems of social organization other than representative totalitarian democracy. - - John Zube,  A Selection of Unconventional Thoughts on Democracy (2004) - For more on Voting and Panarchy go to Chris Butterbach web site at: - For still more such quotes see: SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, Ca. 38 Mbs., on - DEMOCRACY, VOTING, MAJORITARIANISM

ZUBE, JOHN, An ABC Against Nuclear War, 270pp, 1975, PP 16-17. - It is now online: - AN ABC - AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR - A Handbook of Ideas on the Prevention of Nuclear War. Proposing: Dissolution of the Warfare State through Extension of Individual Liberties and Responsibilities, Freedom vs. the Ultimate of Statism - Nuclear Holocaust. - PEACE PLANS 16-17, 1975, 260pp, indexed. Later somewhat revised and digitized. The main part is alphabetized. The book makes ca. 500 points that must not be neglected. - - RCBJ, in his review of SHI SHUN LIU: See Zube (1975) for a non-territorialists account of ABC weapons. In personal communication with Mr. Zube, he stated the following: "Alas, to most this is still a non-sequitur. It took even myself quite some time before I cut myself through the jungle of opposing views – still predominant in the heads of most – to this conclusion. My "account" for ABC mass murder devices blames exactly territorialism for their production and retention, while recommending, as the optimal solution for even the unilateral destruction of such devices, by the people targeted with such devices in the hands of other and as authoritarian rulers, the adoption of exterritorial policies for defence, liberation efforts as well for the initiation of popular revolutions and military insurrections against all dictatorships armed with them. On this alternative point of view I stated about 500 points in this book, most of them alphabetized, and blamed most peace movement people for still subscribing to many views that make such wars and conventional wars not only possible but likely. It was an attempt to show to libertarians and peace lovers how they could and should deal with this threat, via certain self-help measures" (22 Dec, 2004). - - ZUBE, JOHN, Against Nuclear War. - John M Zube - Against Nuclear War - ... PUBLISHED 223 - 233 15 PANARCHY 234 - 237 16 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, RIGHT OR WRONG ... Political organization, Panarchy, Power, Production, Rights, Social Security, ... - - 557k - Cached - I just came across this old search result by Yahoo, on panarchy + panarchism, back in 3.6.09, among about 388 results. - It looks that my book has found at least one other place on the Web. - The correct title is above. - See also under EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, for C. B.'s view of my first two libertarian peace books, which he offers online. I still have not written the Exterritorial Imperative book but my father's title: Manifesto for Peace and Freedom, can be counted as book 3. Since then a flood of essays on this and related topics has appeared, so many that I, on my own, will be unable to list them here. - JZ, 26.9.11.

ZUBE, JOHN, An Australian Farmer's Secession and Self-Preservation Government, PP 15, Dec. 1971, page 16, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510. See: CASLEY, LEN, HUTT RIVER PROVINCE

ZUBE, JOHN, Anarchy, Panarchy and Statism. - Joh Zube, Anarchy, Panarchy and Statism (1986) July 2009

ZUBE, JOHN, Another Don Quichote Attempt to Fight the Windmill of Prejudices against Panarchism, comments by John Zube, 29 July 89, to THE CONNECTION, No. 119, of 29 Apr.84, 15pp, 33 (Stumm, Jasper, Diogenes, Jacobson, F. P., Sal Paradise, Gunderloy, GUARD & PATROL SERVICES) , in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, Answers to a Short Peace Questionnaire, with some peace programs, 175pp, in PP 650.

ZUBE, JOHN, At least some Replies to some Connectors, in TC 106, written 2 Nov. 82, reproduced from TC 108, 7pp, Downard, Jacobson, Stumm, Reith, Foldvary, Pyrrho, 12, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, BECKERATH, ULRICH von, E. M. L./Z./S.: Draft of a New Declaration of those Human Rights and Natural Rights of Rational Beings which were so far discovered, in PEACE PLANS 4 & page 43, & in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

ZUBE, JOHN, CD compilation, 2004, of files on free banking and panarchism, somewhat distributed, especially at the 04 Rotarua ISIL conference but without positive results. Alan Koontz has made my all too long e-mailed introduction to this disk available on - Although there are no territorial barriers, in most cases, to better ideas new and old ones, the barriers in most people's minds against them are still very strong and effective. - This CD issue had many flaws. It was still very incomplete and did not have proper contents listing, index and links. Nor were all the files in the same file format. - Only one French economist thanked me for having sent it to him and also sent me a small donation for this service. - I still intend to produce a better CD of this kind - if I get around to it. - JZ, 1.10.11.

ZUBE, JOHN, Combined Bibliography on Panarchism, Jan./Feb. 1999, 56pp: 69-123, in PP 1540. - Anybody who peruses this list can easily conclude that more than a mere utopia or mind game is involved: A still largely neglected voluntaristic and exterritorialist tradition of human communities that has very much to teach us for our times, e.g. on the practicability of this model, to a limited extent even under severely antagonistic conditions. Most historians, moral philosophers, reformers, revolutionaries and political scientists have either ignored this model or considered it as outdated or irrelevant, unaware that their territorial model has many more and much worse flaws. Naturally, not even panarchism could not transform devils into angels or ignorance into wisdom but it can render them much less harmful than they are now. Moreover, it can give a few angels their best chance in a world of devils. –JZ,. - This bibliography has been integrated in this present listing. – Many more such titles are wanted and needed, also corrections. - JZ, 9.2.99, 3.9.04. 28.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, Comments by J. Zube, on 24 July 89, to Tom Donaldson, Diogenes of Panarchia and Filthy Pierre, 4pp, 28, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, Comments to Comments on Multigovernment & Panarchy in TC 143, page 74, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PP 689.

ZUBE, JOHN, Comments, 25 July 89, 5pp, Taylor-Radford, Stumm, Pyrrho, 19, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, Competing Governments, Peace Plans No.7, plan 153, pp. 1-8 in June 1966, criticized Ayn Rand's attack on the competing government idea. Many other PEACE PLANS issues, some listed here, deal with the concept. Book-length treatments were so for offered in Peace Plans Nos. 16-17, An ABC Against Nuclear War - a handbook on how to prevent nuclear war through individual liberty and human rights measures and in Peace Plans Nos. 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 online:

ZUBE, JOHN, Compulsory Voting, PENALTY NOTICE, FAILURE TO VOTE, to JZ, Nov.87, & my response, by letter of Nov. 30, 1987, together with a further typing out of entries from my SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY FILE, directed particularly against compulsory voting and generally against the territorial political voting system, with panarchistic comments. - Compare the previous compilation in PP 384. - Page 79, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755. The final SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY file, which is online, offers more entries but is still very far from complete. I can only do so much. - JZ, 25.10.11.

ZUBE, JOHN, Correspondence with HOLST, INGAR, re his REPUBLIC OF 1984, 106-117, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PP 832.

ZUBE, JOHN, Correspondence with K. R. on Panarchy, 1985/89, extracts only - Some such correspondence of 1985 (K. R. to JZ, 22.Aug.85, JZ to K. R., 15 Sep. 85, K.R. to JZ, 15 Oct. 85, JZ to K. R., 31 Oct. 85) was previously microfilmed in PEACE PLANS 585. - - K. R. to JZ, 22 Aug. 85: Your comments on extraterritorial communities seem to be similar, if not the same to the ideas on "invisible enclaves", i.e. places that are within the existing system yet used by libertarians in a way known only to them, such as libertarian neighborhoods, economic enclaves, congregations and intentional communities. I think we MAY be in agreement on the futuristic idea that the present nation-state will decline and cease to exist, thereby allowing for more decentralized entities to emerge, provided of course that nuclear annihilation does not pre-empt all of this. - - K. R. to JZ, 15 Dec. 85: On territoriality and extraterritoriality it is my humble view that in the future, and I can see some of it happening now, a dual change will occur. As territoriality becomes greatly reduced, i.e. nation-states give way to regional-states and they in turn to petty-states and on down to the simple household level, extraterritoriality or associationality will tend to increase, i.e. from merely local/neighborhood associations to sub-regional ones onto regional and then continental and so forth, until such associational/exterritoriality is on a planetary scale. With societal, economic and political structure moving in these dual directions, i.e. territory becoming more and more localized and extra-territory associations becoming more and more widespread, a thoroughgoing decentralization can and will be achieved. Being neither an optimist nor a pessimist, I am cautiously hopeful of such occurring. It is not a matter of a "Fredarchy" vs. a "Johnarchy" as F. F. has suggested, since one is free to belong or not to belong to any associational structure (providing they will have you and you want them) or to start one's own association. These two major societal/historical dynamic forces, reduced territoriality and increased extraterritoriality, will change much in the future and proposing situations clearly based on the present status quo of contemporary territoriality simply will not work. I could go on and on about the coming changes but that is enough for now and I think it best for me to save some of that for my early efforts in microfiche publishing. - - (Note by JZ, Sept. 89: I have recently seen thick peace research volume by John Galtung in Brian Martin's library at Wollongong University. It is used as a textbook in a peace study group Brian is involved in and it deals at considerable length with the growth of exterritorial international organizations, perhaps only because they are seen as a growth towards world federalism. Sorry, but I do not remember the title. As for me, I favor not just one world federation but as many as can find voluntary subscribers. I would subscribe e.g. to a world-wide free trade associations, one of monetary freedom advocates, of private and cooperative proprietors and one for full freedom of contracts.) PANARCHY: I do hope that panarchy will not only follow from decentralization and more limited government, but that it will directly help to reduce the power of the super States, particularly in war times and revolutionary periods. For that purpose, corresponding panarchistic programs have to be sufficiently published and discussed. A relatively simple humanitarian idea like the Red Cross was once realized within months. Panarchism has the potential to experience a similar explosive growth, once the snowballing stage has been reached. On Panarchy VI is being filmed now. I probably got enough together again for No. VII. ... Diogenes suggested that I replace "exterritorial" with "non-territorial". It is a simple but, probably, very helpful improvement, leading to less misunderstandings. - In spite of that admission, I have not yet reformed my habitual use of "exterritorial"! Some people are too much creatures of habits.) - - K. R. to JZ, 15 March 86: On panarchy, that was my point, that with decentralization the power of the superstates will not only be reduced but the very structure of nation-states will no longer exist. This will take time but ultimately the nation-state idea will give way to the bioregional-state and autonomous association. To me this is so obvious and inevitable but evidently not to many others. If is not that every regional state will be a freedom paradise and some harsh despotic little regimes will crop up from time to time but that the post-war superpower structure vis-a-vis the U.S. and U.S.S.R. will no longer exist. The Russian and American empires are fast fading and although empires can linger on for quite some time, the end is in view for those with a broad enough horizon to perceive that state of affairs. - What lies beyond the bioregional-states and the initial associations, I will not attempt to go into here but I think you can make a good guess that the inevitable decentralization process, both vertically, as in smaller and smaller states, and laterally, as in more effective autonomous associations of whatever kind, will continue unimpeded. Ultimately or perhaps penultimately, one ends up with no states at all and with highly effective planetary associations. ... - - As for "nonterritorial" replacing "extraterritorial", you could, with varying degrees of success, use such terms as "metaterritorial", "paraterritorial", "unterritorial", "ilterritorial" and my two favorites "aterritorial" and "associational". Although they all mean similar if not identical things, one would choose one because of a compatible subtlety implied by the obvious various shadings. - - JZ to K.R., 7 April 86: Will there be a need for a bioregional state or only for bioregional cooperation on various levels and by various associations? - If the ideas could be put and communicated in a catching way, then the change-over need not take much time but could go fast. I keep experimenting with expressing panarchistic and related ideas as simple as a can. - - I do also expect relapses into authoritarianism of a religious, political, economic and ideological nature to occur now and then, among volunteers. Defence preparations ought to be made against such threats. But I would expect them to be less frequent and large than they are now. Experimental freedom will be insisted upon already among the first followers - and will not reveal many successes but rather many failures in authoritarian approaches. That will stunt the growth of such movements. And solidarity among free and diverse groups, that remain tolerant, will be rather solid against new authoritarians and totalitarians who are not content with doing their own thing (among themselves only). - - Seeing the threat posed by ABC mass murder devices, I am not content with predicting a slow but certain development in the right direction, but want to accelerate this development to the utmost and this requires the study of the factors which could achieve an acceleration of this process. .... - I thank you for your alternative terms for "non-territorial": "meta-territorial", "para-territorial", "un-territorial", "il-territorial" - which I do not like very much, either. - "Aterritorial" was new to me and may be even better and clearer than "non-territorial". - "Associational" and "associationism" are favored by me, too. But most people perceive under "associations" only some private groups that are not autonomous or sovereign in the economic, political and social sphere but which, under state supervision and control, do merely deal with relatively minor or even trivial aspects (which are, nevertheless, very important to their members), in sports, arts, culture etc. For them there is a wide gulf between associations and States which is more felt than analyzed in terms of power, involuntary membership, territorialism etc. - JZ to K. R., 24 May 86: What percentage of the population does actually want bioregional States instead of the present ones and would be prepared to pay the price required for the transition? - - Are the thought processes involved in adopting the non-territorial alternative really such a quantum leap compared with bioregionalism and all its premises and practices?  Look at the individual potential customer for either system. Individually, given the chance, they would opt for various panarchies - including one bioregional one. Regarding the result of collective decision-making: Who can correctly predict this, since irrationality is involved here and is even predominant? - - Was the mutual granting of religious liberty a quantum leap or rather a pragmatic acceptance of existing differences of opinion? - In how many relatively small ways do people live already panarchistically, without having expressed this way of life in basic principles? Economic, political and social service organizations are simply large but only a few exceptions among numerous lifestyles and working conditions already panarchistically divergent in hundreds if not thousands of ways - all quite peacefully coexisting in most instances. (Drug legislation, censorship, building codes are some of the exceptions.) - Is it really a "quantum leap: to generalize the experience of daily living and apply it to politics and economics, which are not of much interest to most people, anyhow, apart from a few loudmouths and power hungry men and hobbyists like ourselves, and in which people would, thus, be prepared to live and let live, if only they can have their own choice or their revered leader could have his choice? A number of popular prejudices are in the way. But would it take a quantum leap effort to defeat them? As Bastiat said somewhere: "By now we have tried almost everything else. Why not try freedom, for a change", especially since, as you said, peace and freedom are inseparable? - - K. R. to JZ, 15 June 86: A few remarks on human rights. I think not only of government infringement but of corporate infringement as well. I refer to the modern mega-corporations of international capabilities, which are actually states unto themselves in many ways with such power and concentrated wealth as they possess - only the two super-powers can cower them at all. But then are governments and corporations long-time cohorts? Corporate/government collusion is such a popular activity against the individual. … - - I meant a quantum leap in consciousness, which I think will occur if planetary social changes are to be made. Bioregions and panarchy are not mutually exclusive or antagonistic rather many common concerns. (but are rather common concerns? - JZ) Region states are inevitable, I think, but free associations may indeed "get there" first. I see both progressing towards the near future. The inevitable end of both is a post-territorial world! ... - - I still think that bioregional states will emerge, politically that is, for they already exist economically and culturally. Yet a psychological and cultural "quantum leap" is not out of the question and such an occurrence could speed everything up considerably with "aterritorial/associational" developments outstripping the territorial decentralization greatly ... - - On experimental freedom the words of Henry David Thoreau express something well: "We do not know what can be done for so little has been tried". Many more freedom approaches, however experimental they are, must be tried for a freer future for us all. Until whenever and wherever live as free as you can. Peace and Freedom Inseparable, ... - - JZ to K. R., 23 June 86: Corporations: Much can be said against them, particularly against their corrupt marriages and affairs with politicians and bureaucrats and against their own bureaucracy. But I, for one, do prefer them to States - to the extent that they can be separated, at least in one's mind, from State-granted official or unofficial privileges. (While small tax debtors are often made bankrupt, tax debts of large corporations have often been cancelled because their strong argument is: If you try to collect, you will, all at once, have 5,000 or 50,000 unemployed on your hands. That is bad public relations for politicians. There may be, altogether, more unemployed, coming from the small enterprises made bankrupt - but these are not so noticeable or not so much noticed, do not have as good a press coverage.) - What I find decisive about corporations is that they tend to be non-territorial, that they do not have conscript members, conscript customers and conscript contributors (mind, you, again, apart from their legal and illegally granted privileges). Thus, by my standards, they have at least the potential of becoming useful parts of a free society. But more would be required regarding them to turn them into really free institutions for all their members. Their internal hierarchical structures ought to be replaced, as far as possible, by decentralization, division of labour, free exchanges and contracts, self-responsibilities, by autonomous sub-groups etc., in a vast variety of forms which are already being tried out and discussed or proposed more than ever before, under various names, from industrial democracy over self-management to organization development and many other fashionable terms. - They "cop the lot" as the Australians say, as "capitalistic" institutions and for their interrelationships with existing States. - Under competitive conditions, their excess size, where it exists, would soon be reduced to optimal size or they would go bankrupt. - That people do also attempt to play power games privately, is nothing new at all. They do that in the smallest family and friendship and associations for minor concerns. But separation, divorce, boycott etc. set limits to their powers in this sphere and these safety valves have been removed for States and all monopolists protected by them (within the limits of their monopolies). That is the reason why I am so concerned about voluntary membership, voluntary contributions, individual secessions and non-territoriality or post-territoriality. ... - Imagine that a number of "ideal Christians" would exist and that they would merely preach by setting their examples, not by bible bashing. I hold that they example could then gain them more converts than theorizing, generalizing and preaching could. (This presumes, naturally, that Christianity is or could be a consistent ideal - and I am not convinced of that, either.) ... - Planetary and regional changes: There is still the territorial rub in such notions - unless one recognizes, at least as a strategy, the value of non-territorial networking and non-territorial local experiments among at least some people in a village or a suburb. - I will leave open the question between us whether regional or local limited governments will be the pioneers for progress in the direction of liberty, peace and justice, or whether panarchic communities will be. So far, panarchies are so much the outsiders that the odds in betting are very much against them. But the few, who do realize their competitive potential, might nevertheless, once they are permitted to race, put all their money on them. ... - Freedom for a change - but only for those who want it and to the degree that they want it. Those fleeing Soviet repression, for instance, are not yet prepared to accept all of the limited liberties in the West, far less would they immediately opt for maximum liberty communities in the West, if these existed now and were open to them. - - K. R. to JZ, 15 July 86 (Postal cancellation stamp): "The trouble with corporations is that so many of them, the mega-sized ones, are for all practical purposes states and act like it. Your proposed changes in them would result in something akin to cooperatives and shareholders' associations and so (they) would be far different then (than) we now think of them ...." - - JZ to K. R., 24 July 86: While I certainly would like to see large corporations reorganized, in their own interest, that of their members, shareholders and customers, with as many internal free market and cooperative / competitive relationships as possible, I still find them somewhat bearable or ignorable compared with States. I do not have to join them. I can leave them and I can ignore them and their products and services. I cannot do this as easily or at all with States. Therefore, I am unlikely to compare them with States except to use them as contrasts. Yes, they are hierarchically and centrally organized and have privileges and try for more. That they have in common with States and these of their aspects I would like (to see) countered by the most extensive competition, internally and externally, just like with present territorial States. But to me they are also already instances of non-territorial and autonomous associations of volunteers, however imperfect and interlinked with territorial powers and common prejudices and institutionalized mistakes. As such part-approximations to my ideal, I do appreciate them and I am at any time rather "exploited and oppressed" by a corporation even of today's type than by a State. Those, who have never experienced really statist-totalitarian repression personally, may find it difficult to realize the difference. I do not love corporations - but, please, do consider, what could be made out of them - by people really interested in their own affairs? People like you ought to be involved not in battles with some fools - that is fruitless, as you have realized - but in preparing effective educational tools for the future. I hold that many changes are required to avoid a catastrophe. If there were enough time, they would even be "inevitable". - - K. R. to JZ, 24 July 86: As for corporations, they are, the larger ones, a part of the state. They military-industrial complex elite are the dominant power, in Australia, as well as the U.S. and other Western industrial nations. I think multinational corporate giants, like Exxon and General Motors, have far more power and influence than most local and many state governments. Admittedly, they are not in the same class as the U.S. or Soviet power forces but since such corporations are so intricately intertwined with government at the highest levels, here in the West that is, it is difficult to sort out what was originally a government policy and action and what was introduced or at least influenced by the corporate elite. (Note by JZ, Sept. 89 : One has to distinguish the "merger" of monopoly-state and monopoly-corporation decision-making at the highest level from the voluntary segregation and individual secessionist or boycott options existing at the level of potential final consumers of the products and services of corporations and of the potential work force members of corporations. At this low level an individualized sorting out process is possible, already conventional and progressing. K. R. seems to have mainly the first part in mind, the high-level decision-making, while I consider mainly the "lower" level, at which individual are still free to ignore the high-level decisions to a large extent.) - But of course, if not for statist support, these same corporate giants would not exist. In a stateless society a corporation is meaningless, since it is a pr-government legal fiction to begin with. - (Note by JZ: I do hold that a) incorporation with unlimited liability and b) corporation with liability limited to the amounts invested, are both possible options for private contractual arrangements. Individual responsibility for criminal actions would, naturally, remain unlimited and apart from corporation liabilities agreed upon by investors, members and customers.) ...I see some worthwhile changes in corporations, i.e. the new "intrapreneurial" groups that are given a fairly free hand on a company project, among other changes ... Free markets to me means the freedom to choose, form, join, and leave whatever approach one cares for, whether profit-making, profit-sharing, non-profit, or whatever. Therefore, in many respects, I am more a bioregionalist and regenerationist than a libertarian, unless one considers unaffiliated libertarians, such as Henry David Thoreau, Jonathan Chapman, Leo Tolstoy among others. - - - - K. R. to JZ, 28 Dec. 88: SMALL DECENTRALIZED GROUPS: Agreed mostly on this but is not owning land a form of territorialism? Since you favour land ownership, as I do not, you then are transferring territorial-base from the state to small groups, families, and lone individuals. I've no problem with that and would welcome such a change, I assure you. But a territorial-base would still remain, albeit transferred to a much smaller social unit. So it seems to me that panarchy in its most ideal form would still be territorial but without, fortunately, the oppressive nation-state of now. - - JZ to K. R., 1 Feb. 89: DECENTRALIZATION: I hold that it is an over-extension of the concept of "territory" when it is applied to small private building and garden blocks. Predominant usage, I believe, applies the term to large national or provincial areas in which there may be thousands to millions of small private freeholds. - Land ownership: You are wrong in assuming that I favour unlimited private or national land ownership. For all but private housing, industrial, business and garden use, I favour the Hertzka system of "open cooperatives", established by purchase or donation, in free competition with all existing land tenure systems and all proposed ones. PEACE PLANS No. 5 was largely dedicated to this question and, naturally, several books by Hertzka that were reproduced in my series. (I still seek more writings by Hertzka on this and especially some of Hertzka's free land movement journals. - JZ, 9/89.) You ought to have also noted that I reproduced many George-ist titles and the land reform ideas of my father. - - The mini private land ownership, which I have in mind, would not be expressed by mini-territorial law but would also fall under personal law, like private religions, philosophies and life-styles. Your guests, apart from the laws of politeness, hospitality and good manners, would not be subjected to your private territorial laws but would retain their personal sovereignties. And if you left your private patch and went onto someone else's turf, you would still take your personal law with you. You will have to dig somewhat deeper to get rid of the territorialist weed in your thinking. - Some typos were eliminated here and some improvements of expressions attempted and some comments were added in brackets. - JZ 9/89, 12.10.11. – NAMES, TERMS, DEFINITIONS

ZUBE, JOHN, Decidophobia. - #8 - From the "Main Fare" rubric on my home page - - Decidophobia By John Zube - You are quite right, individual secessionist "States" or "societies" of communities of one person or one family, as an aim or final solution, is quite mad and has nothing to do with free societies. (*) - Moreover, confining individual sovereignty to one's home, garden, farm, business or real estate is also not the truly liberating solution and does not correspond to the idea "personal law" and voluntary communities but merely drives the "principle" of territorial sovereignty to an extreme, somewhat indicated by the old proverb: "A man's home is his castle!" - This makes sense only with regard to various official inspectors and privacy invasions. - Hermits were mostly not quite sane and admirable persons and were made even worse through their chosen lifestyle. - - What is really meant by individual sovereignty extending to individual secessionism, is not a kind of chain-reaction, one leading to social atomism, with everyone being a King - but only over himself and no social interaction and commitments at all, but a radical and peaceful as well as peace, justice and liberty promoting reform, one that would lead to genuine and wider but quite voluntary communities, as wide or limited as people desire for themselves. The few voluntary or cooperative socialists had something similar in mind. - - Not only free disassociation is involved but also free associationism, regardless of present prescribed and coercively upheld geographical frontiers, jurisdictions, constitutions, laws and police and military powers. E.g. several - but quite voluntary world federations. E.g. free trade among the Free Traders and, at the same time and in the same countries and worldwide: Protectionism or total autarchy being experimented with among the voluntary victims of such faiths. - - When one speaks of the right of individuals to "secede" from a tennis or golf club, or ending one's subscription to a magazine, that does not mean that in future or immediately one may not join or subscribe to another. We do that in our private actions all the time. Only our disassociation and association rights and liberties - in the sphere of political, economic and social systems - are still suppressed and subjected to territorial impositions regarding which we have at best only one voice, each, among millions. - - When one achieves a divorce from an unsatisfactory partner, then that does not mean that one has to live singly for the rest of one's life. Panarchism introduces divorce and options for other alliances or dalliances, from the matrimonial and sexual relations sphere into that of political, economic and social system associations. From one-night stands to life-long commitments. Each to his or her choice. - - The most famous precedent is religious tolerance or religious liberty. It did not mean atheism or a separate and different faith for each of the dissenters and secessionists from the monopolistic territorial and hierarchical church. Churches and sects multiplied and, wherever they could do so quite freely, peace tended to reign between them. - - The current "right to vote" does neither establish sufficient "consumer sovereignty" and "free consumer choice" in this sphere, nor does it provide sufficient "free enterprise" and freedom for cooperators, mutualists, decentralists, communalists and voluntaryists of all kinds - to do their own things quite autonomously for and to themselves. - - While I am an individualist anarchist - and even among them are many dissenting groups - I would not want to impose such a lifestyle or system upon anyone who has other values. - - It was the main problem for most kinds of anarchists, so far, that they imagined that their ideal should be realized among all those, too, who are opposed to it, rather than merely among those anarchists who managed to agree, sufficiently, among themselves. - - The same applies to libertarians. - - Panarchism means: Any form of anarchism - but only for its adherents. Any form of libertarianism, but only for its supporters. And any form of statism, local to world wide - but only for its supporters. - - Men are by nature joiners but also, to a considerable degree, dissenters, secessionists, intent on doing things their ways and choosing them for themselves. - - That is expressed in tens of thousands of private associations, whose membership more or less changes all the time. New ones are established while old ones collapse. - - The same is to be achieved in the sphere of political, economic and social systems, without any compulsion except the defence of the right of individuals to leave such a system and join another or to establish one of their own and invite others to subscribe to it. - - Only a few might become relative "hermits" and join no group and make only daily or weekly contracts with others on their shopping trips for all kinds of services and goods, without committing themselves to any particular society and community. - - This kind of "madness" of individuals and families of non-joiners is already wide-spread in private lives. It should also be permissible in public lives. - - They bargain and trade or boycott voluntarily and thus act sufficiently social and peaceful, rather than antagonistically. "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order!" [Proudhon] - - With the following qualification: The all-out non-joiners and non-members should at least declare which adjudication or arbitration system they do subscribe to - in case it still comes to a clash. Otherwise, in case of strong disagreements, that might still occur, just like the occasional fight or brawl or crime, they would expose themselves to becoming subjected to the jurisdiction chosen by others for themselves, others with different scales of values, punishment and indemnification options. - - If they do place themselves into the status of wild animals, threatening beasts of prey, like habitual criminals, in a neighborhood, i.e., beings from whom any arbitrary attack might be expected at any time, e.g. upon their interpretation of "egoism" or application of the "might is right" doctrine, then they might even be rightfully driven out of a neighborhood or imprisoned in it. They must establish some sort of civilized relationships and guarantees towards others and be it only by some sufficient arbitration or insurance arrangement. - - (Justice is something much too precious to be entrusted to politicians and bureaucrats and their systems - unless this is done merely among like-minded volunteers.) - - But most people, at least for the foreseeable future, would then already have subscribed to a particular panarchy or polyarchy (there are dozens of other terms for the same voluntary relationships), which would offer them a kind of package-deal for societal services, including juridical ones. - - Most people do not want to make all possible and needed decisions themselves, quite independently and they need not only tradesmen and professionals to help them, but also individuals or groups that organize things for them, sometimes even down to organizing a socializing party for them, with many guests expected. That factor has been termed "decidophobia" in a best-selling book. By now we even get officially organized "festivals"! - - We are still somewhat herd animals, with only the "rogue bull" etc. remaining un-social or anti-social, sometimes only in his old age. So we do not have to fear a condition of total atomization of society. - - What will result will be a multitude of voluntary societies, all doing merely their things for and to themselves, just like the numerous private clubs and associations already do, and this without getting into each other's way. - - However, the phenomenon of the growing number of people living as "singles" should be explored further, instead of being merely observed. I'm not sure about all the cause and effect relationships involved here. - - De facto relationships have also largely replaced officially sanctioned marriages and, after some time, they are even recognized by officials, as if they were officially sanctioned marriages. - - The footballers do not battle the soccer players in the streets, as long as they can have their own way among themselves. They may even share the same sports field, just using it at different times. - - The various radicals, reformers and utopians, today, by territorialism, sometimes even driven (in their opinion) to suicidal and mass murderous terrorist acts, will tend to become rather peaceful, productive and enlightened under this kind of option, at least by and by, learning or teaching by the free and experimental method. - - They will have to put their money and their labor where there mouth is and their flawed experiments will tend to fail soon, if they are not reformed and this before masses are herded into and submitted to a single system. Thus they will not provoke resistance and clashes. - - "A fool and his money are soon parted." - "May the buyer beware!" - - However, there will also be xyz consumer-protection arrangements on a voluntary basis, to defend their genuine rights rather than imposed legal "rights" or claims. - - I feel certain that among the much larger population of England there was not only the single case of an individual secessionist that you mention. In Australia we had about 20 of them so far, with the largest, a farmer, Len Casley, in Western Australia, with his 18 000 acres. There was King Ron of Waragamba Dam, and the owner of a local pie shop, near Robertson. - - In my micro-fiched series PEACE PLANS, I reproduced whatever details I got on these individual secessionists. None of them, by the way, subscribed to personal law and exterritorial autonomy panarchism. Each thought of himself as a territorial sovereign. The Duke of Avram, in Tasmania, did not even think of himself as a secessionist, although he opened his own note-issuing bank for a while - until closed down by the police. - - What I understand under monetary freedom is not merely the attempt by a few individuals to issue their own individual notes and clearing certificates, but a voluntary arrangement between all people interested in free exchange, for their own note issuing and clearing centres and methods. Private or cooperative payment communities would result, in practice, from full monetary and clearing freedom. - - They would opt out of the central bank system, with its monetary despotism, not in order to do away with money or offer only their own individual monies to each other, but to associate, appropriately, voluntarily, as much as seems advisable to them, to issue their local or wider currencies, all without legal tender and a monopoly in general circulation, all subject to voluntary acceptance and market rating - except for the issuers themselves, for they must fully recognize their own IOUs. - - That does not mean atomization of monetary and clearing exchanges but their full and free realization, among like-minded people. - - With panarchism it is the same. Monetary freedom is only one aspect of it. All other individual rights, like the right to choose one's profession, arrange for one's housing and education, are other aspects of it. - - Likewise, voluntary taxation and voluntarily subscribed to and competing budgets for public services, for different communities, would result from individual choices in these spheres. There would not only be individual and family as well as business budgets. - - Human rights recognition would be the glue that would hold the various panarchies together and also would prevent them from interfering with the internal affairs of volunteers, in which these might restrict some of the individual human rights of their voluntary members, like Catholics would, for instance, regarding censorship for to them undesirable materials, in their communities. - - The State of New South Wales and even my local government are already all too independent of my own preferences and those of various of my neighbors and of the other dissenting residents in NSW. The local government is widely hated for what it can legally do and does do to its subjects. Both still resort all too much to coercion and extortion rather than to individual consent. As territorialists they can hardly do otherwise. They are not even restrained by direct democracy, at least, which, obviously, could not satisfy the local minorities, either. - - State governments and local governments of today are also far removed from the much more decentralized and autonomous models of the old English tradition, as described e.g. by J. Toulmin Smith in his 1851 book: Local Self-Government and Centralization, which I reproduced on microfiche in PEACE PLANS 22, 409 pages, but have not yet scanned-in. These local governments were really independent of the King and could ignore his laws and jurisdiction. They also had a fully autonomous jury system, like Lysander Spooner described it and some modern libertarians advocate. - - However, those majorities, which want to organize themselves locally, State-wide, nation-wide and even world-wide, would not be obstructed by panarchism becoming generally realized. They would be likewise liberated, to do their own things for and to themselves, via individual choices: individuals seceding from their present ties and joining their "clubs" and their activities, all self-concerned and self-financed. - - Once the decentralists of the world become aware that their decentralization attempts do not have to be confined to territorial attempts only - then they might rapidly become a great power for the realization of their diverse ideals, each only for the own supporters. - - Only as long as they subscribe to territorialism, even if only at the State or local government level, they remain their own worst enemies and do provoke a maximum opposition against themselves, which they might overcome only by decades to centuries of struggles, if at all, and then they would still have to struggle against further secessions from themselves and further voluntary federation attempts among their dissenters. - - Let people sort themselves out according to their own individual preferences! - - They will not prefer, as a rule, atomization, or individual full sovereignty, in the meaning of their own individual country, territory or society - but a great variety of societies and communities, all only exterritorially autonomous, all with voluntary membership only, whether many or only relatively few members. That, too, will be up to them. - - Only by that choice will we avoid remaining targets for ABC mass murder devices, will we end the motives to use them, the means to build them and keep them in readiness. - - Otherwise, we will maintain collective responsibility notions and act upon them, which leads ultimately to the development, construction and stockpiling of mass murder devices or anti-people "weapons", with whole nations or peoples considered as "enemies" and "justified" targets. - - Only thus can we avoid the nuclear war atomization or radioactive poisoning of mankind and bring the territorial warfare States to an end. - - One large Hydrogen bomb on Sydney could wipe out 90 % of the NSW population. A handful on the other Australian cities and 90 % of the Australian population would be extinguished immediately and much of the rest not long after, due to the consequences of these strikes against supposed collective "enemies". - - (Australia may already be composed of more different ethnic groups than any other country. So who could rightfully consider all its inhabitants as class-, ethnic-, religious- or ideological enemies, unless they are all perceived and organized territorially, in a single model, imposed upon all its residents, however further territorially it may be divided? Only a tiny group of men at the top can commit all of Australia to a war. And then the maps show all of Australia as an "enemy" of another mapped country, State, nation or "people", leads to quite wrong conclusions and actions. - - There are still xyz powerful people playing such "war games", starting with as wrong territorialist premises and having the monopolistic decision-making power to put these “games” into action. They, too, have no clear notion of their panarchistic alternatives and nothing in their constitution, education, media and reading steers them in that direction. - - Conscientious policemen can seek out and render individual criminals harmless. Military men, with nuclear weapons, or large divisions, cannot. - - Even the Arabs, in their great Islamic conquests, were more tolerant, accepted converts and tolerated some other people, who also revered some "holy" book. - - Already the small territorial city States of ancient Greece fought each other for all too long - based upon territorial institutions and prejudices. - - If already they had clearly perceived and organized exterritorialist alternatives ... - - Alas, the ancient and primitive notion and practice of territorial monopolies prevailed and dominated mankind for all too long, while the rightful and exterritorialist personal law traditions and ideas of mankind became largely forgotten. Now, at last, limited a systematic attempt is being made to revive, develop and publish them. Even in our times the most enlightened ideas are not yet the most popular and most widely practised ones. - - But in spheres where free experimentation is common, like in computer and Internet developments, progress is fast and peaceful - apart from some monopolies made possible by government legislation. - - All serious decentralists should thoroughly explore the exterritorialist decentralization option themselves, instead of merely continuing to subscribe to the territorialist model, as if it were the only rightful and sensible one. - I believe it is neither, after considering it for more than half a century.
You might, finally, after careful consideration of many of the references now offered or findable, arrive at the same conclusion. - - Since you have already established a world-wide reputation as a decentralist, one in favor of the "human scale", your further stepping in this direction might have world-wide consequences. - - At least I do hope for them. - - The "human scale" is also to be applied and can be applied productively and with greater and wider spread personal satisfaction to large enterprises and corporations. Many steps in this direction were already taken. Many more are still to be recognized as needed or desirable. - - What have you got to lose, except your troubles with struggles for territorial secessionism? - - With exterritorialism you would not, similarly, have to struggle with vested interest and firmly established majority opinions. - - Panarchism would even make it much more easy and pleasant for majorities to have their way, among themselves, quite undisturbed by dissenters and non-conformists. - - Thus, theoretically, it would not be quite impossible that this would be the one reform that is first embraced, in practice, by the majority, rather than merely by a small minority of radicals. - - Formerly majorities banished dissenters or excommunicated them or outlawed them. As panarchists majorities might rid themselves of them by allowing them to live at their own expense and risk and under what the majorities believe to be the errors of their ways, their foolishness, foibles and madness. They would expect to see free circus performances provided by them and to have the last laugh about their silly actions. On many of the free actions of dissenters they would even be right. - - By one simple decision the majorities could rid themselves of all the "crackpots", "non-conformists", "dissenters", "reactionaries" and "trouble-makers", excommunicating them, granting them their "fool's liberty". Maybe a political party will win with a corresponding election slogan - and thus introduce panarchism? - PIOT, John Zube. - - Copyright © 2005, 2006, 2009 John Zube (I certainly did not copyright that article. However, C.B. may be able to legally claim a publisher's copyright. - Please look at the large compilation of anti-copyrights texts that are offered by The Molinari Institute! - Alas, K. S. did not reply. - JZ, 26.9.11. - - (*) [C.B.] In order to fully understand this article, you need to know the position of Mr. Kirkpatrick Sale of the The Middlebury Institute on Panarchy, which he expressed the following way in an email message of December 28, 2005 to Mr. John Zube and which triggered the article as an answer: Dear Mr. Zube--Thank you for you recent letter, which Jane Dwinell has passed on to me. You are right to think that we are mainly concerned with geographic secession, since this has been the only kind of secession of importance heretofore. You are also right to think that there could be secessions from secessionist states, and that should be protected as a matter of course. - - But if you'll forgive me, it seems quite mad to carry that process out to the individual. That is what is called individualist anarchy, and it has been a favorite of certain anarchist thinkers for a century, but it really has nothing to do with secession. And of course if you think getting a majority for secession is difficult and costly and uncertain, you must also agree that getting the world, or only a small part of it, to agree to individual "panarchy" is difficult to the point of impossible. - -I have a letter from a man in England who has seceded from the United Kingdom, and proclaimed a Republic of one on his 6 acre estate. All that succeeded in doing was to get the government after him for refusing to pay taxes, and now his estate is forfeited to the government, which at the moment is allowing him to live there. So much for panarchy. - - Time to think about something real--an independent New South Wales, for example. - Regards, Kirkpatrick Sale, Middlebury Institute, - Almost unbelievable, as is sounds to me, most "decentralists", as territorialists, are still centralists, but centralists of a "limited" kind. - JZ, 26.9.11.

ZUBE, JOHN, Deterrence Theory, criticism, page 100ff, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. - The Deterrence Theory leaves almost everything in place that makes for nuclear war, in spite of this threat. It even induces the participants to make things worse. The over-kill rates that they produced, between them, for decades, became so ridiculous that they admitted this MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) as being mad themselves, by at least somewhat reducing their over-kill capacity. That even the possession and keeping in readiness of a single nuclear mass murder device is quite wrong - has still escaped their attention. If there were a public discussion of what constitutes tyranny and tyrannicide, they would not get away with this for much longer. - JZ, 25.10.11. - See especially PEACE PLANS 16-18 & 61-63.

ZUBE, JOHN, Discussion of contributions in THE CONNECTION, relating to Panarchy, page 2ff, in ON PANARCHY V, in PP 554. - Beginning with TC 108, p.34, working backwards, to TC 107p66, 2ff discussing entries by Pyrrho (2); Filthy Pierre (3); Steve Witham (5); Jim Stumm (5ff); Foldvary, Fred (10ff); Jim Downard,(3); Taylor-Radford (14); Filthy Pierre (14ff); Fred Foldvary (18);Filthy Pierre (18); Taylor-Radford (19ff); Downard (22); Henry S. Jonsson (23); George Kysor (23); Pyrrho (24); Filthy Pierre (24). - - Discussion of Contributions to "THE CONNECTION", Nos.111-118, 1984: 2- 79, in PEACE PLANS No. 505.

ZUBE, JOHN, Draft for an article on minority autonomy for all and a corresponding compact between members of all minority groups. 15 points, 11, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - See under FEDERATION & INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PANARCHIES. - - - ALL VOLUNTARY MEMBERS OF ALL MINORITY GROUPS DO HEREBY AGREE UPON & DECLARE THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: 1.) For a time it had been assumed that freedom for a majority to make decisions for all, combined with the opportunity for a minority to try to peacefully persuade the majority, would be enough to safeguard the rights and realize the interests and aims of minority groups. By now numerous disappointments not only with totalitarian regimes and dictatorships but also with majoritarian, direct, representative and constitutional democracies and with governmental declarations of human rights and governmental juridical avenues, have taught minorities that nothing less than full independence can sufficiently realize their rights and safeguard their interests. - - 2.) Members of minority groups are becoming aware how many different minorities there are, how numerous their membership is and that, in total, they do often amount to the majority. (At least if the factions of the majorities are included. – JZ, 28.8.12.) But they will not take this as a justification for any attempt to dominate over any local and temporary majority that exists or may arise. Their aim is independence for themselves and for all others, not an alternative system of domination. - - 3.) Members of minority groups are realizing that even majoritarian democracies are usually dominated by minorities , "in the name of the people" but without a proper mandate. They are not based on full and free consent. What they call consensus is largely based upon myths, errors and pretences, when they claim to be representative. - For instance, if 2/3 of all people are registered voters and 2/3 of them do actually vote and the elected combine 2/3 of all votes upon themselves and make their decisions with a 2/3 majority then not 2/3 of all people are represented in these decisions but only - 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 16/81 or ca. 1/5.  Then 4/5 of the population are not represented in these final 2/3 majority decisions! (Obviously, here a very favorable case is assumed. Mostly far less than 2/3 are involved.) - - 4.) Members of minorities have become aware that their basic rights must not be left at the discretion of any "representatives" or "majorities", far less dependent upon the good will, knowledge and ability and moral sense of any rulers. - - 5.) Therefore, all their internal affairs, i.e. the affairs of their voluntary members, are no longer to be regulated by any central legislature, government, administration and jurisdiction that is external to them, i.e. constituted largely by others, not even by one that is supported by the vast majority of people - who are not voluntary members of the minority groups. - - 6.) On the contrary, all minority groups that are made up only of voluntary members, have the right to organize themselves independently, fully autonomously, non-territorially and under their own personal laws, governmental or societal institutions and jurisdiction. - They may also establish their own protection and defensive services and alter and improve these as they like. - - 7.) Among the own voluntary members, each autonomous and non-territorial minority group association may apply any cultural, religious, educational, ideological, technical, political, economic, social, ethnic and even racial segregation or integration that its members can agree upon. - It may also engage with them in new and old social experiments, at the own risk and expense, in accordance with the wishes and aims of its voluntary members. - - 8.) For the realization of their non-territorial autonomy, the voluntary members of all minority groups insist upon the recognition of the right of all their adult and rational members to secede (withdraw, disassociate or disconnect themselves), as individuals and by one-sided declarations, not only from any national army or trade union or school system but from a whole territorial and national State system, or any already existing voluntary an exterritorially autonomous community, altogether, regardless of its welfare or national pretences, whether the State or community concerned is a totalitarian or a democratic one, without thereby renouncing or losing any basic natural right. - They are also insisting upon the right of all individuals, who have so seceded, to associate voluntarily, autonomously and non-territorially, so that they would neither have to change their residences nor their jobs, subjecting themselves for all their own affairs only to personal laws of their making or choosing. [Naturally, if they work for a government, live in a government house, or have e.g. a job with a particular religious body, then their secessions from a government or church will also affect them by losing their jobs. – JZ, 28.8.12.] - 9.) The members of all minority groups recognize that the right of individuals to secede applies not only to territorial states but also to their own communities, which are to be and to remain volunteer-communities. Thus any minority group member, who has any reason or motive for a change of mind, may withdraw from his minority group and either return to his old State or join any other minority group or may attempt to establish one of his own. - Their withdrawal may be made dependent, though, upon an agreed upon withdrawal period - unless they have been criminally offended against by members of that minority group. - - 10.) The voluntary members of all minority groups agree to promote, by word and deed, the kind of individual secessionism and voluntary and non-territorial associationism and minority autonomy that is here stated for all, even for those who are ideologically, religiously, socially, racially or otherwise their opposites or are otherwise of little interest to them or are considered as "aliens". - - 11.) For their mutual support of the rights, aims and free and independent practices of all minority groups, for their self-constitution, self-legislation, self-government, self-administration and self-adjudication and to establish and strengthen their defences against any usurpations and aggressions by majorities and minorities, they do agree to support a defensive federation of all minority groups. - - 12.) This federation of minority groups is to appeal, in all cases of clashes with clashes with the present and future remaining territorial state systems, to the involuntary solders, taxpayers and other victims and subjects of these aggressive regimes, to make common cause with the federation of autonomous minority groups and to declare their own independence, either by secession, by an uprising or by fleeing and calling upon the hospitality, support, friendship and alliance or neutrality status which the federation of minority groups can and will offer them. - - 13.) By permitting all kinds of economic experiments among their voluntary members, these autonomous and non-territorially organized minority group members will tend to become comparatively wealthy - especially and in accordance with the extent to which they do realize the principles of monetary and financial freedom among themselves. - Other minority groups would tend to follow the successful examples of these pioneer groups and would be similarly successful. - Nevertheless, in their successes as well as in their failures, these minority groups are to be and remain "open" to new members, provided only that they do subscribe to and abide by the rulings of the minority group concerned. They are thus to realize not only the right of individuals to withdraw from them but also the right to join them - when the present individuals members do agree with them and welcome them. - This does, naturally, apply only to peaceful and non-aggressive individuals. Others might be refused membership or might be excommunicated. – These would still have the option to establish their own communities of volunteers. - Solutions could especially and fast be expected to the problems of inflation, unemployment, sales difficulties, housing shortage and excessive taxation. - Autonomous Minority Groups (AMGs) with such solutions would grow and multiply in members at the expense of those, which do not offer them. - - 14.) The defence of AMGs against remaining aggressive territorial governments would largely rely upon offering good and well-paid jobs and partnership opportunities and competitively supplied housing to all deserters and refugees from the remaining intolerant territorial States and upon alliances with societies- and governments-in-exile that would represent volunteers among these deserters and refugees and would act as representatives for those still held captive by these aggressive governments. - - 15.) The International Federation of Autonomous Minority Groups (IFAMG) is aware that the recognition of the autonomy of all voluntary minority groups, on a non-territorial basis, will remove not only one of the objective preconditions for nuclear war, namely nuclear targets, but also numerous other factors making for nuclear war. (Many of these are listed in PEACE PLANS No. 16-17, now online under www.panarchism/info - specifically: ) - It will, therefore, have a strong appeal for all lovers of peace, freedom and security, all over the world. - It will also give them the opportunity to try to practise their particular peace projects within the AGM framework. - - TO EACH THE GOVERNMENT OR NO-GOVERNMENT OF HIS DREAMS, UPON HIS OWN CHOICE, ON A NON-TERRITORIAL BASIS, COMPARABLE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE IN THE RELIGIOUS SPHERE. - - FULL TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE AND A DEFENSIVE FEDERATION OF ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE AGAINST ALL INTOLERANT ONES. - This is only the somewhat revised transcript of the first scribbled notes and will have to be revised several times. Still to be compared and integrated with previous drafts in the file: International Federation of Minority Groups. JZ 11.3.86. – Slightly revised: 28.12.04  28.8.12.)

ZUBE, JOHN, Editorial Notes, or how libertarians could have been involved and still might become involved in the LEN CASLEY secession and other secessions, 2.6.84, page 118, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.

ZUBE, JOHN, Einige Notizen ueber die Panarchie & Libertaere & Anarchisten, 62, in ON PANARCHY VIII, - & Nov. 1986: 75, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, Einige Notizen ueber die Panarchie, 1986, 9pp, in PP 736.

ZUBE, JOHN, Einige Notizen ueber eine Internationale Vereinigung fuer volle Exterritoriale Autonomie for alle Minderheiten und Mehrheiten aus Freiwilligen, fuer volle Experimentierfreiheit auf eigene Kosten und eigenes Risiko, fuer volle Handlungsfreiheit in eigenen Angelegenheiten, fuer PANARCHISMUS, 1.11.1986, 90, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672. - Probably the same 6 pages article is in PEACE PLANS No.736.

ZUBE, JOHN, Experimental Freedom for all Tolerant Land Reformers: Extract from PP 5, p.119, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

ZUBE, JOHN, Extract from "Let Freedom Pay Its Way", 1976, 123, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Extract from a letter to Alan Koontz, 9 July 1987, 62, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, Extract from a letter to George Ray, July 16, 1987, 63, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, Extract from letter to David Taylor, 30.7.86, 124, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, Extract from letter to George R. Steele, 19.7.86, 125, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, Extracts from "An ABC Against Nuclear War", entries in alphabetical order, of some relevance to exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, with entries going from "experimental freedom" to "World War III", plus a selection of articles from the appendix of the same book (81ff). - The reproduction of the original is on many pages abominable, as I will freely admit. At the same time, this book still offers, I believe, our best chances to prevent nuclear war, page 43, in ON PANARCHY V, in PP 554. - However, if you prefer a well printed and bound book ... A revised and digitized version of the whole book is at

ZUBE, JOHN, Fiji and Panarchism, undated notes, 1p: 144, 145, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, First Principles, 2005. - - John Zube, First Principles (2005) - Alas, I have not yet received criticism or improvement suggestions to the 33 points in this draft of 110 KBs. - Just like I have not yet received further input to my anthology of private human rights drafts, originally in PEACE PLANS 589/590, later enlarged and digitized but, to my knowledge, not yet online. Some of the most important questions are not systematically dealt with by mankind but, rather, ignored. - JZ, 17.9.11. - As an old proverb says: Most problems are not discussed and solved but simply ignored or passed over. - JZ, 19.9.11.

ZUBE, JOHN, FREE BANKING, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM: -(2010) John Zube's Bibliography. On Monetary Freedom. - (2011) Towards a comprehensive encyclopedia on free banking. They deal with important practical applications of panarchism.

ZUBE, JOHN, 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? - 4pp, here reproduced from PP 603: 205, in PP 1539. - - Also and dated 26.2.1986, 8, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - Australians, like other victims of the territorial nation State concept and its corollaries (one rule, one law, one jurisdiction for consenters and dissenters alike, based on limited but despotic voting powers 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. 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, regardless of whether the latter agreed with his choices. The State, that's me („I am the State!“), 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, during the next election. Alas, the same Australians, largely with their consent, fell later victims to more of the same 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 try to somewhat satisfy almost all of the most diversified people, interests and aims (or provide sufficient public excuses for governmental failures), 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 thus do ignore, despise or ridicule all radical and consistent principles, especially natural law, human and individual rights principles, preferring, instead, their kinds of "civil rights" that are very narrowly defined by them and which very often restrict or oppose rather than uphold genuine individual 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 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 become operative, that would change this picture, that further decades or even centuries of conventional and modern enlightenment efforts, methods and tools, will sufficiently reconcile these three groups. One will then predict that, unless a radical change in their constitution and relationship 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 a general holocaust with ABC mass-murder devices. - - - 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, 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, and radical tolerance for all tolerant actions, 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 dreams 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, now amounting to the vast majority in his community, which would be almost unanimous on all major points. - A precondition is only that he does not, alone or in association with fellow statists, interfere with the realization of the different dreams of the moderates and of the freedom lovers. - This requires ("unless one wants to force all people into "reservations", ghettos or apartheid) that all are autonomously organized in a non-territorial way, under personal laws, with their own and for themselves individually preferred and quite genuine „self-governance“ system applying only to their own and voluntary members. - Each adult and rational person must be then be set free to make his own choice between the various systems and subsystems, i.e., to have the all-important vote of seceding, withdrawing or disassociating himself from any territorial State and any non-territorial autonomous community and joining another and trying to get along by himself, just trading for whatever will exist of free market services for him. - In this most important respect, among many others significant individual choices, preempted by territorial States and their governments, constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and policing, 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 only one voice among all too many others but never the fully deciding vote on his 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, far less by revolutionaries and terrorists. Words would still be slung between them, as between some churches and sects, but hardly any missiles, from stones and Molotov cocktails to IBMs. - Even the targets for mass extermination devices would become dissolved - and the motives and 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 above 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 production facilities 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 in no doubt to me. There are only rationalizations and excuses for the continuance of the dilemmas created by the existence of territorial and sovereign nation-states, which have correspondingly disfranchised their subjects. - - The governance system, societies and communities based upon genuine individual consent, or thorough self-governments, which are 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 their 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 liberties, 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 then and furthermore be wasted in propaganda efforts against the Freedomites and in efforts to quarantine their members against becoming „infected“ by freedom ideas and actions – but always 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 either 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 or even any kind of missiles – JZ, 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, against them, whatever their convictions and ideals were otherwise. - - Their solidarity against Nazis was an astonishing phenomenon. Alas, it was not expressed in the principles of radical tolerance for all tolerant people and in corresponding personal law institutions. They were deluded into believing that conventional territorial democracies could fully solve their problems. – JZ, 28.12.04. - - This common interest could and soon would then, under this exterritorial autonomy, be expressed in corresponding defensive organizations - even though the all-over threat of further aggression already would be greatly reduced. Looking at history, they would realize: New fanatic prophets and "great leaders" may arise at any time. - Based on this tolerance for tolerant actions, they would almost always have the chance to find many converts, friends and allies or at least neutrals among the armies and slave laborers of despotic regimes, whose proper utilization or, rather, liberation, would greatly simplify their defensive task. - - Moreover, the examples of this degree of tolerance would often be effective in persuading victims in other countries to follow suit. Revolutions have often been infectious. Even if they do not have as much individual choice to offer as the panarchistic „one-man-revolutions“ do have. - - 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 as most of those were, whom they have overthrown and most libertarians have far not had any better programs to teach them for e.g. revolutions, liberation wars and military insurrections. They have not even shown a serious interest in these possibilities, still holding that isolationism, neutrality and non-intervention, even against totalitarian regimes, would be the best way to go. In this respect even some government officials are more enlightened. But these, too, can usually only think in terms of territorialist policies, which perpetuate and multiply problems. - - All such consideration go beyond the interest of most people with 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 have do others then still to afraid of him? - Do, for instance, tennis players and basketball players fight each other in the streets – or do they merely do their own things for themselves? - Do housewives fight it out in the streets, what ought to be placed on the menu – for all families? - - 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 more could and should be said but this would go far beyond the short case for freedom for self-responsible and voluntary actions, in all spheres, that 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 practised models of authoritarians and Statists, of people who want to remake the world forcefully, 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, the realization of “our” governments’ MAD policies. - JZ, 26.2.1986. - Slightly revised: 28.12.04, 28.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, Freedom of Action and Maximum Tolerance or Endless Wars, Civil Wars, Terrorism, Party Struggles, Compromises, Dissatisfactions and, in Desperation, Error, by Misjudgment or Accident, Finally the Nuclear, Chemical or Biological Holocaust? 4pp, here reproduced from PP 603: 205, in PP 1539. -  Also, on: 26.2.1986, 8, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Further Notes on Panarchism and Anarchism, n.d., modified 3.5.03, 16.8 KBs. - - John Zube, Further Notes on Panarchism and Anarchism

ZUBE, JOHN, Further Panarchist Notes from and to THE CONNECTION, No. 105, of 24 July 82 & July 89, 11pp, Jim Stumm & Jim Downard, 1, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. - -  Further Panarchist Notes to THE CONNECTION, No.137, 111, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Further Panarchist Notes, to Erwin Strauss, June 4th., 1985, with comments on Carol Moore's views in TC 126, page 5, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585.

ZUBE, JOHN, Has Passive Resistance a Chance for Success? Some General Objections against a Passive or Non-violent Resistance, 96, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

ZUBE, JOHN, How could anarchist communities peacefully coexist with statist ones, with each individual being free to choose between them? 17, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - Compare the revised edition, ibid, under 27.

ZUBE, JOHN, How could Apartheid - quite unacceptable to most, in its present form, be transformed to become attractive to most? Page 119, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, However, it is John Zube who has been the best and most persistent advocate of Panarchy in a series of essays and books that he has written mainly from 1964 onwards and published in his “PEACE PLANS” series. - - Amongst the short writings a particular mention could be given to a series of notes On Tolerance (1982) - - John Zube, On Tolerance. - - (Even here I merely elaborated on the basic idea of tolerance, e.g. in the monetary sphere, set out by Ulrich von Beckerath. - JZ, 27.8.11.) - In those notes the basic idea of Panarchy, namely “tolerance for all our tolerant experiments” is spelled out in the most convincing and rational way. Personal and social life is seen as a continuous experience in living where everyone learns from his own or other people’s actions and efforts and in doing so each person advances and develops. Without the freedom to experiment we lack the basic pre-condition for a rich and meaningful human life. - - In other words, Panarchy advocates full tolerance and freedom of experimenting in one’s life everywhere and for everyone. - - In another short writing, The Gospel of Panarchy (1986) - - John Zube, The Gospel of Panarchy - - John Zube defines Panarchy as - “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.” - (Actually, I wrote some such short pieces on panarchism largely only upon Gian Piero's urging, for he wanted short pieces on it for his new website. - JZ, 27.8.11.) - Under the direct or indirect impulse/inspiration of John Zube, other writers have started producing articles dealing with Panarchy. - Gian Piero de Bellis, in: On Panarchy, which may still be the best short survey. - I tried to push these ideas for decades, but we are still all too few. In the meantime, some people managed to develop similar ideas quite independently. All these independent thinkers should be listed together. I am merely a "second-hander" - or fourth hander, after De Puydt, Roscher and Beckerath - when it comes to panarchism. - JZ, 27.8.11.)

ZUBE, JOHN, Immigration within the Right Framework - Libertarians and Terrorists ~ Common Traits - WAR AGAINST IRAQ OR A COUNTER-TERRORIST STRIKE AGAINST THE TYRANT RULING THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ? (an older, but prophetic article) - Further, very topical, texts by John Zube on the workings of territorialism. - C. B.

ZUBE, JOHN, In Defense of Jews (or Not?) - - An epoch-making revolutionary analysis and proposal in an essay by John Zube, as I formulated for Google and its competitors in one of my meta tags. An essay analyzing, explaining, proposing the epoch-making and revolutionary concepts of exterritorialism or a-territorialism and - panarchism in capsule form with topical references. Did I repeat myself? Repeat with me! :-) - This major essay is one of the results of an ongoing effort - over the last few months to explain the tentacular implications - of John Zube's research in shorter form and in such a way that - more people can understand it and relate to it. More to come! - The blogs! (new content in those marked only) (x) "CB's notewok" - Unfortunately, C.B., too, likes to exaggerate. - JZ, 30.8.11.

ZUBE, JOHN, International Land Reform or Abolition of National Land Tenure, from PP 5, plan 120, page 12, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

ZUBE, JOHN, Jedem den Staat oder die freie Gemeinschaft seiner Träume! "eigentuemlich frei", Nr.9 (1. Quartal 2000).

ZUBE, JOHN, John Zube's List. - John Zube's List (2006-2009) - Some hints to electronic books and other important texts, libertarian and anarchist ones. A huge list of hints to electronic books and other important texts, libertarian & anarchist ones.

ZUBE, JOHN, Let Freedom Pay its Way, 1976, 2nd. and enlarged edition 1979, 98pp, in PP 19C. - Also offered digitized and zipped, as an email attachment, until it appears online or on a disc. (Together with a large collection of other libertarian texts). - A privatization plan to mobilize all government assets before an election, to get the voters to vote for a party which would realize this privatization, by promising each citizen an equal share in capital certificates in all these assets. - JZ, 11.10.11. – It has already been reproduced online on a disc that C. B. reproduced on his - JZ, 28.8.12.


ZUBE, JOHN, Letter to Cathy L.Z. & L. Neil Smith, Sept. 8, 1986, 56, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, Letter, on protection in city parks, LIVING FREE, July 1980, Feb. 1981, 1p, 107, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, Libertarian Microfiche Publishing. - John Zube's Libertarian Microfiche Publishing. - Libertarian Microphiche Publishing. A huge list of published materials. [Microfiche. A typo by GPdB, who is always busy adding more material to his huge website - Usually he makes many less typos than I do. - JZ] My literature list of LMP is also on - The biggest publishing venture on earth. - That is very much exaggerated. True is only that, at least for a while, 1977 to 2002, as an individual, with limited means, I was able to publish more libertarian texts, at least on the unpopular but very cheap and easy medium of microfiche, than any other individual that I knew. (With the help of a computerized and automated micrographic agency, which could thus offer a very low unit price.] However, since then many individuals may have produced more texts either online or on discs. There are also huge collections of e.g. anarchist pamphlets and of writings on the French Revolution offered on microfiche, but they are produced by large corporations. The whole classical literature of Greece and Rome was offered in this format - but not by individuals. E.g., David Hart may have offered more libertarian writings by now online or on disc - again, with the help of a large organization. – The total digitized output of FEE, including all issues of THE FREEMAN, may also be much larger. Moreover, genuine publishing requires not only production but also distribution. Usually, I produced only 100 duplicates of my microfiche, since I could easily and fast order more from my micrographic agency, if and when required. Alas, only rarely was such re-ordering needed. The medium remained all too unpopular with anarchists and libertarians, too, although with it they could have easily published all their texts. I estimated that ca. 300 libertarians, active like me in this respect, could have done it. Well, they did not use this affordable opportunity, either. Neither have they since, published everything of interest to them online or on discs, although the disc publishing has become even cheaper and more powerful than microfilm publishing. Recently, for instance, I bought 10 DVDs, with a capacity of 7 GBs each, for only A $3. - The same publisher, which reproduced my LMP literature list – see above - has also published my "Slogans for Liberty" collection, coming to ca. 38 Mbs. It contains many MBs of notes and quotes on panarchism, which I extracted from there and did include into this A to Z collection. - PLEASE, do consider that ALL libertarian writings could, possibly, become reproduced by now on a single and cheap external HD of 1 to 3 TBs! Spread that thought as a call for sufficient collaborative action in division of labor. - Instead, the total could also be offered in specialized CDs and DVDs o flash memory sticks, which are also becoming cheaper and more powerful all the time. - JZ, 2.10.11. – Prices for flash memory sticks are now often down to less than $ 1 per GB, but still more expensive and, probably, more risky to mail than are CDs or DVDs. – JZ, 28.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, Libertarian Prophetress ALICE LENCHINA, or Maximum Extension of the Principle of Religious Freedom and Tolerance, plan 90, page 7, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

ZUBE, JOHN, Libertarians and Terrorists - Common Traits. Iraq, Ireland, the US and the State of World Affairs - (Probably the heading C.B. gave it. - JZ, 29.8.11.) - Territorialism and Libertarians. An Answer to a Comment of a Story Circulated on the Libertarian eGroups/Yahoo!Groups realtruth, libnetd, freedomseek and offshoredestiny by John Zube. (As offered by C.B. on his website - JZ) - - A libertarian full of territorial convictions is a total imposture. - Gian Piero de Bellis - TO MAKE MATTERS CLEAR ENOUGH, WE SHOULD USE CLEAR ENOUGH LANGUAGE! - Where in the world are political, economic and social matters truly the "business of the people"? - Where in the world do even "the" people exist at all, not only in form of a careless generalization? - At most only diverse groups of volunteers exist within every "nation", "people" or territorial "State". Only they deserve the name of groups or genuine communities. - The inmates of any national territorial prisons should not be called "people". - Nor should one describe their various groups as if all of them were equally free to act in accordance with their beliefs and convictions. - The problem for most people, everywhere, individuals and their voluntary groups, is that under the present territorial system they are nowhere quite free or free enough to really mind their own business. - It was certainly wrong to describe e.g. the over 120 various ethnic and many more other groups under Stalin, the dissenters and other victims under Hitler, and those under Mao, as "a" people or as "the" people. - Interference with such rulers is not necessarily interference with "the people", unless one resorts e.g. to WMDs (*) against the population, indiscriminate area bombing etc. - If territorial governments were, what they pretend to be and are widely believed to be, upholders of justice internally and of international law, based on individual rights, externally, then they ought to interfere with internal criminals with victims as well as with very powerful external criminals with victims, as was at least the intention, alas, not always the reality e.g. in WW II. - What makes even the intervention of the best intentioned and perhaps most democratic governments in the world in other countries bad is, that they do not confine their activities to the killing, capture and prosecution of private or official terrorists, or the overthrow of any dictatorship, but that they make it "their" "business" to impose another territorial regime upon very diverse individual and minority group people, instead of letting all individuals and all their voluntary groups make their own decisions on their own lives, even in all political, economic and social matters. - Instead, they apply a kind of territorial, constitutionalized, legalized and juridically excused "terrorism" or at least severe authoritarianism, themselves - upon all dissenters in a country. (Instance the war against drug users and drug traders.) At most they give them a chance to express a protest vote or to try to become a ruling majority or ruling minority by means of persuasion. But they do not aim for or allow that politics, economics and social matters become really the affairs of individual people and of voluntary groups, as their own business. They do so neither internally nor externally. They should be blamed mainly for THAT, not for overthrowing a dictatorship, one of a regime that at least tried to acquire WMDs for a long time and blocked any thorough inspection for years. - Since US politicians, too, cannot imagine such a quite just and free state of affairs for all (panarchic, polyarchic etc.), naturally, in their external affairs they do not apply such war and peace aims but merely the territorial and "democratic" or "republican" non-solutions, which in countries like Iraq would satisfy at most a minority. It does not lead to peace between strongly dissenting and numerous groups there and in many other places in the world. Not even in Ireland. To my knowledge not even full religious liberty was proclaimed as a major rightful war and peace aims in Iraq and Afghanistan, far less the full equivalent of it in the political, economic and social sphere. - Blockading for years, all of Iraq, was naturally wrong, for Saddam Hussein's regime was at most supported by a strong minority, not by the majority of all individuals in Iraq. - That was another application of the "principle of collective responsibility" which no government, no party and no peace movement, to my knowledge, has as yet strongly rejected on moral and utilitarian grounds. - How many books and articles of libertarians and anarchists can you quote which attack that "principle"? - If they do not attack it then they have at least this faith in common with most of the active terrorists and those rulers who conduct indiscriminate warfare. - Some sense was only shown during the second war in Iraq, when military targets and potential hiding places for Saddam Hussein were the main target for bombs and rockets. But even the supposedly smart bombs and rockets often missed the target and killed innocents instead. According to one report one of them landed even in another country! - Is the bureaucratized CIA so inefficient that it could not even launch an efficient attack against a single dictator like S. H., on the ground? - At least the US government put a price on the head of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and some of their henchmen. But that, on its own, without a sound peace program, was certainly not enough. How many libertarians and anarchists called for such prize money and subscribed towards such funds? Are such "leaders" the kind of leaders, which "the" people deserve? Are their victims free to "mind their own business"? - Territorialism, collective responsibility notions and insistence upon majority rule, however "democratic" and "republican", not only openly and comprehensively despotic regimes, not only fanatic religious and ideological movements, all territorialism is a breeding ground for terrorists, civil wars, revolutions, dictators and wars. But do all libertarians and anarchists as yet reject territorialism, collective responsibility and majority rule? - Libertarians and anarchists should begin to ponder when, where and under what conditions THEY would be prepared to resort to rightful arms, in rightful ways and for what kinds of rightful war and peace aims, against the remaining dictators in the world and against future ones, instead of merely blaming the blundering own or other territorial governments, which are based upon the usual territorialist and majority despotic notions. - They should not expect quite moral and rational ideas and actions from their own and other territorial governments - but should expect or develop and then discuss and publish such ideas and actions among themselves and prepare for such actions of their own, apart from suggesting them, for publicity purposes, as rightful alternative actions to their own governments. - Simply asking the own government to do nothing in external affairs is not good enough. - What does "MYOB" (**) mean, IN DETAIL, IN ALL SPHERES? - The continued possession alone, of nuclear mass murder or anti-people "weapons" in the hands of "democratic" governments like the US, England, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. and the centralization of decision-making power on war and peace, armament and disarmament, in such countries, turns them, too, into despotic regimes, as stated already by Immanuel Kant in his "Eternal Peace", in 1795. - Not to speak of numerous other interventionist actions. - Neutrality and isolationism or apathy towards such threats are not a solution, either. - What Rothbard said in "War, Peace and the State", on nuclear weapons, remains still largely ignored by most libertarians. - To that extent they are just as guilty as is President Bush. - My own two peace books, which do take up these and related questions in some detail (, remain also ignored, by most libertarians and anarchists, and this for decades, although, to my knowledge, no libertarian or anarchist has as yet offered a better peace book. If you do know of one, please, name it! - To that extent, I have also some reasons to blame libertarians and anarchists for the present state of the world. They have failed to enlighten themselves sufficiently on the freedom and justice preconditions for a lasting peace in the world, although this should be among their major topics. - Retrospectively, wouldn't you wish that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, had been kidnaped or assassinated in time, before they committed most of their mass murders? Shouldn't coups have been initiated against them? - Should countries under the rule of Hitler not have been "invaded" and at least somewhat liberated? Was Saddam Hussein an innocent man, a benefactor to "his" "people"? In your anger about the wrongs and mistakes of your government, you cease to be objective about other governments that are much worse, like e.g. the North Korean one, which, never minding starvation among its subjects, prepares openly for a nuclear war. - (Admittedly, the US government has been a nuclear power for the longest time. But, at least after the first two abuses of these "weapons" it did not use them again, so far. That does not make it right for it to keep them "in readiness" - against WHOM? It would, obviously, not have needed a nuclear weapon to wipe out S. H. and if it had been used, then it would, most likely, have killed and injured a million of more or less innocent people and not only him.) - Should we really preach and practise complete non-intervention or complete "non-violence" towards all such regimes? - Should we not at least try to develop and publish a peace program that would, in extremity, be worthwhile fighting for, rightfully, with rightful weapons, methods and war and peace aims, but which, with its obvious rightfulness and rationality could greatly contribute to prevent further wars? - If e.g. West Germans had known how well they would be treated by the Western Allies, after WW II, would they have bothered to fight for a Hitler? Did American libertarians and anarchists know and teach German people how to effectively overthrow a regime like that of Hitler? Were they offered a separate peace? Was any German government in exile recognized? - (Apart from that which the Soviets had prepared for East Germany and we know how bad that was.) - What kind of program could and probably would come to appeal e.g. to most of the people living in Iraq, including all the dissenting minorities? If we found or developed it, should we not try to publish and to realize it there - and elsewhere? – [Even if only through the recognition of societies and governance systems in exile, all only for their present and future volunteers. – JZ, 28.8.12.] Obviously, neither the USA government nor the UN do so far offer such a program. - Do libertarians and anarchists offer it? Their programs, too, have so far appealed only to a tiny minority. - That the US government bothers an innocent student, SF fan and rocketry fan, should concern us much less than some of the questions I put forward above. - Serious thinking about HOW to achieve a lasting peace in freedom and justice has barely begun among libertarians and anarchists. If I am wrong in this, PLEASE, do prove me wrong. - PIOT (***), John Zube. - PEACE PLANS, Libertarian Microfiche Publishing, ON PANARCHY, SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, etc. - - - - - (*) = weapons of mass destruction [should anyone not yet have run into that abbreviation... :-) - - (**) = mind your own business - - (***) = Panarchy In Our Time - - Home page/Page d'accueil/Eingangsseite - Copyright © 1998-2004 Christian Butterbach. All rights reserved. - How can he copyright the contents of my own letter? I certainly did not give my consent to that, for I do not make any copyrights claims. - JZ, 29.8.11. - LANGUAGE ABUSE, PEOPLE, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, ASSASSINATION, TYRANNICIDE, WAR & PEACE AIMS, LIBERTARIANS, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONS, COUNTRIES, OFFICIAL TERRORISM, IRAQ, IRAN, IRELAND, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, AIR RAIDS. CIA, SECRET SERVICES, MAJORITY RULE, ISOLATIONISM, SELF-HELP, MYOB

ZUBE, JOHN, Many alternative terms, either apt ones or misunderstandings by those, who haven't read de Puydt's original article and the various follow-up writings, "judging" or evaluating panarchy merely nominally, by the word itself, can be found in many discussions online, e.g on the Sooner or later they should all be extracted, alphabetized and evaluated or critically responded to. Among them are also some quite opposite interpretations, meaning a totalitarian State, world-wide, ruling over everyone and everything. - I still can't understand people who quickly try to "judge"" an idea, plan, proposal or a very complex reality - merely by "interpreting" a word, as if all meanings could be expressed in and extracted from a mere word. - JZ, 2010, 2.10.11. – NAMES, TERMS, DEFINITIONS, SHORT DESCRIPTIONS

ZUBE, JOHN, Minorities Compact, a draft of 86, rev. 98, 40KBs in WORD. - Draft for an article on minority autonomy for all and a corresponding compact between members of all minority groups. - Slightly revised on 12 April 1998. Formerly file: Pan1.doc. Now file: Pan1.498. Also: Pan1.ASC. - Compare with Ackermann's draft of the Cosmopolitan Union and Beckerath's draft of a peace treaty with Russia. - - - ALL VOLUNTARY MEMBERS OF ALL MINORITY GROUPS DO HEREBY AGREE UPON AND DECLARE THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: (1.) For a time it had been assumed that freedom for a majority to make decisions for all and the opportunity for a minority to peacefully persuade the majority would be enough to safeguard the rights and realize the interests and aims of minority groups. By now numerous disappointments not only with totalitarian regimes and dictatorships but also with majoritarian, direct, representative and constitutional democracies and with governmental declarations of human rights and governmental juridical avenues, have taught minorities that nothing less than full independence can realize their rights and safeguard their interests. - (2.) Members of minority groups are becoming aware how many different minorities there are, how numerous their members are and that, in total, they do often amount to the majority. But they will not take this as a justification for any attempt to dominate over any local and temporary majority that exists or may arise. Their aim is independence for themselves and for all others, not an alternative system of domination. - (3.) Members of minority groups are realizing that even majoritarian democracies are usually dominated by minorities, "in the name of the people" but without a proper mandate. They are not based on full and free consent. What they call consensus is largely based upon myths, errors and pretences, when they claim to be representative. - - For instance, if 2/3 of all people are registered voters and 2/3 or them actually vote and the elected combine 2/3 of all votes upon themselves and make their decisions with a 2/3 majority, then not 2/3 of all people are represented in these decisions but only 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 16/81 or ca. 1/5. 4/5 of the population are not represented in these 2/3 majority decisions! (A hint by Damaschke.) - (4.) Members of minorities have become aware that their basic rights must not be left at the discretion of any "representatives" or "majorities", far less dependent upon the good will, knowledge and ability and moral sense of any rulers. - (5.) Therefore, all their internal affairs, i.e. the affairs of their voluntary members, are no longer to be regulated by any central legislature, government, administration and jurisdiction that is external to them, i.e. constituted largely by others, not even when it is supported by the vast majority of population of a territory, who are not voluntary members of the minority groups in that territory. (To be taken into consideration are also those minority groups in other territories, with which any minority in the own country may wish to affiliate or confederate, rather than with the majority in the own country. - JZ, 21.9.11.) - (6.) On the contrary, all minority groups that are made up only of voluntary members, do have the right to organize themselves independently, fully autonomously, non-territorially and under their own personal laws, governmental or societal institutions and jurisdiction. - They may also establish their own defensive services and alter and improve these as they like. - (7.) Among the own voluntary members, each autonomous and non-territorial minority group association may apply any cultural, religious, educational, ideological, technical, political, economic, social system or procedures, ethnic and even racial segregation or integration that its members can agree upon. - It may engage with them in new and old social, economic and political experiments, at the own risk and expense, in accordance with the wishes and aims of its voluntary members. - (8.) For the realization of their non-territorial autonomy, the voluntary members of all minority groups insist upon the recognition of the right of all their adult and rational members to secede, as individuals and by one-sided declarations, not only from any national army or trade union or school system but from a whole territorial, local government, State and federal national State system altogether, regardless of its welfarist or national pretences, whether the State concerned is a totalitarian or a democratic one, without thereby renouncing or losing any basic natural right. Moreover, they do insist upon the right of all individuals who have so seceded to associate voluntarily, autonomously and non-territorially, so that they would neither have to change their residence nor their jobs, trades or professions, subjecting themselves for all their own affairs only to personal laws of their making or choosing. (Unless, of course, they happened to be politicians or public servants of the territorial statist regime that they seceded from and where provided with accommodation by it. - JZ, 21.9.11.) - (9.) The members of all minority groups recognize that the right of individuals and minorities to secede applies only to exterritorial secessions. It does not authorize them to make any territorial monopoly claims towards the States they seceded from or towards others. It does not authorize them to impose any constitutions, laws, rules or institutions upon the other people living in a territory, who prefer to remain, at least for the time being, under their present State or governance or societal system. Their secessions, their laws and institutions do apply only to their own communities, which are to be and are to remain volunteer communities. Thus any minority group member, who has any reason or motive for a change of mind, may withdraw from his minority group and either return to his old State or join any other minority group or may attempt to establish one of his own. - Their withdrawal may be made dependent upon an agreed upon withdrawal period - unless they have been criminally offended against by members of that minority group. - (10.) The voluntary members of all minority groups agree to promote, by word and deed, the kind of individual secessionism and voluntary and non-territorial associationism and minority autonomy that is here stated for all, even for those who are ideologically, religiously, socially, racially or otherwise different or even their very opposites or are of little interest to them or are considered as "aliens", strangers or foreigners. - (11.) For their mutual support of the rights, aims and free and independent practices of all minority groups, for their self-constitution, self-legislation, self-government, self-administration and self-adjudication and to establish and strengthen their defences against any usurpations and aggressions by majorities and minorities, they do agree to support a defensive federation of all minority groups. - (12.) This federation of minority groups is to appeal, in all cases of clashes with the present and future remaining territorial State systems, to the involuntary soldiers, taxpayers and other victims and subjects of these aggressive regimes, to make common cause with the federation of autonomous minority groups and to declare their own independence, either by secession of by fleeing and calling upon the hospitality, support, friendship and alliance which the federation of minority groups can offer them. - (13.) By permitting all kinds of economic experiments among their voluntary members, these autonomous and non-territorially organized minority group members will tend to become comparatively wealthy - especially in accordance with the extent to which they do realize the principles of full monetary and financial freedom, in addition to all other economic liberties, among themselves. Other minority groups would then tend to follow the successful examples of these pioneering groups and would thus tend to become be similarly successful. Nevertheless, in their successes as well as in their failures, these minority groups are to be and remain "open" to new members, provided only that they do subscribe to and abide by the rulings of the minority group concerned. - They are thus to realize not only the right of individuals to withdraw from them but also the right to join them - whenever individuals do agree with them. This does, naturally, apply only to peaceful and non-aggressive individuals. Others might be refused membership or might be excommunicated. (If the influx of new members into a community might become too large, in the opinion of its members, so that it might exceed its optimum size, then, instead of accepting them as new members, such a community would help the applicants to establish their own community upon the same or very similar principles and practices. That would be somewhat comparable to the ancient tribes, often splitting up under new leaders and spreading all over the world and gradually changing their customs and institutions and even their languages over long periods. - JZ, 21.9.11.) Solutions could especially be expected to the problems of inflation, unemployment, sales difficulties, housing shortage and excessive or even all compulsory taxation. The membership of Autonomous Minority Groups (AGMs) with such solutions would grow and multiply at the expense (in membership) of those which do not offer them. - (14.) The defence of AGMs against remaining aggressive territorial governments would largely rely upon offering good and well paid jobs and partnership opportunities and competitively supplied housing to all deserters and refugees from these States and upon alliances with governments and societies in exile that would represent the diverse volunteers among these deserters and refugees and would act as representatives for those still held captive by these aggressive territorial governments. - (15.) The International Federation of Autonomous Minority Groups is aware that the recognition of the autonomy of all voluntary minority groups, on a non-territorial basis, will remove not only one of the objective preconditions for nuclear war, namely nuclear targets, but also numerous other factors making for nuclear war. (Many of these are listed in PEACE PLANS Nos. 16-17.) It will therefore have a strong appeal for all lovers of peace, freedom and security, all over the world. - It will also give them the opportunity to try to practise their particular peace projects within the AGM framework. - TO EACH THE GOVERNMENT OR NO-GOVERNMENTAL SOCIETY OF HIS OR HER DREAMS, THE OWN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, ON A NON-TERRITORIAL BASIS, COMPARABLE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF FREEDOM & TOLERANCE IN THE RELIGIOUS SPHERE. - FULL TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE AND A DEFENSIVE FEDERATION OF ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE AGAINST ALL INTOLERANT ONES. PRINCIPLES - (This is only the somewhat revised transcript of the first scribbled notes and will have to be revised several times. Still to be compared and integrated with previous drafts in the file International Federation of Minority Groups. JZ 11.3.86. - Somewhat revised: JZ, 21.9.11, 28.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, Not Panarchy Again? Some Replies by J. Zube to TC 145, with comments to Filthy Pierre, Walt Thiessen, Brick Pillow, Jim Stumm, Bonnifield, Le Grand E. Day, 58, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, Note of 16.3.86, to a clipping on "factions", 101, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, Note on Panarchism, 23. 3. 1995, 3pp: 197, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, Notes from Australia, on shop currencies and panarchy, 1969, page 2, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - From THE LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, No.7.

ZUBE, JOHN, Notes on Panarchism and the Consequences of Individual Sovereignty, 2pp, 10.10.1989: 203, in PP 1539. File: Panslog1.O89

ZUBE, JOHN, Notes on panarchy and post-territorialism, (2006) - Selected by GPdB, - 46KBs. - John Zube, Notes on panarchy and post-territorialism

ZUBE, JOHN, Notes on Voluntary Taxation, 28pp, 1981, in PP 336.

ZUBE, JOHN, Notes on voting and territoriality versus panarchism - what it all means (a compilation which is part of the SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, already online. - Notes

ZUBE, JOHN, Notizen zu einem Vortrag ueber Panarchism an Anarchisten, 44, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. (Notes to a talk on panarchism to anarchists.)

ZUBE, JOHN, Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear War Threat, 16.3.05, revised 13.12.05. Letter to THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD. - Dear Sirs, Malcolm Maiden in SMH 14.3.05, p. 36, writes in the headline of his article: “How safe is nuclear? BHP needs to decide.” - Why only BHP or the Federal Government? Why not all Australians? We constitute one of the most citified nations on earth. Thus half a dozen hydrogen bombs could wipe out 90 % of the population immediately and most of the rest later, as a consequence of their dependence on the output of cities and of the resulting radioactive pollution. - In the hands of criminal governments nuclear reactors are used as nuclear bomb factories. Even democratic ones have so used some of their reactors. It was a democracy that used the first 2 nuclear “weapons” and it is democracies that hold most of the remaining ones. Terrorists and criminal governments are itching to get their hands on such anti-people and mass murder “weapons”. With nuclear “weapons” one cannot prevent them from gaining them. Thus, should not the targeted people have the ultimate say on this matter? Let us have a referendum on nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, their stationing, uranium mining and also alliances with nuclear “powers”. - Among the nuclear “weapons” “powers” it should also be the people themselves, who ought to have the last say on them. Not any politicians. - After all, nuclear “weapons” are just conveniently small, cheap and portable extermination camp packages. Do we want to use them against the people in any city of the world? - Do we want them used against us? Should we then console ourselves with the thought that their raw materials were “made in Australia”? - As for energy production: Under the usual government mismanagement only a small fraction of all alternative energy options have so far been utilized. The decommissioning of such plants, after their useful lifespan, does not cost very much more than their building and thus they can be economical compared with nuclear reactors - when all the costs of the latter are taken into consideration. - Transmission costs are anyhow the major cost factor in providing electricity from power plants to the consumers. - What fraction of e.g. all the sun-, wind-, wave-, ocean temperature differential, geothermal and tidal power that Australia could utilize has so far been exploited, agriculturally or industrially? - Coal, oil and gas are much too valuable as chemical and biological raw materials to merely burn them for energy production. - All the sun energy that could be captured, directly or indirectly, on the surface of this planet is only a fraction of the sun energy that could be captured in space and transmitted to Earth. The sun is the only safe enough nuclear reactor for us. In the hands of any government or its privileged contractors all nuclear reactors on earth and those placed on satellites, put all of us at risk, at least in the long run. - We should also dissolve targets, motives and financing options for nuclear “weapons” by replacing territorial sovereignties with involuntary members by voluntary communities confined to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, just as we have done, with great success, in the sphere of religion. - Thus the motives of terrorists would also be undermined. They would become free to do their things for and to themselves, independent of the opinions of temporary and territorial majorities. Free competition for the provision of governmental and societal services! Consumer sovereignty towards them! - Faithfully, John Zube, 35 Oxley St, Berrima, NSW 2577, Tel. (02) 48 771 436 -

ZUBE, JOHN, On Anarchy for Anarchists and States for Statists or: To each the government or no-government of his dreams! - 3/86 draft, 18, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, On Diversity and Variety, 2005-2008. - 43 KBs. - John Zube,  On Diversity and Variety (2005-2008) - file:///C/%5C%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5C%5CHP_Administrator%5C%5CMy%20Documents%5C%5Cvariety.2005.html. - Note of Presentation: Who CAN know the world, a country, a people, a city or even his own family enough to be able to quite successfully run it or them? - How many of the “great” leaders failed even to manage their own families successfully? - Who is even quite successful in running his own life? - Is the accumulation of much power or capital a sign of success or of failure in one’s life? - Who can know the world, seeing that it comes in so many varieties? - So, who can presume to rightfully rule over it? - For years I have collected some figures on the astonishing diversity of life on earth and of the products and activities of human beings – and of human beings themselves. - For the individual they are unknowable in their totality. Our outlook is often comparable only to the horizon of an ant. For instance: In a lifetime of avid reading we manage at most about 20 000 books. - But between 400 and 500 million books were published so far – not to speak of the much larger number of articles, essays and papers. - Awareness of such numbers should contribute to make us more humble and tolerant, more prepared for a panarchistic society. - The world is much more diverse than we think and we comprehend much less of it than we imagine. - Nobody can know and rule and regulate all this diversity rightfully and efficiently. Only self-management at the lowest possible level works well enough. - More such hints are welcomed by me. - PIOT, John Zube, - Currently, this file comes to 144 Kbs and is available from me in zipped form, as an email attachment. - JZ, 18.9.11.

ZUBE, JOHN, On Law. - Note: This is a selection of the many thoughts on law that John Zube has gathered along the years. Most of them are pure gems of wisdom that should be read and pondered in no hurry and in a condition of tranquility. Then, if convinced by the wisdom of past and present scholars, everyone should act accordingly. The worst thing that could happen to us is to leave the matter in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats because, when we relinquish the law in those hands, no one is really free and safe. - GPdB., 89.2 KBs. - John Zube, On Law - More such remarks, by others and myself, can be found in my SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY collection, ca. 38 Mbs, which is online. - But it is still VERY incomplete on every subject! - JZ, 25.10.11. – LAWS, LEGISLATION

ZUBE, JOHN, On Panarchism for Anarchists, 3/86 draft, 22, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, On Panarchy or: The Gospel of Panarchy according to Sinner St. John Z., 19 point draft, 10-3.86, 29, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, On THE CONNECTION, No. 104, of 6 June 82, quotes and discussion of contributions by Diogenes of Panarchia and Fred Foldvary, 4pp, 108, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, On the Independence of the Duke of Avram: He started a bank and issued his own notes and coins, in Tasmania, since 1981. A compilation of letters, documents, clippings & notes, l-55, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PP 689.

ZUBE, JOHN, On Tolerance, 1982, 58 KBs, - John Zube, On Tolerance (1982)

ZUBE, JOHN, Pan Notes 21 & 22 4 05. - Partly to be taken to Pan Slogs and Pan A Z. - - Ulrich von Beckerath in einem Brief: “Kant faßt die Annäherung unserer gesellschaftlichen Zustände an den Weltfrieden als einen Naturprozeß auf, (vgl. Seite 28 ), nicht etwa als ein moralisches Problem.” - JZ Anmerkung: Liegt da wirklich ein Widerspruch vor? - - (1.) Die Natur kann nur dann ganz frei und wirksam arbeiten, auch auf den Frieden hin, wenn fuer den Einzelnen auch ein Naturzustand besteht, d.h., er sich z.B. seine Staatszugehoerigkeit, oder die Mitgliedschaft in irgendeiner Sozialgemeinschaft oder freiheitlichen Gesellschaft ganz frei waehlen kann und auch sonst seine sonstigen natuerlichen individuellen Menschenrechte frei ausueben kann, wenn er das will. Die nationalen und territorialen “Gefaengnisse” sind aufzuloesen, durch freien Austritt Einzelner und freie Konkurrenz mit ihren “Dienstleistungen” durch andere und bessere, beurteilt von freien Kunden oder Mitgliedern. - - (2.) Ohne diese Voraussetzungen verbleiben wir die Opfer territorialer Machtstaaten, die meist Kriegsstaaten sind, jetzt auch atomare Zielscheiben darstellen, und deren “Friede” nur ein zeitweiliger Waffenstillstand ist. - - (3.) Wenn man der menschlichen  Natur und der Natur menschlicher Gesellschaften und Beziehungen so zuwiderhandelt, wie es in den heutigen territorialen Staaten geschieht, mit ihren Millionen von “positiven Gesetzen”, verfuegt und, so weit wie moeglich, erzwungen von Leuten die annehmen, dass Menschen als Marionetten oder Hammelherden auf die Dauer und gegenseitig zufriedenstellend oder gar erfolgreich “gefuehrt” werden koennten, dann sind die jetzigen und ganz unnatuerlichen Zustaende unvermeidlich. - - (4.) Von ihren Fehlern genuegend zu lernen - dazu sind die maechtigen Anfuehrer und Luegner – und auch ihre Waehler - offenbar nicht faehig. Man kann sie auch durch die Medien und Parlamente und Wissenschaftliche Beweise nicht genuegend aufklaeren. - - (5.) So muessen Einzelne frei aus deren territorialen Zwangssystemen aussteigen und sich andere Gesellschaften auszusuchen oder schaffen konennen oder mit ihnen und anderen freien Menschen auf der ganzen Welt in einem freien Markt- und Vertragsverhaeltnis stehen koennen. In dieser Beziehung haben Voegel, Insekten und Meeresfische groessere Freiheit als Menschen! Ihnen sind keine unnatuerlichen Staatsgrenzen aufgezwungen. - - (6.) Eine freiwillige Mitgliedschaft in Gemeinschaften hat ebenso unvermeidliche gute Folgen wie es z.B. frei Preise haben. Zwangsmitgliedschaft, Zwangskurs, Devisenkontrolle, Miet- und Lohnkontrolle und allgemeine Preiskontrolle haben ganz unnatuerliche und schaedliche Folgen weil sie unnatuerliche Einmischungen in die Natur der menschlichen Beziehungen sind. - - (7.) Die Freiheit des Einzelnen ist auch ein moralisches Problem, d.h. eines der fuer Menschen natuerlichen “Gesetze”, die man nicht einfach ignorieren oder verneinen und denen man nicht zuwiderhandeln kann ohne schwerste Folgen. - - (8.) Wer wichtige Freiheiten aufgibt und wichtige Rechte ignoriert muss die Folgen tragen, ebenso als wenn er von einem steilen Felsen springt, in der Meinung auch ohne irgend einen Apparat fliegen zu koennen. Seine Natur zeigt ihm, sehr bald, etwas anderes. - - (9.) Experimentierfreiheit fuer alle, auf allen Gebieten, aber immer nur auf eigne Kosten und eigne Gefahr. - Nur dadurch koennen wir sehr bald bessere Zustaende erreichen, Frieden, Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit, so viel es souveraene Konsumenten und Unternehmer (fuer politische, oekonomische und soziale Dienstleistungen) fuer sich wuenschen und fuer sich schaffen, durch die Institutionen und Dienstleistungen, die sie fuer sich und ihre Kunden oder Gleichgesinnten vorziehen, wie fehlerhaft, ideal oder idealistisch sie auch sein moegen. - - (10.) Wieviele der heutigen ungerechten und zu inneren und aeusseren Problemen fuehrenden Staatsausgaben wuerden z.B. weiterhin durch freiwillige Steuerzahler, d.h., durch freiwillige Mitglieder finanziert werden und das auf die Dauer? - - (11.) Die unnatuerlichen und uns aufgezwungenen Systeme wuerden bald zusammenschrumpfen und machtlos werden. - - (12.) Aber als solche und auf ganz freiwilliger Grundlage koennten sie immer noch fuer andere als abschreckende Beispiele dienen - als lebende Museen menschlicher Verruecktheiten. – Es werden immer wieder neue Dummkoepfe geboren, aber denen gegenueber brauchte dann niemand mehr ein Untertan zu sein. Daher Vereinsmeierei und Narrenfreiheit auch fuer sie! Sie werden entweder von den eignen Fehlern lernen oder nicht, aber immer nur auf eigne Kosten und Risiko handeln duerfen.  Freie Menschen wuerden sich gegen diese Hirten und Schafe zu sichern wissen. - JZ, 21.4.05.) - - - “Der Freiheit eine Gasse!” – fuer jeden der sie will. Und nicht nur eine, sondern so viele, wie freie Menschen fuer sich wuenschen und schaffen. Kein Verkehrsverhindernis durch irgendeine Territorialregierung mehr. Grenzen, und viel wirksame, nur gegen innere und aeussere Regierungsgewalten. – Keine Verfassungsmacht, Zwangsgesetze, Politiker, Buerokraten und Richter mehr fuer friedliche und produktive Leute, die nicht deren freiwillige Mitglieder und Untertanen sind. - - - “Jedem der Staat oder auch die ganze freie Gemeinschaft seiner eignen Wahl!” Nicht mehr und nicht weniger. Volle Experimentier und Vertrags und Vereinigungsfreiheit! Darueber hinaus das souveraene Entscheidungsrecht des Einzelnen, das einzige Wahlrecht das wirklichen Wert hat. -  JZ, 21.4.05. - - - Brainstorming notes from 22.4.05: Einige Gedanken zum Austrittsrecht aus dem Staat und der panarchistischen Alternative zu ihm. (Kleine Wegweiser auf dem Wege zum Panarchismus.) - Zum Frieden, zur Freiheit, zur Gerechtigkeit, zum Fortschritt und zum fast allgemeinen Fortschritt und nur zu gewuenschten Graden der Gleichheit, der Stagnation oder des Rueckschritts – fuer jeden Einzelnen und fuer alle Minderheiten. (Noch ungeordnet und noch nicht ins Englische uebersetzt.) Gewoehnlich und schon lange denke und schreibe ich nur im Englischen. Aber kuerzlich habe ich viel Deutsches digitisiert und so ist mein Gehirn aufs Deutsche voruebergehend “umgeschaltet” worden. - - Ueber das “Brainstorming” von Einzelnen: In dieser Form gibt es auch fuer die Einzelnen so etwas wie eine “Gemeinschaft der Geister”: einen Inspirationszustand. Da die Moeglichkeit besteht, dass dabei wenigstens etwas Wertvolles zustande kommt muss man dabei ganz fleissig Schnellschreiber sein. Aber man muss auch klar genug schreiben, um es spaeter noch gut genug lesen zu koennen. Heute morgen, noch halb im Schlaf und nur halb erwacht, machte ich ueber 80 solche Eintragungen. Das ist noch kein persoenlicher Rekord. Mal machte ich ueber 200. - - Was sind schon “eigene” Gedanken unter der Masse der von anderen zum gleichen Thema ausgedrueckten? Manchmal scheint man mit ihnen auf gleicher Wellenlaenge zu liegen, fast so mit den aehnlichen Gedanken anderer wie durch ein Radio verbunden. - - Nur panarchistische Gedankenblitze, schnell aufgezeichnet, die einem so vorkommen, als seien sie von anderen inspiriert. G. C. Lichtenberg sagte in seinen Aphorismen ueber ploetzlich vorkommende Gedanken und Ideen, dass nicht er dabei denke, sondern dass es funke und blitze in ihm. Zieht man die reiche Erfahrung mit gleichzeitig vorgekommenen Erfindungen hinzu, dann koennte man schon an gelegentliche Gedankenuebertragungen glauben, ueber grosse Entfernungen und ohne ausgesprochene oder geschriebene Gedanken. - Manchmal geht es einem wirklich so, als ob hintereinem Dutzende von unsichtbaren Wesen stuenden, die einem einen Satz nach dem anderen diktierten. Oft kommen dabei blosse Wortzusammenstellungen heraus, manchmal aber auch Saetze die man spaeter wie Perlen ansehen mag. - Das noetige Aussieben und die Verbesserungen koennten spaeter und auch von anderen geschehen. - - - Beim Austrittsrecht fuer Einzelne geht es ums Ganze. - Das Eintrittsrecht und das Austrittsrecht sind nur die beiden Teile desselben Rechtes, naemlich der Vereinigungsfreiheit. Es ist unrechtmaessig und unsinning nur den ersten Teil, das Eintrittsrecht, anzuerkennen aber das Austrittsrecht zu verneinen und sogar scharf zu bestrafen, wie es z.B. einige orthodoxe Mohammedaner immer noch tun. - So wie es jetzt steht, muessen noch fast alle zum Austrittsrecht aus dem Staat “bekehrt” werden, nach dem grossen Vorbild des protestantischen Austritts aus der Staatskirche. Aus den Unrechtsstaaten muss man, offensichtlich, austreten koennen. Aus den “Rechtsstaaten” aber ebenfalls, wenn man kein Verbrecher gegen die individuellen Menschenrechte ist. - - Territorialstaaten verwickeln uns in allzu viele Kriege, Unterdrueckungen, Ausbeutungen und andere Ungerechtigkeiten und machen uns verhaeltnismaessig arm und verlangsamen den Fortschritt. Warum sollen wir sie beibehalten? - - - Territorialstaaten setzen der individuellen Freiheit und den individuellen Menschenrechten all zu viele unrechtmaessige und unvernuenftige Grenzen. Das individuelle Austrittsrecht und exterritorial autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften von Freiwilligen wuerden all diese unrechtmaessigen Staaten, auch die besten Formen von ihnen, ganz abschaffen. Nur noch fuer ihre Freiwilligen, d.h., exterritorial autonom, d.h., nicht mehr als Staaten im heutigen Sinne, koennten sie weiterbestehen, solange sie ihre Freiwilligen noch genuegend zufrieden stellen, ausschliesslich auf deren Kosten und Risiko. - - - Ohne vollstaendig freiwillige Mitgliedschaft gibt es wirklich freie Staaten und Gesellschaften nicht und auch keine individuelle Souveraenitaet, weder in der Praxis noch in der reinen Theorie. - - - Was bleibt von uns uebrig unter Territorialstaaten, mit ihrer letzten Konsequenz, dem Atomkrieg? - - - Daher: Was bleibt uns anders uebrig als Ausweg, als das Austrittsrecht aus ihnen und das Recht exterritorial autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften aus Freiwilligen zu gruenden oder ihnen beizutreten? - - - Wirklich freie Staaten und Gesellschaften kann es erst dann geben wenn das Austrittsrecht aus ihnen auch fuer Einzelne gesichert ist. Bis dahin sind sie “nationale”, ideologische, religioese oder rassisch gesinnte Gefaengnisse fuer sehr viele Unschuldige. - - - Der Territorialstaat macht uns zu hilflosen Menschenopfern, im Frieden auch schon fast so schlimm wie im Kriege. Keine unfreiwillige Mitgliedschaft in ihnen mehr und auch keine unfreiwillige Untertaenigkeit unter sie mehr, insbesondere seitdem sie Atom-“waffen” besitzen oder mit solchen “Maechten” verbuendet sind. - - - Nicht der Territorialstaat, sondern wir selbst, individuell oder nur in freiwilligen Gemeinschaften, muessen unser Schicksal bestimmen duerfen. Dann koennten wir es auch, bald genug und gut genug tun, nach unseren eignen Ideen und Werten. Die Experimentierfreiheit und die Vertrags- und Vereinsfreiheit sind auch auf diesem Gebiet unersetzlich. - - - Abschaffung der Territorialstaaten durch das individuelle Austrittsrecht. - - - Gesetze nur von und fuer Freiwillige – and gegen diejenigen, welche die individuellen Menschenrechte von Andersgesinnten aktiv angreifen. - - - Austrittsrecht statt Untertanenpflicht. Es sei denn man hat sich einmal freiwillig verpflichtet und fuehlt sich immer noch so verpflichtet. - - - Ein freier Mensch muesste auch aus dem Staat austreten koennen, ebenso wie aus irgendeinem Verein oder einem Schuh, der ihm nicht mehr passt. - - - Im Sumpf der von Staaten proklamierten angeblichen “Menschenrechte” fehlen viele der wirklichen und wichtigsten individuellen Menschenrechte, besonders diejenigen, die dem Territorialstaat ganz entgegengesetzt sind. Der Rest ist allzu eingeschraenkt und auch ueberschwemmt mit blossen ungerechtfertigten Anspruechen gegen andere, wie “Wohlfahrtsrechte”. - - - Das Austrittsrecht aus dem Staat, zusammen mit dem freien Unternehmertum fuer gewuenschte oeffentliche Dienstleistungen, nur an freiwillige Mitglieder, stellt das hautpsaechliche Wahlrecht und das wichtigste Vertragsrecht dar und fuehrt volle Experimentierfreiheit gerade da ein, wo sie am noetigstens ist, ebenfalls volle Autonomie fuer alle Minderheiten ebenso wie fuer alle Mehrheiten. - - - Das Austrittsrecht fuer Einzelne aus dem Staat ist nicht nur rechtmaessig und manchmal sogar pflichtgemaess, fuer den Einzelnen, sondern es liegt auch im allgemeinen Interesse. - - - Ein wirklich freies Wahlrecht wuerde es Einzelnen auch erlauben nur ganz freiwillig Untertan oder Mitglied zu sein, entweder in einem freien Staat oder einer freien Gesellschaft oder auch, selbst-gewaehlt, mehr oder weniger unfreien und, ebenfalls, das Recht aus ihnen auszutreten und anderen beizutreten oder andere zu gruenden oder sich von allen abzusetzen. - - - Der Territorialstaat ist gewoehnlich auch noch im “Frieden” ein Kriegsstaat, Unterdruecker und Ausbeuter. - - - Es wuerde uns viel besser gehen ohne alle Territorialstaaten. - - - Nichts wird gruendlich genug erledigt und geloest bis es durch Freiwillige geschieht statt durch Herren, Knechte oder Untertanen. - - - Der Einzelmensch, nicht Territorialstaaten oder andere Zwangskollektive, Politiker und Buerokration sollten ueber das Schicksal des Einzelnen, d.h., seine friedlichen und produktiven Beziehungen zu anderen entscheiden duerfen. - - - Nachdem das Austrittsrecht des Einzelnen und die daraus folgenden exterritorial autonomen Gemeinschaften aus Freiwilligen fuer einige Zeit existiert und sich allgemein verbreitet haben - werden sie nicht mehr Zielscheiben fuer ABC Massenmordwaffen darstellen, so wie heute die Territorialstaaten mit erzwungener Mitgliedschaft und Untertaenigkeit. - - - Freiwillige und experimentielle Gemeinschaften wuerden fast spielerisch auf allen Gebieten zu Fortschritten fuehren, so schnell wie es dem Wissen und den Ideen und Meinungen ihrer Mitglieder angepasst ist. Sie koennten aber auch, freiwillig konservativ bleiben oder sich frei zurueck entwickeln, immer nur auf eigne Kosten und eignes Risiko, den eignen Vorurteilen und Idealen entsprechend. - - - Der Mensch wird frei geboren und ueberall von Territorialstaaten in “Ketten” und “Galeeren” gelegt. (Frei nach J. J. Rousseau’s “Der Gesellschaftsvertrag”, ganz am Anfang. Seine “Untertaenigkeit” sollte stattdessen so frei und spielerisch werden wie das Drachenfliegen (playing with kites) und die Mitgliedschaft in Sportsvereinen. - - - Nur der Territorialstaat und der territoriale Volksbegriff muessen “atomisiert” werden. Verbleiben sie, so werden wir schliesslich alle zu Opfern von Massenvernichtungswaffen. - - - Der freie Mensch muss auch freien Abschied nehmen duerfen vom territorialen Staat, seiner Obrigkeit und seiner Untertaenigkeit, ganz ebenso wie von allen anderen von ihm nicht mehr gewuenschten Gesellschaften und Kollektiven. - - - Von Territorialstaaten ist nichts Gerechtes und Positives zu erwarten. Von exterritorial experimentierenden und im freien Wettbewerb stehenden Gesellschaften aus Freiwilligen aber alles Moegliche und Wuenschenswerte. - - - Lasst Einzelne ihre Staats- und Gesellschaftsketten abwerfen und sich nur die von ihnen gewuenschten “Schmuckketten” selbst anlegen – und ablegen wenn sie es selbst wuenschen. - - - Individuelles Abschalten und individuellen Boykott statt Gleichschaltung und Unterwerfung von unfreiwilligen Mitgliedern und friedlichen Leuten. Nur freie Kunden - auch fuer Staaten und Gewerkschaften. Das erst bringt wirkliche Einheit und Zusammenarbeit – unter Gleichgesinnten. Alle anderen, die nicht Angreifer sind, sind in Ruhe zu lassen. Was Angriffe darstellt, statt selbstaendige und selbstverantwortliche Taetigkeit, waere genau zu definieren und zu klaeren. - - - Wir werden von Territorialstaaten und ihren Politikern und Burokraten missbraucht und verbraucht – bis wir aus ihren Zwangsinstitutionen frei austreten koennen. Die unfreiwillige Feudalisierung, Verstaatlichung oder Nationalisierung der Buerger ist ganz abzuschaffen. Der Einzelne muss frei werden ein ganz anderes friedliches Verhalten und friedliche Vereinigungen fuer sich selbst waehlen zu koennen, auf allen Gebieten. Alle anderen “Wahlen” zaehlen nicht – sind nicht so wichtig und rechtmaessig. - - - Gebt die zwangsweise Staatsmitgliedschaft und territoriale Untertaenigkeit auf – und damit den Krieg, die Unterdrueckung und Ausbeutung durch den Staat. - - - Der Territorialstaat ist das “Menschenschlachthaus”. Die individuelle Flucht aus ihm, in der Form des individuellen Austrittsrechtes, ist nicht nur ein Recht, sondern eine Pflicht. - - - Alle Staaten sollten zu wirklichen nicht nur vorgegebenen Einheitsstaaten reduziert werden, d.h. alle nur fuer die eignen Parteigenossen und Waehler beschraenkt und duerfen nur auf deren Kosten und Risiko weiter existieren. Ihre bisherigen und unfreiwilligen Opfer sollten ihnen als Einzelne weglaufen und zu den von ihnen selbst gewuenschten Konkurrenten uebergehen duerfen, ohne ihren Wohnsitz oder, in der Regel, ihre Arbeitstelle aendern zu muessen oder durch ihren Austritt auch nur ein Menschenrecht zu verlieren. Dadurch erst werden diese Einheitsstaaten ungefaehrlich, so wie es z.B. die verschiedenen Sportsvereine sind. - - - Der Panarchismus besteht, aehnlich wie die Religionsfreiheit (aus tausenden von Kirchen und Sekten und Dutzenden von Deisten, Agnostikern, Rationalisten, Humanisten, Atheisten) aus tausenden von verschiedenen politischen Gemeinschaften und aus Dutzenden von unpolitischen e.g. anarchistischen und libertaeren, alle ganz nach freier Wahl ihrer Mitglieder, aber auch aus Aussenseitern, solange sie nur friedlich ihre eignen Sachen besorgen. - - - Gebt den Territorialismus auf – sonst gibt er Euch auf! - - - (Wenn die territorialen Zielscheiben mit “modernen” und “wissenschaftlichen” “Waffen” zerstoert warden.) Freie Mitgliedschaft und freie Beitragszahlung: die hauptsaechlichen Grenzen auch der Staaten und fuer deren Politik und Buerokratie. Endlich auch genuegend Bewegungsfreiheit, Unternehmertum und Kundenautonomie fuer alle Einzelnen auf allen Gebieten. Nur volle Vertragsfreiheit kann Staaten und Gesellschaften genuegend vertraeglich machen. - - - Ohne Austrittsrecht keine freie Gesellschaft und keinen wirklich freien Markt auf allen Gebieten. - - - Freier Wettbewerb fuer Regierungen und ihre Staatsdiener um freiwillige Kunden und Steuerzahler. Erst dann werden sie uns nur die gewuenschten Dienste bringen und auch die nur zu Marktpreisen. - - - Fuehrer nur fuer die “selbstverschuldet Unmuendigen” von denen Kant sprach in seinem Aufsatz “Was ist Aufklaerung?” “Sapere Aude!” zitierte er da und uebersetzte es mit: “Habe den Mut, Dich Deines eignen Verstandes zu bedienen!” – in allen Angelegenheiten. - - - Der Territorialstaat ist eine gewalttaetige Macht und bedeutet Unfreiheit, Ungerechtigkeit, viele Kriege und kuenstlich erzwungene Beraubung und erreichte und sogar vermehrte Armut, auch im “Wohlfahrtsstaat”. - - - Unter ganzen Lawinen von uns aufgezwungenen, statt von uns frei gewaehlten, Gesetzen und Institutionenen koennen wir uns nicht frei, friedlich und gerecht entwickeln. - - - Die nur territorial liberalen und sozialen Machthaber verfuegen allzu liberal und staatlich ueber unsere individuellen Rechte und Freiheiten und verstaatlichen oder nationalisieren sie, im Interesse dieser Bonzen, die dabei vorgeben, im oeffentlichen oder allgemeinen Interesse zu handeln. Wir muessen uns ganz frei, friedlich und individuell von ihnen trennen koennen und uns exterritorial und autonom mit ihnen in freien und friedlichen Wettbewerb stellen koennen. Erst dann werden die Politiker und Buerokraten und ihre “Befugnisse” und Institutionen und freiwilligen Opfer zusammenschrumpfen - zu harmlosen Proportionen. - - - Jetzt hat der territoriale Staat uns in der Zange und haemmert auf uns herum. Wir, individuell, muessen, stattdessen, durch von uns selbst gewaehlte Vereine den Staat in unserer Zange halten koennen, um ihn entweder systematisch boykottieren zu koennen oder auch, indireckt, umzuschmieden, so wie wir ihn fuer uns selbst haben wollen, indem wir seinen Mitgliedern bei uns etwas Besseres und Gerechteres bieten, wenn sie nur zu uns uebertreten. In der Zwischenzeit setzen wir ihnen bestaendig bessere Beispiele menschlichen Zusammenlebens vor ihre Augen. Nur dann werden verbleibende “Staaten” fuer uns ungefaehrlich und ausreichend belehrend sein koennen, wie ein freiwillig unternommenes Experiment unter Gleichgesinnten. - - - Keine unfreiwillige Mitgliedschaft in Staaten mehr. Dadurch auch keine Zielscheiben fuer ABC Massenmordmittel und keine unfreiwillige Steuerzahlung und Untertaenigkeit mehr, sondern nur noch freie Gesellschaften auf einem wirklich freien Markt fuer alle Dienstleistungen und fuer alle Einzelnen. - - - Die Freiheit, der Friede und die Gerechtigkeit werden bei uns nur dann zu Hause sein koennen wenn wir auch schon als Einzelne aus dem Territorialstaat austreten koennen ohne dadurch auch nur ein individuelles Menschenrecht zu verlieren. - - - Wer wie eine gefangene Fliege am Territorialstaat kleben bleibt, der wird nie frei. - - - Territorialstaaten sind, in der Regel, die groessten Luegner, Ausbeuter, Verbrecher, Moerderer und Terroristen. - - - Das staatliche Voelkerrecht und der staatliche “Sozialvertrag” haben mit dem wirklichen Voelkerrecht, einem free geschlossenen Sozialvertrag und den daraf beruhenden freiwilligen Gemeinschaften, die nur exterritorial autonom sind, wenig gemeinsam, ihre Bezeichungen ausgenommen. - - - Ohne freie Wahl in der Staats- oder Gesellschaftsmitgliedschaft gibt es nur noch mehr Qual, Tribute und unfreiwillig Verwundete und Tote. - - - Der Staat und die Gesellschaft – eine Absetzungsfrage fuer Einzelne und eine Absatzfrage fuer im freien Wettbewerb stehende freie Unternehmer fuer alle staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Dienstleistungen. Nur so koennten herrschenden Politiker und Buerokraten zu Dienern jedes Volkes reduziert werden, das nur noch aus freiwilligen Mitgliedern oder Kunden besteht. - - - Staaten aller Art, auch Weltstaaten und Weltfoederationen und ihre gesellschaftlichen Alternativen sind dem freien Wahlrecht von freiwilligen Mitgliedern zu unterwerfen, d.h. Mitgliedern, die auch frei aus ihnen austreten koennen, genauso we freie Kunden im freien Wettbewerb stehende Unternehmen vermeiden koennen. - - - Territorialstaaten sind erzwungene Absatzmaerkte fuer viele von vielen Leuten unerwuenschte Lasten und gleichzeitig Leistungen an Privilegierte auf Kosten aller anderen. Wir sind daher berechtigt aus ihnen individuell auszutreten, wie auch aus allen anderen Vereinen und Organisationen. - - - Wenn ich und alle anderen nicht aus dem Staate austreten koennen, dann koennen wir auch nicht so frei sein wie wir es fuer uns selbst sein wollen, entweder allein oder gemeinsam mit Gleichgesinnten. - - - Keine Bindung an Territorialstaaten mehr, die vergleichbar ist der Bindung an Marterpfaehle und Kriegsgaleeren. Das individuelle Austritssrecht ist das Messer oder die Feile die der Einzelne gebrauchen darf und muss, um sich befreien zu koennen. Nur noch Liebes-, Freundschafts- oder ideologische Verbindungen mit Gleichgesinnten und auch diese muessen individuell trennbar sein. Dadurch erst werden volle Vertragsfreiheit, Experimentierfreiheit, Individuelle Souveraenitaet, Friede, Gerechtigkeit und Sicherheit erreicht werden koennen – fuer alle friedliebenden Leute. - - - Wenn Ihr endlich die unfreiwillige Staatsmitgliedschaft und einheitliche Untertaenigkeit gegenueber territorialen Maechten aufgebt – dann erst koennt Ihr wirklich freie Buerger werden. - - - Wehrpflicht und Steuerpflicht? Nein! Abschaffungspflicht fuer Territorialstaaten, ihrem Terror, ihren Unterdrueckungen, Privilegien, Ausbeutungen, Kriegen und Buergerkriegen – durch das individuelle Austrittsrecht aus dem Staat und durch exterritorial autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften aus Freiwilligen – und andere Marktorganisationen als Alternativen. - - - Der Territorialstaat fuehrt schliesslich nur zum allgemeinen Holocaust und vorher zur weitgehenden Verknechtung und Verarmung. Er muss unter den voellig freien Wettbewerb gestellt werden, d.h. auf seine ganz freiwilligen Marktteilnehmer reduziert werden – durch das individuelle Austrittsrecht und exterritorial autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften aus Freiwilligen. Erst dann wird er ein wirklicher Rechtsstaat – oder eine rechtliche Gemeinschaft fuer die ihm verbliebenen Freiwilligen – und gegenueber allen anderen verhaeltnismaessig harmlos. - - - Das individuelle Austrittsrecht aus dem territorialen Staat wird uns auch das Nimmerwiedersehen geben fuer Politiker und Buerokraten der heutigen Art, vom groessten “Fuehrer” bis zum kleinsten buerokratischen Despoten. - - - Das individuelle Austrittsrecht erst fuehrt uns zur echten Selbstregierung und Unabhaengigkeit zusammen mit Gleichgesinnten. - - - Unter dem Austrittsrecht, d.h., bei wirklich freiwilliger Mitglied Mitgliedschaft in Staaten und Gesellschaften wuerde alles anders werden: gerechter, friedlicher, sicherer und wohlhabender, zu dem Ausmass, als es von Einzelnen und ihren Gemeinschaften gewuenscht und realisiert wird, nur fuer sich selbst und ganz unabhaengig von den Idealen, Handlungen und Einrichtungen der anderen. - - - Territorialstaaten bedeuten: SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fucked Up! Nur exterritorial autonome freie Gesellschaften bringen alle moeglichen Antworten und Alternativen und sie beginnen mit dem Austrittsrecht aus dem Staat. - - - Aber es geht auch ganz anders als mit dem Territorialstaat – und auch viel gerechter, friedlicher und billiger. - - - Keine unfreiwilligen Staatsbuerger und Untertanen mehr. Nur noch von Einzelnen gewuenschte, geschaffene und aufrechterhaltene Gesellschaften, d.h. im freien Wettbewerb stehende “oeffentliche Dienstleistungen” and freiwillige Kunden und Beitragszahler. - - - Freie Vereine – fuer Alles – ausgenommen nur Verbrechen gegen individuelle Menschenrechte, sofern sie von Einzelnen fuer sich in Anspruch genommen werden. (Wer kein Eigentumsrecht bei andern anerkennt duerfte sich natuerlich nicht beschweren wenn man ihn gleichartig behandelt, z.B.: “beklaut”.) - - - Panarchismus bedeutet Selbsthilfe und Selbstregierung fuer Einzelne, Minderheiten und Mehrheiten, auf allen Gebieten und in allen Sphaeren – ohne andere Grenzen als die der individuellen Menschenrechte der Mitglieder in anderen Gemeinschaften von Freiwilligen, d.h. anderen Panarchien. - - - Der Territorialstaat ist der groesste Gewaltverbrecher und Terrorist. Wir muessen ihm endlich auch als Einzelne entkommen koennen, durch das Austrittsrecht und exterritorial autonome Gemeinschaften aus Freiwilligen, ebenso wie wir aus der frueheren kirchlichen Hierarchie entkommen konnten. - - - Aus der Pandorabuechse, die wir unvorsichtigerweise oeffneten, kam der Territorialstaat mit all seinen gesetzlichen und ungesetzlichen Verbrechen. Nur das individuelle Austrittsrecht kann diesen etatistischen Geist und seine unrechtmaessigen Gesetze und Institutionen wieder zaehmen und in seine Schranken stellen. Ohne es sind wir ihm fast hilflos uebergeben. Seine Politiker und Buerokraten walten fast schrankenlose ueber uns, sich selbst “legitimierend” und “richtend”. Sie muessen auf die Herrschaft ueber die ihnen verbleibenden Freiwilligen reduziert werden und duerften in Zukunft nur noch auf deren Kosten und Risiko handeln. - - - Das Austrittsrecht wuerde uns wie die selbst kontrollierte Levitation aus der Schwerkraftssphaehre der Territorialstaaten befreien. - - - Wachet auf. Erkennt und realisiert Eure individuellen Rechte, auch gegenueber allen Territorialstaaten und “der” Gesellschaft. Nur unsichtbare Ketten und falsche Ideen und Gewalt bindet Euch an sie. Ihr aber seid viele und sie sind nur wenige. Befreit Euch von ihnen und deren “Ideen” und Zwaengen, durch den individuellen und daher ganz friedlichen und rechtmaessigen Staatsaustritt, der das wichtigste “Wahlrecht” darstellt. Freie, friedliche und gerechte Gesellschaften, nur aus Freiwilligen bestehend und nur exterritorial autonom – waeren die natuerliche Folge. Und diese haette haette viele andere gerechte, friedliche und guenstige Folgen. - - - Nur Verbrechen gegenueber Unmuendigen und Unfreiwilligen Opfern sind auszumerzen. – JZ, 25.4.05. - - - Fuer jeden Einzelnen Muendigen nur so viel Staat, Gesetze und Institutionen und auch nur solcher Art, als er fuer sich selbst waehlt oder wuenscht und schafft, immer nur auf eigne Kosten und und eigne Gefahr. Er sollte aber auch “unversichert” und “ungarantiert” bleiben duerfen, nur von Einzelvertraegen mit anderen abhaengig. - JZ, 22. & 25.4.05. - - - Das Austrittsrecht des Einzelnen aus dem Staat liegt auch im allgemeinen Interesse. Es ist nicht nur rechtmaessig fuer ihn. Gegenueber manchen Gewaltstaaten ist es sogar pflichtgemaess. – JZ, 22. & 25.4.05. - - - Nur noch persoenlich gewaehlte Verfassungen, Gesetzgebungen, Rechtsprechungssysteme und Institutionen fuer insofern schon freie Menschen und, dadurch, immer freier werdende. – JZ, 22. & 25.4.05. - - - Die Territorialstaaten sind die Realisierung einer fixen Idee und Institution, die uns alle zu Insassen von den groessten Irrenanstalten und Gefaengnissen gemacht hat. Seine Mauern und anderen Grenzen und “Befugnisse” und “Zustaendigkeiten” gilt es abzuschaffen. Auch der Einzelne muss ihnen leicht entkommen koennen, ohne auswandern zu muessen. – JZ, 22. & 25.4.05. - - - Die Grenzen werden nur dann wirklich abgeschafft werden wenn der Einzelne aus dem Staat austreten kann, fast so leicht und ueberall, wie er in einer Toilette “austreten” kann. Er muss auch in dieser Hinsicht mit anderen oder so weit er kann und will, seine eigne Sache machen duerfen, ohne Lizenz von einem Politiker oder Buerokraten, der nicht von ihm dafuer beauftragt wurde.  – 22. & 25.4.05. - - - Eine Partei, auch die Partei im Einheitsstaat, vertritt immer nur einen Teil der Bevoelkerung, meist nur einen kleinen Teil, niemals die ganze Bevoelkerung und alle ihre verschiedenen Interessen und kann sie auch nicht territorial fuer alle vertreten. Das Ganze, das Volk, die Nation, der Staat, sind nur Illusionen die die Parteien in ihrer Propaganda verbreiten und ausnutzen, im eignen Interesse. Nur bei ganz freiwilliger Mitgliedschaft fuer Einzelne in Staaten und Gesellschaften kann wirkliche Vertretung stattfinden, die aber nur fuer diese freiwilligen Mitglieder gilt, solange sie Mitglieder bleiben. Dies erfordert aber die Abschaffung der territorialen Souvertaenitaet und ihre Ersetzung durch die exterritoriale Autonomie fuer alle Gemeinschaften von Freiwilligen und, in der Praxis, das Austrittsrecht fuer den Einzelnen und freiwillige Mitgliedschaft in allen Gruppen und die ganz freie Moeglichkeit jederzeit und ueberall neue freie Gruppen zu bilden. Gleichfalls erforderlich ist die Moeglichkeit fuer Einzelne sich selbst von allen Gruppen auszuschliessen und nur freie Austauschvertraege mit anderen zu machen, in einem umfassenden freien Markt. – JZ, 25.4.05. - - - Jedem der Staat oder die freie Gesellschaft seiner eignen freien Wahl. – (GPdB’s Ausdruck, um von dem Begriff “seiner Traeume” wegzukommen, der zuviel von blosser “Traeumerei” mit sich bringt.) - - - Manchmal schluepfte ich auch wieder ins Englische – was mir die kuenftige Uebersetzung erspart: The right to enter and to leave any association is as essential, at least, as the right to associate, the right to add and to subtract, the right to divide and multiply – what is one’s own. It is essential to freedom of exchange, to freedom of contract. Without it we are not free men but e.g. slaves or serfs of coercive institutions like territorial States, conscript armies, compulsory school pupils, tax slaves or victims of “religious” hierarchies. - - - To freedom of contract belongs also the freedom to end old contracts and to conclude new contracts. Likewise, the freedom to disassociate belongs essentially to the freedom to associate. Being only half-free in these respects we are already on the road to thousands of disasters and, finally, to the general holocaust. - - - The right to enter an existing association is less important than the right to leave it, for an association could refuse to accept a new member or more members altogether and one could establish a new association. But without the fundamental right to leave an association, any association, no full freedom of association would exist but only the right to enter and to remain in an association. This “right” would be comparable to a prison sentence for the term of one’s natural life. Actually, even one’s life would tend to become shortened thereby, e.g. by the bureaucratic (FDA in the USA) withholding of life-saving new medicines. - - - “10 – 1” is even more rightful, for the 9 remaining and the 1 parting, than is 10 plus 1. Nevertheless, only the individual additions to States have been widely recognized, not the individual and self-determined “subtractions”. - - - One should become free to join or leave any formal group as one may join or leave any informal group. In this respect freedom of association should be equal to freedom of movement. Without freedom for disassociation, individually determined, freedom of association is not complete. They are just different sides of the same coin. They belong together, like one’s right and one’s left side, even once it comes to the State and other associations with, presently, enforced membership and subordination. – JZ, 22.4. & 25.4.05. - - - Sobald ich alle obigen deutschen panarchistischen Bemerkungen auch ins Englische uebertragen habe werde ich sie einschliessen in meine Sammlung von Slogans for Liberty, unter Panarchismus etc. und damit auch in meine noch umfassendere Sammlung von Notizen zum Panarchismus, alphabetisch sortiert, jetzt schon bald auf 5 Mbs kommend: Pan A Z. - (I do not know for sure whether I have translated and included these German notes as yet in my alphabetical compilations. - JZ, 24.9.11.) - Waehrend des Eintippens habe ich viele der obigen Bemerkungen schon wieder etwas redigiert. Beim Uebersetzen wird es wohl wieder geschehen. - Jeder Verbesserungsvorschlag ist mir willkommen. Sogar die eignen! - PIOT, John Zube, - - - 25.4.05. – Wiederholungen: Mit Hinsicht auf die gegenwaertigen Zustaende, durch das Territorialsystem hervorgebracht und aufrechterhalten, koennen einige wichtige Wahrheiten nicht oft genug wiederholt warden – bis dieses System endlich abgeschafft ist, so we die meisten alten Arten der Sklaverei und des Feudalismus. – JZ, 8.2.12, 8.2.12, 28.8.12. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM, PANARCHISM

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchism, ca. 2005. LIVING THE OWN LIFE: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finally live your own life // And make your own decisions // Since now the time is rife // For freedom from politicians. // >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bureaucracy only for bureaucrats // Not for people who would rather // Live their lives without these rats // In one free society or the other. // >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under panarchy I would like to live // Since territorialism has nothing to give. // It can only fake, not make, or take, // Mostly, the major part of the cake. // >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Making my individualist choices, // Ignoring all other voices. // Leaving all others free, // Even to climb back into the tree, // Under the isms of their hell or paradise // If they know nothing better otherwise. - - - - My first and, probably, last attempt to express it in "poetry". - I am sure that there are others, who could do it much better. - JZ, 30.8.11

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchismus - Jedem den Staat oder die freie Gemeinschaft seiner Träume! eigentümlich frei - Nr. 9 (1/2000), - file:///C/%5C%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5C%5CHP_Administrator%5C%5CMy%20Documents%5C%5Cpanarchismus.html [Deutsch]

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchist Notes and Scribblings by John Zube (Book) in Law : ... Panarchy; Panarchism; libertarianism. - - 31k - Cached - Similar pages - Available also from there, downloadable, or from me in digitized form, as an email attachment. - Panarchist Notes and Scribblings by John Zube (Book) in Law

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchist Notes from TC 106, of 12 Sep.82, with some Panarchist Comments, 25 July 89, 5pp, Taylor-Radford, Stumm, Pyrrho, 19, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. - - Panarchist notes to TC, Nov. 85, page 57ff, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - - Panarchist Notes to THE CONNECTION, Nos. 139 & 140, 25, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672. - - Panarchist Notes, to Erwin Strauss's "THE CONNECTION" and its "Connectors", going backwards from TC 110 p.6 to TC 109 p. 115, pages 95 - 126, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. - - Panarchist Response to THE CONNECTION No. 142, 60, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PP 689. - - Panarchist Thoughts from and on THE CONNECTION, No. 120, of 10 June 84, written as late as 31 July 89, 16pp, Gunderloy, Jacobson, Diogenes, F.P., Janicot, Pyrrho, Knese, Kysor, Welling, Fulks, Stumm, Foldvary, 48, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchistic Extracts and Comments to "THE CONNECTION", issue numbers 123 - 125, 127, 130, 141, 148 - 155, 15 Oct. 85 - 27 Jan. 89, 1-104, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901. - (Contributors: TC 123: Diogenes of Panarchia, 1-5, Mike Gunderloy, 5-6, Steve Witham, 6, Lorraine M. Valencia, 6-7, Sal Paradise, 7, Philip E. Jacobson, 7-10, Edward du Bois, 10-11. TC 124: Jim Stumm, 12-13, Lorraine M. Valencia, 13, Filthy Pierre, 13, Jasper the Jester, 13, Sal Paradise, 13-14. TC 125: Philip E. Jacobson, 15-17, Jim Downard, 17-18, George Kysor, 18, Carol Moore, 18-19, Pyrrho, 20, Michael Gunderloy, 20. TC 127: Chameleon, 21, Jim Stumm, 21-22, Filthy Pierre, 22-23, Carol Moore, 23-29, Jasper the Jester, 29. TC 130: Filthy Pierre, 30-37, Fred Foldvary, 33, Jasper the Jester, 37, Jim Downard, 37, Carol Moore, 38-39, Woody Welling, 39, Philip E. Jacobson, 39-41, Chameleon, 41, Jasper the Jester, 42. TC 142: Filthy Pierre, 43-44, Tundra Wind, 44, Jim Stumm, 44-45, Jasper the Jester, 45, Marc Chaitlin, 45. TC 148: Filthy Pierre, 46-59, Brickpillow, 59, Lee Bonnifield, 59, Myers, 59-50. TC 149: Filthy Pierre, 60-61, Tundra Wind, 60-65, Daniel Ust, 65-66, Jim Stumm, 71, Pee Wee Hermeneutics, 70-71, Marc Chaitlin, 70-72, Le Grand E. Day, 70, 73. TC 150: Filthy Pierre, 74-78, Lee Bonnifield, 78-79, Bob Shea, Day & Schneier, 80, George Kysor, 79-80. TC 151: Filthy Pierre, 81-82, Hermeneutics, Pee Wee, 82. TC 152: Lee Bonnifield, 83-89, Bob Shea, 89, Marc Chaitlin, 89-91. TC 153: Filthy Pierre, 92, Jim Stumm, 93, Marc Chaitlin, Information Paper No.43, 93-94. TC 154: Filthy Pierre, 95-96, Harry S. Robbins, 96, Timothy E. Peterman, 97-101. TC 155: Bob Shea, 102, Filthy Pierre, 102-103, Peterman, Timothy E., 103-104.) - - Panarchistic Extracts from and Comments to TC94 of 30 Mar.81 to TC98 of 13 Sep. 1981, 11pp, 52, Pyrrho, Dunn, Reilly, Melechinsky, FP, Stumm, Diogenes, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - - Panarchistic or related comments from and to THE CONNECTION No. 121, of 29 July 1884, 18 pages. (Better late than never. I am presently no longer a subscriber, being turned off it by its lack of space for discussion, lack of interest of the Connectors in what interests me and lack of quality in most of their responses. - J. Z.) Pages 81-98, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879. (Stormy Mon, 81/82, Jim Stumm, Grenada and Intervention, 83, Martin L. Buchanan, Strategies for Liberty, 84-89, John Zube to Martin L. Buchanan, 86-88, Filthy Pierre to Martin L. Buchanan, 89, Filthy Pierre, 90, 96, 98, Lippard, 90, Philip E. Jacobson, 91-95, Du Bois, 98, Mike Gunderloy, 97, Joe Fulks 97.) - - Panarchistic or related comments from and to THE CONNECTION, No. 122, of 7 Sep. 1984, 10pp, 99-108, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879. (Filthy Pierre, 99-100, Woody Welling, 100-101, Diogenes of Panarchia, 101-103, Jim Stumm, 103, Stormy Mon, 103-105, Janicot, 105, Joe Fulks, 105, Fritz Knese, 106-107, Steve Witham, 107, Mike Gunderloy, 107-108.)

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchistic Slogans for Liberty, part I, 80-126, in PEACE PLANS No. 505.

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchy and FIOT, ca. 528 words, 3/86 draft, 25, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Panarchy bibliography, 1999, 51 KB. Later included in the first Pan A to Z. But, sooner or later, a separate panarchy bibliography has to be compiled, preferably with abstracts and reference to reviews. - JZ, 12.10.11. - - Preliminary Bibliographical Notes on Individual Secession, Individual Sovereignty, Exterritorial Organization and Autonomy, 1979, 11pp, in PEACE PLANS 66-69.

ZUBE, JOHN, PANARCHY described by the simple system of Aphthonius. 2005. - Note: Aphthonius of Antioch, Greek sophist and rhetorician, flourished in the second half of the 4th century A.D., or even later. The essential part of the Aphthonius system embraces 7 simple questions, which every seriously-intentioned reform advocate should answer, as a minimum requirement. The questions could and should be supplemented and sub-divided to suit the subject. - - GPdB, who also provided at least the Spanish & Italian translations of the questions. - - file:///C/%5C%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5C%5CHP_Administrator%5C%5CMy%20Documents%5C%5Caphthonius.2005.html (2005) [English] - John Zube, Panarchia, descritta seguendo lo schema di Aphthonius (2005) [Italiano]

ZUBE, JOHN, Peace in the Middle East through Rejuvenation of Old Jewish and Arabian Traditions, plan 202, pages 25 - 29, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507.

ZUBE, JOHN, Peaceful Coexistence through the Millet System versus aggressive and oppressive Nationalism, plan 200, page 22, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507.

ZUBE, JOHN, Proposals For a New Science and Practice of Freedom, Justice and Peace, 2006, 21KBs, - John Zube, Proposals for a New Science and Practice

ZUBE, JOHN, QUESTIONNAIRE TO PUBLICIZE PANARCHIST IDEAS? A list of "leading" questions. An attempt to construct and later arrange in optimal order some leading questions that steer in the direction of panarchism or polyarchism and utilize already existing notions and sentiments. - Perhaps a questionnaire could help? - At least dozens, if not hundreds or thousands such questions might be added and then a fraction of them, as supposedly the most hard-hitting and thought-provoking, might be selected from them, after sufficient revision. - They must be hard questions - but with as obvious answers as possible, to overcome the strengths of conventional politicians and bureaucracies. - JZ, 25.11.93, 9.1.99, 8.12.03. - - - - Are politicians and bureaucrats any more "loving fathers" or "loving mothers" than our Gods are? - - - - Are politicians and bureaucrats so superior beings that they ought not to be subject to individual choices but may be rightfully imposed by majorities upon dissenting minorities and this in spite of the fact that we have (by now in many, not yet in all countries) individual free choice towards the deities that we choose for ourselves in our religious lives? Are politicians and bureaucrats superior Gods? At least sometimes they seem to believe that they are and sometimes act like them, mostly to our sorrow. - - - - Are the politicians that decide all too much about your own life any more human or less human than you are? - - - - Are you opposed to others experimenting with possible solutions, if they would so at their own risk and expense? - - - - Are you self-owned or public property, partly or fully? - - - - Are you the proper resource for all who claim that their need is greater than yours? - - - - Are you the property of the State? - - - - Do you believe in self-ownership or in being a national resource? - - - - Do you have a greater right to all of what you have earned or have otherwise peacefully and honestly acquired, than anyone else, even the State? - - - - Do you have to give your consent when others want to cannibalize your life and your property? - - - - Do you know a territorial solution to the problem of involuntary mass unemployment, inflation, poverty, war, civil war and terrorism? - - - - Do you prefer genuine self-government, self-rule, self-determination, self-reliance, self-help, self-control or would you rather be a controlled, managed and directed subject, a serf of a territorial State, a slave of its mis-education and military and tax system, subject to many more laws and regulations than you would ever have time to read? - - - - Have you a right to act egoistically or only a legal and moral obligation to act altruistically? - - - - Have you considered the exterritorial alternative options for solutions? - - - - Have you given any politician or bureaucrat power of attorney? - - - - Have you got sufficient reasons to be satisfied with the public policy and public service choices politicians and bureaucrats made in their internal and external policies, with budgets from revenues that you were forced to contribute to? Or would you rather have made your own individual choices in all these spheres, or made your choices only within communities of like-minded individuals? - - - - Have you really given your consent to all the things that your supposed representatives are doing to you and others? - - - - Have you, individually, given any politician or bureaucrat any god-like powers over your own life? - - - - If you prefer to pay your own way, why should any and supposedly public services be imposed upon you, at monopoly prices or paid for out your taxes? - - - - Is the foreign policy of your rulers really to be obligatory for you? Should you be bound by their war or peace decisions, their choice of allies and enemies, their international treaties, without having any real say or decision-making power in this sphere although your life and the lives of your children, friends and other associates are at stake, too? - - - - Should foreign policy decisions always remain foreign to you, quite out of your reach, although they do greatly affect your life and you are often very much in disagreement with the foreign policies of your territorial government? Should you be free to opt out of them and make your own decisions in this sphere, together with like-minded people? - - - - Should we only be individually free to choose our own religion, our own gods, but not our own politicians and bureaucrats? - - - - Should you be a serf of politicians and bureaucrats? - - - - Should you be able to pick the location of your residence and job or should they be allocated to you by bureaucrats, as they were for serfs under feudalism? - - - - Should you be forced to pay tribute to any authority? - - - - Should you be free to pick your friends, partners, allies, service providers, non-associates and enemies or should they be allocated to your by politicians and bureaucrats, as they are by their foreign policies, laws and treaties? - - - - Should you be free to pick your sports or other physical actions or should there be equal and compulsory physical training for all, all at the same time and in public places, as happened e.g. in Red China? - - - - Should you be free to pick your trade, job, profession, residence, tour, entertainment, books, music, clothing, painting, hair style etc. or should they be determined for you by politicians and bureaucrats, as their monopoly services and disservices are, at your expense and risk? - - - - Should you design your garden, your interior decoration etc., or would you have to obey the rules prescribed by others for this? Why should you be subjected to the rules of others in any other spheres? - - - - Should you determine which rights and liberties you may use, when, where and to what extent, or should politicians and bureaucrats make all these decisions for you or "regulate" and "control" them, supposedly in the interest of the public, never minding your own interests? - - - - Should you only be free to boycott some private goods and services but not to boycott, ignore, withdraw or secede from any exploitative monopoly, any despotism, any authoritarian, bureaucratic, exploitative aggressive even totalitarian territorial State no matter how supposedly benevolent and in the public interest its declared aims and methods are? - - - - Should you pick all your goods and services and pay for them or should they be selected, allocated and rationed to you - by politicians and bureaucrats and paid for out of general tax revenue? - - - - Should you run you life in your just and rational self-interest or become the sacrifice or the resource for the irrational and unjust self-interest of others? - - - - To whom belong the returns from your labor, the values you added to the products or services of others, as measured on a free market? Should they be taxed, 10 % or 100 %, without your consent, without proper billing for services wanted by you, ordered and received? - - - - To whom does your income, your house and other property belong? To you or to them? - - - - To whom does your own life belong? To you or to the territorial authorities? - - - - To whom does your property belong? To you or to them? - - - - What should apply to your life, your choices or those of others? - - - - Who should be responsible for your family? You or they? - - - - Who should determine how, when, where and for what you spend your money? You or they? - - - - Who should determine the details of your exchanges, e.g. the exchange medium or value standard used. You or they? - - - - Who should determine the kind, choices, institutions, policies, rules, principles and methods of your community, you and like-minded people or people who strongly disagree with you and who many outnumber you? - - - - Who should determine your marriage contracts and conditions? You or they? - - - - Who should exercise your rights and liberties? You or they? - - - - Who should rule your life? You or they? - - - - Why should we allow any government, that has not our individual consent for this, to impose any economic, political or social system upon us? - - - - Why should we tolerate political hierarchies any more than religious ones? - - - - Why should your consumer sovereignty be confined only to private dealings while public services and disservices by the greatest monopoly organizations are forced upon you via constitutionalized and legalized monopolies? - QUESTIONS

ZUBE, JOHN, Reply to Jim Stumm, Dialogue with JZ concerning Panarchy and a Volunteer Militia, 4. - Reply to Jim Stumm, Collectivists & Panarchy, 34, Reply to Jim Stumm, Panarchy and a Volunteer Militia, 39, all in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, Rightful Secessions and Independence for all in Rhodesia, plan 184, pages 19 - 21, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507.

ZUBE, JOHN, Short description of three of the most important institutions and principles for the abolition of the danger of war and the solution of the social problem - and their foundation. 1958. - For a criticism of this draft see BECKERATH, ULRICH von, Autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften, in German and in English.

ZUBE, JOHN, Short drafts on Panarchy … To Joe Hart, 11.3.86. (Regarding the planned anarchist conference in Melbourne.) - Dear Joe, you rung me up on the morning of the 7th, asking for ca. 500 words each as an introduction to panarchy and micrographics, to be supplied within a week. - - Enclosed are a number of drafts. The shorter ones were worked over to shorten them to the present length. I did not try this for the longer ones. I do send them anyhow, for your own information and for possible use in future Bulletins. They also may serve to indicate the contents of my talks. - - I have marked them, by type and shortness: PAN 1-8 and MF 1-4. (Here eliminated. JZ, 28.12.04.) Your space will be limited so this time you will have to use the shortest versions, most likely. The marking should make it easy for you to choose. - - But I do wish that at least the article by Max Nettlau, forgotten for all too long and to my knowledge never translated before, would be included in some pre-conference publication. - - I am so firmly a believer in this idea and its value and urgency that I hold that the very survival of man may depend upon it being spread. And yet, if anarchists and libertarians will not give it a sufficient hearing, who will? - - Robert LeFevre, an advocate of non-violence, like Gandhi, but also of property as an absolute concept (unfortunately also over-extended to land and copyrights), did reproduce de Puydt's article once, in his RAMPART JOURNAL - but the response was very scarce, too. - - If a real discussion of this alternative could be started in the much larger (than the individualist-anarchist) left-anarchist movement, already much more inclined towards small scale experiments and communities but often much more dogmatic in its insistence upon the general acceptance of its own dogmas as the solution for all problems (that means especially YOU), much could be achieved. - - There were several instances of ideas whose time had finally come and that spread like wildfire. - That may happen, soon, for instance for the idea of monetary freedom. But I will not attempt to introduce that one, too, officially, upon this occasion. It may happen for panarchy and micro-fiching. - - Hopefully these submissions are still in time. But, since they depend upon a governmental mail service, this is doubtful. - FIOT, John. This was slightly revised today: JZ, 29.12.04.  - - Through Panarchism to Peace and Freedom. - Panarchism is nothing but the consistent application of a basic anarchist principle that has often been expressed and in various wordings. For instance, Enrico Malatesta says (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 do their own thing. They may still argue with each other extensively and by words only. 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 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." - - (Later GPdB suggested replacing “dreams” by “choice”, which is a significant improvement. – JZ, 8.2.12.) 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 spheres. - - We do already have and enjoy (unconscious of its panarchistic implications) panarchism in many other spheres of life that are 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 programs, 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 spheres from this kind of freedom of action, competition or experimental freedom. - - Panarchists are nothing but consistent anarchists, who want to realize this freedom in these 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 means no more 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 people, particularly when new ideas, institutions and opinions are involved. 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, e.g., the power to persuade all people to subscribe to one particular form of anarchism or at least to some 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. - - Furthermore, 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. - - 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 have when undertaken next door. (Maybe here the idle curiosity of neighbors and bystanders can do some good! – JZ, 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 imposed 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. - (Compare above other short drafts on or explanations of panarchism under: SHORT.) - - - SOME REMARKS ON THE PANARCHIST ROAD TO PEACE AND FREEDOM. - 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? - - 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 autonomy, at doing one's own thing, at one's own risk and expense, whilst leaving all others free to do their own thing, however hateful that thing 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 thing? 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 FAVOR even statism for statists, according to their own free and individual choices. At least they would help us thus by continuing to set deterrent examples. Even the stars shine only in the night. - - 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. - draft of 1986, slightly revised: 29.12.04. - - - How could anarchist communities peacefully coexist even with statist ones, with each individual being free to choose between them? - For the transformation one would obviously have to do without centralistic, national, compulsory, uniform, territorial and majoritarian "solutions". - - The remaining options are: a) Voluntary membership for all, based on individual secessionism and b) individual associationism and non-territorial organization under personal laws or private and cooperative agreements and compacts. - - Voluntarism and non-territorial organization will have to be combined to make this alternative practical. - - When alternatives are permitted only on a territorial basis, then only exclusive nation-states are involved, on a  smaller scale or various ghettos and deportation systems to achieve the desired "territorial integrity" and uniformity, which has nothing in common with individual liberty. - - Since there is nothing quite new under the sun, as a rule, one should expect that sometime, some place, between some people, such an alternative has already been practised to some extent and for a while. - - If one does not only rely on nationalistic and centralists and statist historians alone, then one can find, indeed, quite a number of historical precedents and even contemporary practices for the "panarchistic" alternative, for as many different "governments" or free societies as their clients, consumers or subjects desire, or, if you will, for consumer-sovereignty even with regard to governmental services or disservices. - - Panarchism attempts to look at all historical precedents and future possibilities of this kind and at all the theories so far advanced on these subjects and tries to develop them further, in order to provide a political, economic and social philosophy of freedom that would release everybody's creative energies in his own self-chosen circles, while freeing or creating new options to resist all privileges, monopolies, coercion, impositions and aggressions. - - For panarchists do not just dream that quite non-violent people ought to be at liberty to do their diverse things but that all people are also at liberty to resist aggressors and protect their way of life in diverse forceful and rightful ways and to collaborate in such resistance and protection efforts in many different ways. - - Freedom has many more and better answers to offer than statism has. And, for the foreseeable future, we cannot expect all people to agree on some, supposedly ideal protection, resistance and penal method. - - Thus, in a panarchistically reorganized society, there will be a great variety of protective systems, policing and jurisdiction options, including, naturally, self-defence efforts and neighborhood watches and all kinds of voluntary jurisdiction and arbitration or popular and liberated jury systems, all agreed upon in advance. - - The different autonomous and non-territorial groups would have their "international" compacts with each other on all offences across the non-territorial "borders" between them. - JZ, 1986, slightly revised 29.12.04. - - - On anarchy for anarchists and states for statists or: To each the non-government or government of his dreams! - (Some thoughts on panarchism.) - The various forms of socialism and capitalism are only various forms of secular religions and their followers and organizations do not deserve any more privileges than any church or sect does.  But they are also entitled to no less rights and liberties than any church or sect has in a relatively free society, or any atheistic, humanistic and rationalistic association. - - One can consider "denationalization" and "reprivatization" in a narrow sense, as referring only to the transfer of particular State enterprises into private or cooperative hands or one can understand them in a general sense, which would amount to privatizing and cooperatizing and voluntarizing ALL of the governmental political, economic and social system. - - As an individualist anarchist, free-market libertarian, voluntaryist, mutualist and panarchist, I favor not only denationalization and privatization of some but of all government enterprises and departments. (By the way, the sales proceeds belong into the pockets of all citizens, not of any politicians and bureaucrats!) - - Such a comprehensive denationalization would offer all kinds of voluntaristic avenues for all kinds of anarchistic, socialistic and liberal schemes and experiments, all coexisting peacefully in the same territories, supported and used only by their supporters, with their failures to be born only by them and their benefits to be shared only among them. - - Such a system would, so to speak, universalize the principle of conscientious objection against military servitude, against tax slavery compulsory education, medication or prohibition. - It would realize freedom for dissenters and non-conformists, not only in the religious but also in the political, social and economic spheres. - - It is not true that our “nation” is endangered but it is true that the very existence of our “nation”, in exclusive, territorial and coercive form, endangers US and OTHERS. - To that extent the basis societal or State contract with members and citizens has been broken. Our protectors are no longer protectors but endanger our survival by their continued existence in form of territorial organizations, targets of ABC mass murder devices. - - („Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the term national’, wrote an Australian pioneer woman, Carolne Chisholm, 1898-1877, in: “The A.B.C. of colonization in a series of letters, Nr.1”, back in 1850. - What is voluntary does rarely make enemies and it can be defended much easier and with much more justification and less costs and risk. - - Panarchism pleads for freedom for statists - as well as for all others - to do their own things. - - Only narrow-minded anarchists would insist that all other people make the same choice which these anarchists prefer. - - By rights, anarchists can demand no more than anarchism for anarchists - within a general voluntaryist system that would leave statists to their own choices on their own affairs. - - Then each could have the government or no-government of his or her choice and, to that extent they would no longer have to fear and fight each other. - - No more forced marriages with any government, army, union or school. - - No more compulsory associations. - - Each individual to be free to divorce himself from any of them, by one-sided declarations, and to join or establish any alternatives that may take his fancy, always at his own cost and risk. - - Excommunication of disagreeable members is, naturally, also an option for the voluntary members of any autonomous minority group or protective association. - - - Panarchism is nothing but the freedom to disassociate and to associate – consistently applied in the last spheres where it is so for not realized, namely in politics, economic and social relations. - Panarchy means freedom for communists as well as anti-communists to live the way they want to live. Both would be free to follow their beliefs - but only at their own expense and risk, as if they were religious sectarians living under religious tolerance. - Perhaps they are such sectarians and ought therefore to be given that autonomy - if there were not already a thousand moral, political, economic and social other reasons in favor of it. - - Almost all of our public institutions in the political, economic and social sphere amount to ritualized and legalized intolerance and domination, because they are TERRITORIAL ones. - - In an age of mass-murder-devices, kept ready as a matter of policy by the most powerful governments, with considerable popular support, it is high time to ritualize and institutionalize their direct opposite, namely quite tolerant, voluntary, i.e., quite non-coercive institutions, each doing its own things only for its own members, as best as it can, while leaving all others to their own and individually chosen actions and relationships among themselves. - - "... as Lysander Spooner points out in NO TREASON, a contract surrendering the rights and basic liberties of one of the parties is absurd and invalid in terms of common law." - Kerry Wendell Thornley, “FACTSHEET 5”, 1985. - - We have to replace this kind of “social contract” relationship between rulers and citizen-subjects - by something much more moral and useful, to the extent that the alternatives are preferred by individuals, in accordance with their individual stage of enlightenment. - - "The political philosophy that is called libertarianism is the doctrine that every person is the owner of his own life, and that no one is the owner of anyone else's life; and that, consequently, ever human being has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in accordance with their choices.” - Prof. John Hospers, quoted in THE FREEMAN, August 1974. - Alas, he is one of the many who failed to draw the panarchistic conclusion from this principle, since he still advocates merely limited government. - - Why did territorial and compulsory statism rather than exterritorial and voluntary panarchism prevail so far? - - Was the remaining over-lordship in instances of part-realizations of panarchic freedom a hindrance or a help to those involved? - - Historical records on these experiences are, perhaps, not yet complete enough to allow us to make a sufficiently informed judgment upon them. But on first principles one could conclude that any compromise with evil or wrong and it will benefit the evil or wrong while doing no good to the good or right side. - - People who see and appreciate only a small segment, like panarchic freedom in entertainment and religion, and “conscientious objection to military service”, 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.) - - Only a full vision of a consistent panarchy will be persuasive and effective, will become self-realizing. - - The written record of panarchist options has so far been much too small and out of sight to have been able to change public opinion in favor of panarchism. For instance: My PEACE PLANS series, with its limited means, and medium, attempted to change that situation, but remained largely ignored, even when its extensive, but still very incomplete libertarian literature list was placed on the Internet. (  & (On the latter only the main list, not the supplementary list can still be found.). - -  "Abolition of all forms of government is the libertarian political proposal that binds together left and right wing anarchists as does the common social vision of totally free individuals integrated with small, autonomous, intentional communities." - ELF, 1972.  - But there is still the vast difference between "abolition" by destruction and abolition, step by step, through competing better alternatives that are freely chosen by individuals - whenever they are ready for them. - Moreover, there are all kinds of ideas on "smallness", degrees of autonomy and types of community, while most people are only able to envision exclusive and territorial ones and not non-territorial ones. - This happens in spite of the fact that much of their private lives is spent and enjoyed in non-territorial association with other likeminded people. - - "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". - - "The libertarian favors a condition of freedom for all, yet he realizes that freedom, because of its nature, can never be imposed by force." - Robert LeFevre, “LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL”, Spring 1974. - - Consequently, opponents of anarchism must be left at liberty, to continue and enjoy as much as they can the kind of statism they do like, as long as they do. - Anarchists must not threaten them with the abolition of their kind of beloved State and government but, rather guarantee it to them, as long as it remains their own free choice. - Towards them anarchists can rightly advocate only the one-man revolutions that are exemplified by individual secessionism that is based on individual sovereignty or self-ownership - as soon as people are enlightened enough to want to claim this basic right. - And even then they might only be partly enlightened and will only choose new and lesser ties but still restrictions upon their own liberties. They should remain at liberty to do so. Anarchists should not threaten their choice with abolition or destruction but, at most, try to convert them by words or by their own cooperative and competing examples of living in complete freedom. - - "By uniting the ideas of freedom in social affairs and freedom in economic affairs, the libertarian philosophy also does something else. It almost completely (some people would say completely) eliminates the power of the third area - politics. It frees both our social and economic affairs from political manipulation, domination and control. It allows individual people to control their own social and economic affairs. This libertarian philosophy, based as it is on voluntarism or individual freedom, can equally encompass people who wish to live as communists in voluntary communes, and people who wish to be free traders and run their own business enterprises for a profit." - Bob Howard and John Singleton: “Rip Van Australia”, 12. - I would add, for the sake of clarification and consistent application of the principles involved, that the people in any group need not be territorially united. A non-territorial association will serve them as well as it did serve churches and sects. - - "If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy." - Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr., THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, Jan. 10, 1971. - - I see no difference between consistent libertarianism and consistent anarchism. Their common basis is voluntaryism, self-ownership, natural rights and liberties, individual sovereignty, free choice. Nothing but consumer sovereignty towards so-called "government services" is involved. - - - Why only "let MY people go"? Why not let ALL people GO - THEIR OWN WAY?" - If the Libertarian Party came out quite clearly and consistently in favor of individual secessionism, rather than merely its form of „limited“ territorial government, then I, as an individualist anarchist, would have no other and quite as fundamental objection against it. - - But as an individualist I have to oppose not only these „limited libertarians“ but even those anarchists, whose political ideal I do share, whenever they do try to impose or aim to impose their ideal upon all who doubt anarchy or who are its enemies. - - All such attempts are, inevitably, self-defeating, since they do provoke negative feed-back, often of a severely repressive type. (Compare the assassination attempts against popular monarchs or presidents.) - - Once one compares one's own political, economic and social beliefs with beliefs in religious doctrines, one becomes aware why this is the case. From then on one will tend to try to advocate them but now with respect for human nature and all its present foibles, than against it. - - People are different. Let them make their different choices, away from libertarianism and from anarchy, as long as they want to. - - A full franchise includes the right to vote oneself out of any coercive political, economic and social system and into any system that corresponds to one's own individual choice or invention, and to have, moreover, all the other voting powers that one wants to have – but only among likeminded volunteers. - - To oppose party politics and party powers does not require that one opposes the political, economic, social and military policies of individual secessionism but, on the contrary, it requires such a consistent opposition to territorial statism and consistent expression of voluntarism and of exterritorial autonomy. - - But if one is completely committed to nonviolence, and to all its postures and attitudes and "actions", then one will not sufficiently explore this voluntaryist option and obligation. - - (Yes, one OUGHT to secede from a Hitler regime and from a government armed with anti-people "weapons" or mass murder devices!) - Instead of: "No nation can long endure half free and half enslaved", one could state: 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. - - Most governments are "good" only for the waging of more or less open and aggressive international or civil wars and for their prolongation against the wishes of external and internal dissenters. Therefore, and rightly, they have been called „Warfare States“. - - Only full exterritorial autonomy for all dissenters can establish peace, justice and freedom for all. - - It would, moreover, soon maximize prosperity, at least via the examples set by some dissenters. - - And this autonomy for all volunteers and their associates would be possible and maximized only on a non-territorial, i.e. a personal law basis. - - Secessionists of the world unite, into a world federation that works for non-territorial autonomy for all volunteers who desire it, for all minorities that wish it for themselves and for other minorities and even for the majority. - FIOT, JZ, 9.3.1986, slightly revised 29.12.04. (Freedom In Our Time.) - - - ON PANARCHISM FOR ANARCHISTS - - Although it follows from a consistent application of often repeated anarchist principles and proposals, panarchism still remains, to a large extent, an unknown ideal, even among most anarchists, in the same way as anarchism, as a consistent democracy, is still largely unknown or misunderstood among most democrats. - - Panarchism proposes to offer a conscientious objection opportunity not only against conscription, compulsory taxation, unions and school attendance and other particular coercive practices - but a comprehensive one against all coercive, exclusive, territorial, political, economic and social systems, institutions and practices, on the basis of complete autonomy for conscientious objectors, who are prepared, in order to be able to follow their conscience, to cut all their ties to the old system, losing all their citizen rights, while upholding all their individual rights. - - (I hold, though, that they would still have the right to have their share in public assets, either paid out to them or certified to them in form of convertible and transferable certificates. This in itself, particularly in the case of Australia, might be an additional motive to secede, since it comes here, according to some estimates, to ca. 1 million dollars per head. For further details see PEACE PLANS No.19 c.) - - This conscientious objection opportunity might also be described as freedom of action or experimental freedom or minority autonomy or voluntaryism or associationism or contratarianism - for all who want to be creatively active among themselves - while remaining quite tolerant towards the rightful actions of other groups and communities doing their own things, within their own individual rights and liberties. - - The practice of panarchy implies individual secessionism and personal or non-territorial law organization, on a voluntary basis, regardless of whether the secessionists and voluntary associates are anti-statists or statists. - - Whatever ideology the seceded and non-territorially reorganized persons share among themselves and do wish to support and practise among themselves, is to be entirely up to them as their own internal affair. - - Within the territory of any former large State, the diverse panarchies finally established, would be likely to represent the whole ideological spectrum. - - Market forces, including full free enterprise and consumer sovereignty in this sphere, would operate to prevent some quite unrealistic schemes, to reduce the number and the followers of flawed schemes and to cut short the lifespan of false utopias. The latter would tend to run out of followers. - - However, the same mistakes are likely to be repeated again and again by different people wanting to experiment with the same ideas, as the statists, and especially the communists, have done, again and again, by now for thousands of years. - - Panarchists will make mistakes and repeat mistakes, too. But they will do so with a decisive difference: Their mistakes will only be undertaken at their own expense, not like those of politicians, bureaucrats and ruling parties, at the expense, largely, of other people, even of dissenters. - - Individual secessionism, the foundation of panarchism, is itself based upon the assumption that individuals do own themselves rather than being owned by others or that they are sovereign in their own affairs (individual sovereignty) and thus may not be bound to any purposes, methods and institutions of others, as long as they do not invade the equal rights and liberties of others - which are expressly or tacitly claimed by these others. (If, for instance, enemies of private property put out a book titled : "Steal this book!", then they must not be surprised if potential customers do follow their advice. Then they cannot claim that they would have been wronged by such actions. On second thoughts, using the term "steal" does actually amount, however unintentionally, to a recognition of property rights. Even Proudhon seems to have overlooked that in his most famous work, titled: Property Is Theft.) - - Panarchism thus rests firmly on a proverbial view of man as the maker of his own fate, not as a mere tool or experimental subject of any God, ruler, minority or majority of his countrymen, not even of any particular anarchistic group or movement. - It would thus truly realize self-government or self-determination - for all who desire it and without making this an imposition. - It would realize even the freedom not to be free and to choose, instead, a condition of voluntary servitude or other dependency - as long as one is prepared to put up with it. - After sufficient disappointments one will not only be at liberty to secede but will want to secede from disappointing authoritarian autonomous and non-territorial communities. - - Panarchy also rests upon the full recognition of all individual rights - to the extent that these are known, publicized and understood. - Since individual rights do offer only options or free action spheres, however natural these may be to fully grown up and enlightened men, they do not oblige people to use them to the fullest. They may even temporarily renounce them and introduce, like Catholics have done, e.g. censorship among themselves. - Consequently, WITHIN their own community and among the own voluntary members, panarchists would only have to abide by their own and particular bill of rights. - - In their relations with others, they would have to pay attention to all of the fundamental individual rights and liberties, at least to the extent that they are claimed by members of other panarchies or polyarchies. - All individual rights do thus merely describe the maximum sphere or accumulation of rights and freedom of action spheres within which panarchic experiments may be freely undertaken. - - To use a simple analogy: Freedom of press does not mean that everybody ought to publish a newspaper, ought to buy one, read it fully or ought to write a letter or article for one every day of the year. He ought only to be at liberty to do so to the extent that he likes doing it - and can afford the costs. (On the latter aspect you ought to study the microfiche, online and disc alternatives.) - - Basic rights can, naturally, either be used or not used by different people in many different ways. - In short, the diverse panarchies, which would arise under this degree of liberty, would have to recognize each other and respect their differences. The same would apply to their individual members. - - The assumption will always have to be in favor of individual rights unless certain rights have been expressly or to a particular degree renounced by members of one or the other autonomous and non-territorial community of volunteers. - One could sum up the aims and means of panarchists with statements like: statism for statists, anarchy for anarchists, free trade for free traders, protectionism for protectionists, non-violence for pacifists, defensive force for those who see its justification against initiated aggression, capitalism among consenting adults and any kind of socialism for those who desire it. - Then a libertarian party would have the option to rule over the libertarians who voted for it, the Labor Party over its voters and members and the Liberal Party over its followers, while the Anarchists would free to "rule" themselves or enjoy their liberty undisturbed by any officials, as long as they did not interfere with any rightly claimed liberties of others: Administrative nihilism for some and “welfare States” or even totalitarianism for others, according to their individual choice – as long as none of them claims a territorial monopoly for its members. - - There would no longer be a case for secret voting but one for publicly registering the vote of everyone - which would only bind the individual voter to the candidates and institutions of his choice. That would be the fundamental vote. - In these elections every party would win a full victory for itself - and over all its followers, with their unanimous consent. - Only the requirement of voluntary membership and of non-territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and organizations are to apply to all. - - Any remaining exclusive "territorial" rule, jurisdiction and administration is to be reduced to the relatively small areas of private or cooperative households, enterprises and real estates. - Even there most owners will find it economical not to impose arbitrary territorial rules but merely some common sense house and hospitality rules, for the protection of basic rights, while leaving "alien" visitors and contractors whatever benefits they may derive from still being subject, in most respects, to their own and freely chosen personal laws. - Guests and contractors would, naturally, not enjoy non-territorial diplomatic immunity for aggressive, violent, criminal offences while within or without these small private or cooperative "areas", which do not really deserve the name of "territories", since they are not extensive enough for this, in most instances. - - If they did something that would not be objectively a crime of aggression but would, at least in such an environment and among these people be considered a severe breach of manners, they would be shown or escorted to the exit and, most likely, never be invited again. - Nobody is to be "at liberty" to step on anybody's toes, even if these toes are not especially marked: "Don't step on me!" - Thus in some respects, in ordinary and civilized social relationships between different human beings with different private preferences, little would change, at least for a considerable time to come and perhaps nothing in a quite fundamental way. -  However, to mention just one tiny social innovation from South America, that I do like: It is quite accepted there to respect and leave a person alone, who simply and quietly states a phrase like: "I am not here." The privacy that this person claims with that phrase is there generally expected. Here one all too often feels compelled to engage in conversation, out of what is perceived to be a requirement of politeness and good manners. It tends to produce more or less covered-up boredom on both sides. This tiny declaration of independence is actually also a kind of minor and temporary panarchistic and non-territorial secession by an individual and it is there respected as such and it would help to improve our own social occasions. - - In THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, which is often quite interesting in its large non-religious section, I read once about the efforts of one lady to institutionalize quite the opposite, namely a specially marked conversation table for those, who do not want to be left alone for the time being but, on the contrary, would welcome a good talking partner. Under glass it showed all kinds of challenging quotations and on the table a sign that intelligent conversation, discussion or debate is expected at it. - - We have here two mini-instances of individual non-territorial secessionism and associationism, at least with regard to widely established customs. - - While the members of each autonomous and non-territorial minority group will mainly be concerned with their own affairs, there will also be some international relationships between them and members of other minority groups. For these a new kind of international law and new international arbitration system will develop, one based on respect for claimed human rights in members of other communities, even while one has renounced particular individual rights within one’s own community. - Jerome Internoscia’s ”New Code of International Law” would be a useful reference work for the development of such an international law. It would, anyhow, in most cases be preferable to the kind of international law or, rather, international warfare rules, that have been developed by national and territorial "sovereign" governments. (I microfilmed this work on 11 microfiche in PEACE PLANS 85-95.) - - To some extent, the various minority groups would also be united by local militias for the protection of human rights and their international federation - and by a federation (or even several ones, run on different principles, by their volunteers) of autonomous volunteer and minority groups, established to protect their common interests through international cooperation between them. - - Panarchism, once realized, would offer anarchists the chance to enjoy anarchic relationships between themselves, right here and now, undisturbed by statists. - Moreover, once anarchists do adopt the panarchistic tolerance, they will have a common platform with statists and all other minority groups who want to panarchistically maintain or realize different ideals among themselves. - - They would then only have one kind of common enemies, namely territorial totalitarians. These enemies would soon be only a relatively powerful minority that could be defeated and forced to become if not a tolerant then a tolerating minority. FIOT would become a real option for anarchists. - - In other words, panarchy would offer anarchists the opportunity to sow their seeds, cultivate their plants and harvest their products for themselves, here and now, undisturbed by others who cultivate other crops. - They would not have to wait for decades or generations to get a chance to realize their ideal. - The only concession that they would have to make and that those formulating their principles have made already, in general terms, would be to let non-anarchists do their own thing among themselves. - Draft only, to be revised. - J. Zube, 10.3.1986. – Slightly edited: 28.12.04, 28.8.12. - - - Through Panarchism to Peace and Freedom. - (There exists a longer version of this draft.) - Panarchism is nothing but the consistent application of a basic anarchist principle that has often been expressed and in various wordings. - Thus Malatesta says (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 thing. 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, i.e., any form of statism for those who believe in it (as long as they can stand it) and any kind of non-governmental organization for those who believe in it. - - Consequently, the diverse groups would have the least reasons and motives to be antagonistic to the actions of others, who are doing their thing, because the own actions would be least restricted. - - Panarchism, with its xyz different kinds of panarchies, can become a common platform point. - 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, most important in the eyes of most people, namely in sports, fashions, diets, entertainment, arts, etc. etc. - Alas, because of a number of popular myths, we have so far exempted the political, economic and social spheres from this kind of freedom of action. 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 private 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. - JZ, 1986 draft, rev. 28.8.12, ca. 456 words. - - - 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 power 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 to e.g. one particular form of anarchism. - - 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 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 for himself, but they are free to demonstrate their kind of anarchism 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), 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 that is 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 happen to 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 adult volunteers! - - 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: JZ, 28.12.04, 28.8.12. - - - 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, unity fanatics, territorialists etc., 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 autonomy, at doing one's own thing, at one's own risk and expense, while leaving all others free to do their own thing, however hateful that thing 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 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 thing? - - If so, then let us state this now and quite clearly: Primarily and as realists and advocates of the rights and liberties of others, we want only anarchism for anarchists and do even 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 unfree as it wants to be. - Or they say, with Caroline Chisholm: Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving 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. - John Zube, draft of 1986, then ca. 522 words. Slightly revised: 28.12.04. - - - How could anarchist communities peacefully coexist with statist ones, with each individual being free to choose between them? - In order to achieve harmony and concord, based on shared beliefs and close to unanimity in common decision-making within any group, to the extent that this is possible between human beings, they must agree to let all their dissenters leave them freely. - - The popular call "Let MY people go!" must be transformed into a generalized appeal: "LET ALL PEOPLE GO -THEIR OWN WAY!" - (This applies, naturally, only to creative and peaceful people, not to convicted violent criminals. They are criminals because they did not let other people go their own way undisturbed.) - - To achieve this transformation, one would obviously have to discard all centralistic, national, coercive, uniform, territorial and majoritarian "solutions". - - The remaining options are: VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP for all, based on individual secessionism  and  individual associationism and NON-TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION under personal laws or private and cooperative agreements and compacts. - - Voluntarism and non-territorial organization will have to be COMBINED to make this alternative practical. - - For when alternatives are permitted only on a territorial basis (including rule over dissenters, just because they live or work in the area)  then still only exclusive nation states are involved, (although on a smaller scale) and do lead, in extreme cases, to despotisms, deportation or extermination systems to achieve the desired "territorial integrity" and uniformity, which has nothing in common with individual liberty. - - Self-rule within small private areas, individually, cooperatively or in voluntary partnership owned and managed, is quite another matter. There it is based on individual consent and contracts: Businesses, industrial or housing complexes, utopian colonies, intentional communities or “proprietary communities”. - - Since there is, as a rule, nothing quite new under the sun, one should expect that at some time, some place, between some people, such an alternative has already been practised to some extent and for a while. - - If one does not only rely on nationalistic and centralists and statist historians, then one can, indeed, find quite a number of historical precedents and even contemporary practices for the "panarchistic" alternative, for as many different "governments" or free societies as their clients, consumers or subjects desire, or, if you will, for consumer sovereignty even with regard to some governmental and communal services or disservices. - - (We have e.g., numerous private charity organizations operating in parallel with the Welfare State and numerous security services somewhat competing with the official police forces. There are some private libraries and schools still, even some private zoos, parks and nature reserves.) - - Panarchism attempts to look at all historical precedents and future possibilities of this kind and at all the theories so far advanced on these subjects. It tries to develop them further, in order to provide a political, economic and social philosophy of freedom that would release everybody's creative energies in his own self-chosen circles, while freeing or creating new options to resist all privileges, monopolies, impositions and aggressions. - - On the one side, panarchists try to so organize diverse human beings, with their different values and aspirations, in a way that friction between them is reduced to a minimum. - - On the other side, panarchists do not just dream that quite non-violent people ought to be at liberty to do their diverse things but are aware, that all people, who do not swear by non-violence, are to be at liberty to resist all aggressors (who initiated coercion) and to protect their way of life in diverse forceful and rightful ways, whenever these are required and to collaborate in such resistance and protection efforts in many different ways. - - Freedom has many more and better answers to offer than statism has, in this sphere, too. And, for the foreseeable future, we cannot expect all people to agree on some, supposedly ideal protection, resistance and penal method. (For the wrongfulness of nuclear war preparations see not only Murray Rothbard's excellent essay "War, Peace and the State" but also e.g. Douglas Lackey: "Ethics and Nuclear Deterrent", in "Moral Problems, edited by James Rachels, 2nd. ed., Harper & Row, 1975. - - For the inherent moral contradiction of most non-violent pacifist positions see another outstanding essay in the same anthology: Jan Narveson: "Pacifism: a Philosophical Analysis." I wish I would be at liberty to reproduce these articles and this anthology may still contain other pearls, as yet unread by me.) - - Thus, in a panarchistically reorganized society, there will be a great variety of protective systems, policing and jurisdiction options, including, naturally, self-defence efforts, libertarian revolutions and insurrections against dictatorships and totalitarian regimes and mere neighborhood watches against private local criminals. - - There will be all kinds of voluntary jurisdiction, arbitration and popular and liberated jury systems, all agreed upon in advance and developed and provided competitively, based on individual choice and diverse contracts. - - The different autonomous and non-territorial groups would not only have their own internal jurisdiction services but would have their "international" compacts with each other on all offences committed across the non-territorial "borders" between them, i.e. between members of different personal law communities. They will in advance agree upon using either the laws of the accused or those of the accuser, or those which provide the larger penalties for the same offence or they will let paritetically manned courts (mixed courts) make the decisions, as has often happened historically. - - Disagreements within groups of people will become minimized, within voluntary communities of people, who largely agree with each other. And because of that kind of freedom for all - the clashes with adherents to other system will also become rare. Most of the relationships will be within friendship and ideological circles, among self-chosen associates. - - With outsiders the members will mostly have only some free market trading relationships - which they may restrict as much as they like. - - By mobilizing all resistance and liberation efforts and appealing to the followers of all ideologies and faiths, panarchy, once understood and sufficiently publicized, will tend to be self-realizing, and self-maintaining. - - It would tend to transform current party-struggles, resistance efforts, revolutions, insurrections and wars - anywhere on Earth, into their peaceful, competitive and cooperative equivalents or avoid them altogether. - - With this program rightful defensive wars could become reduced to rightful and limited police actions against genuine criminals with victims. (I developed this theme in my two peace books.) - - In some countries it will be possible to introduce it quite constitutionally or merely by civil disobedience based on individual secessionism and alternative institutions and communities. - In others, it will help to reduce violence to a minimum (that of rightful and discriminating force) and will speedily bring about liberation FOR ALL but aggressors. - - As a watchdog organization and to help this already partly self-realizing scheme, that offers to each the government or no-government of his dreams (K.H.Z. Solneman), local volunteer militias should be set up for the protection of individual rights ( to the extent that these are claimed by members of the diverse communities ). - - These could and should also be internationally federated for larger police actions. - - For new and "great" leaders and prophets that are inclined towards initiated violence are always being born and self-made and, for a while, believed in by some. - - Panarchy would greatly help to prevent their followership from growing too large, since already the first followers would want to see their ideals panarchistically realized, rather than being given mere promises and, to the extent that the proposed and practised systems do contain flaws in their theories, these experiments would fail, soon and would thus prevent an excessive growth of new and flawed movements. - - No claim is made here that panarchy would establish absolute peace forever. But it would promote lasting peace as far as is possible among as contentious beings as human beings are and would tend to reduce the remaining clashes to mere rightful police actions. - - There would be almost universal consensus upon unilateral destruction of nuclear and similar "weapons", seeing that the territorial targets would have disappeared and most of the antagonism and the means to build, keep and protect them. - - Even terrorists would become rare once they become aware of and utilize the option of non-territorial autonomy for whatever ideals they hold. Why fight for something that one is free to realize for oneself? - - To offer a simple analogy of the peace-promoting effect panarchy: When is consumer-satisfaction maximized? When all are offered only one indifferently cooked meal, in all of the nationalized restaurants, with home-cooking prohibited, or when all are free to choose between a variety of dishes offered in each of a large diversity of private and cooperative restaurants and, also, their home-cooking? In short, let each be free to select or cook his own stew, then he will "stew" least. - JZ, 1986 draft, then ca. 900 words. Slightly revised: 29.12.04. - - - 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 societies 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 neighbor - 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  choice. - - 3.) If you can't agree with them, do not join them or stay a member. Secede from them and do your own thing. - - 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 & 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 allow 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  sphere. - - 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 on fate. - - 18.) Each to be free to pick his ideology, social organization and cooperators and to experiment together with them, at their own risk and expense, in the same way that he may now pick his own friends or religious associates. - - 19.) Each to be free to pick his own international allies and enemies, make treaties with them or resist their aggressive acts, as he pleases, provided only that he does so within the framework of individual rights & liberties, which reduce indiscriminate warfare and revolutionary actions to rightful and limited self-defence and policing actions against aggressors. - - In other words, people are to be 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 struggle, if they are to struggle 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 16-17 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: 28.12.04.

ZUBE, JOHN, SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY collection, which is online. – Most of the relevant entries in this collection have already been included here. - - Slogans for Liberty on COLLECTIVISM, compiled by JZ, 91, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - See: SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY. - - SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY on or related to Panarchism, 407 points, 82, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PP 689. - - SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, EXTRACT OF 22 OF THEM, ON PANARCHISM - On anarchy for anarchists and states for statists or: To each the government or no-government of his dreams! - (One of many such files. To the extent that I had them on hand, already digitized, I did include them in the above Panarchist A-Z. This may already have happened for the following entries, too. - If that is the case than I can only say that a relatively short assortment of such remarks is preferred, by most people, to a very long one. – JZ, 28.12.04.) - - 1.) The various forms of socialism and capitalism are only various forms of religion and their followers and organizations do not deserve any more privileges than any church does. But they are also entitled to no less rights and liberties than any church or sect has in a relatively free society, or any atheistic, humanistic and rationalistic association. - - 2.) One can consider "denationalization" and "reprivatization" in a narrow sense, as referring only to the transfer of particular State enterprises into private or cooperative hands or one can understand them in a general sense, which would amount to privatizing and cooperatizing and voluntarizing ALL of the governmental political, economic and social system. - As an individualist anarchist, free-market libertarian, voluntaryist, mutualist and panarchist, I favor not only denationalization and privatization of some but of all government enterprises and departments. - (By the way, the sales proceeds belong into the pockets of all citizens, not of any politicians and bureaucrats!) - Such a comprehensive denationalization would offer all kinds of voluntaristic avenues for all kinds of anarchistic, socialistic and liberal schemes and experiments, all coexisting peacefully in the same territories, supported and used only by their supporters, with failures to be born only by them and benefits to be shared only among them. - - 3.) Panarchy would, so to speak, universalize the principle of conscientious objection against military servitude, against tax slavery, compulsory education, medication or prohibition. It would realize freedom for dissenters and non-conformists, not only in the religious but also in the political, social and economic sphere. - - 4.) It is not true that our "nation" is endangered but that the very existence of our "nation", in exclusive, territorial and coercive form, endangers US and OTHERS. Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name of national. - Caroline - What is voluntary does rarely make enemies and it can be defended much easier and with much more justification. - - 5.) Panarchism pleads for freedom for statists - as well as for all others - to do their own things. - Only narrow-minded anarchists would insist that all other people make the same choice which these anarchists prefer. - By rights, anarchists can demand no more than anarchism for anarchists - within a general voluntaryist system that would leave statists to their own choices on their own affairs. - Then each could have the government or no-government of his choice and, to that extent, they would no longer have to fear and fight each other. - - 6.) No more forced marriages with any government, army, union or school. No more compulsory associations. Each individual to be free to divorce himself from any of them, by one-sided declarations, and to join or establish any alternatives that may take his fancy. - Excommunication of disagreeable members is, naturally, also an option for the voluntary members of any autonomous minority group or protective association. - Panarchism is nothing but the freedom to disassociate and to associate – consistently applied in the last spheres where it is so for not realized, namely in politics, economic and social relations. - - 7.) Panarchy means freedom for communists as well as anti-communists to live the way they want to live. Both would be free to follow their beliefs - but only at their own expense and risk, as if they were religious sectarians living under religious tolerance. Perhaps they are such sectarians and ought therefore to be given that autonomy, for this reason alone, if there were not already a thousand moral, political, economic and social other reasons in favor of it. - - 8.) Almost all of our public institutions in the political, economic and social sphere amount to ritualized intolerance and domination. - In an age of mass-murder-devices, kept ready as a matter of policy by the most powerful governments, with considerable popular support, it is high time to ritualize and institutionalize their direct opposite, namely quite tolerant, voluntaristic and non-coercive institutions, each of them doing its own things for its own members, and subscribers, as best as they can, while leaving all others to their own and freely chosen actions and relationships among themselves. - - 9.) "... as Lysander Spooner points out in NO TREASON, a contract surrendering the rights and basic liberties of one of the parties is absurd and invalid in terms of common law." - Kerry Wendell Thornley, in “FACTSHEET 5”, 1985. - We have to replace this kind of social contract relationship, between rulers and citizen-subjects, by something much more moral and useful, to the extent that the alternatives are preferred by individuals, in accordance with their individual stage of enlightenment. - - 10.) "The political philosophy that is called libertarianism is the doctrine that every person is the owner of his own life, and that no one is the owner of anyone else's life; and that, consequently, ever human being has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in accordance with their choices." - Prof. John Hospers, quoted in THE FREEMAN, August 1974. - He is one of the many who failed to draw the panarchistic conclusion from this principle, since he still advocates merely limited government. - - 11.) Why did statism rather than panarchism prevail so far? - - Was the remaining over-lordship in instances of part-realizations of panarchist freedom a hindrance or a help to those involved? - Historical records on these experience are, perhaps, not complete enough to allow us to make a sufficiently informed judgment upon them. But on first principles one could conclude that any compromise with evil or wrong will benefit the evil or wrong while doing no good to the good or right side. - - 12.) 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 and Arabs 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 self-realizing. The written record of panarchist 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 are free and invited and more contributions to its sub-series "On Panarchy", of which the first 24 issues are now out, on 24 microfiche.) - - 13.) "Abolition of all forms of government is the libertarian political proposal that binds together left and right wing anarchists as does the common social vision of totally free individuals integrated with small, autonomous, intentional communities." - ELF, 1972. - But there is still the vast difference between "abolition" by destruction and abolition, step by step, through competing better alternatives that are freely chosen by individuals - whenever they are ready for them. - Moreover, there are all kinds of ideas on "smallness", degree of autonomy and type of community, with most people being able to envision only exclusive and territorial ones and unable to envision non-territorial ones. This happens in spite of the fact that much of their private lives is spent and enjoyed in non-territorial association with other likeminded people. - 14.) "The libertarian favors a condition of freedom for all, yet he realizes that freedom, because of its nature, can never be imposed by force." - Robert LeFevre, “LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL”, Spring 1974. - Consequently, opponents of anarchism must be left at liberty, to continue and enjoy as much as they can the kind of statism they do like, as long as they do. Anarchists must not threaten them with the abolition of their kind of beloved State and government but, rather help to guarantee it to them, as long as it remains their own free choice. Towards them anarchists can rightly advocate only the one-man revolutions that are exemplified by individual secessionism that is based on individual sovereignty or self-ownership - as soon as people are enlightened enough to want to claim this basic right. - And even then they might only be partly enlightened and will only choose new and lesser ties but still restrictions upon their own liberties. They should be free to do so. Anarchists should not threaten their choices with penalties or destruction but, at most, try to convert them, by words or by their own cooperative and competing examples of living in complete freedom. - - 15.) "By uniting the ideas of freedom in social affairs and freedom in economic affairs, the libertarian philosophy also does something else. It almost completely (some people would say completely) eliminates the power of the third area - politics. It frees both our social and economic affairs from political manipulation, domination and control. It allows individual people to control their own social and economic affairs.” - "This libertarian philosophy, based as it is on voluntarism or individual freedom, can equally encompass people who wish to live as communists in voluntary communes, and people who wish to be free traders and run their own business enterprises for a profit." - Bob Howard and John Singleton: “Rip Van Australia”, 12. - I would add, for the sake of clarification and consistent application of the principles involved, that the people in any group need not be territorially united. A non-territorial association will serve them as well as it did serve churches and sects. - - 16.) "If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy." - Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr., THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, Jan. 10, 1971. - I see no difference between consistent libertarianism and consistent anarchism. Their common basis is voluntarism, self-ownership, natural rights and liberties, individual sovereignty, free choice. Here nothing but consumer sovereignty towards so-called "government services" is involved. - - 17.) If the Libertarian Party came out quite clearly in favor of individual secessionism, then I, as an individualist anarchist, would have no other quite as fundamental objection against it. - - 18.) As an individualist I have to oppose even those anarchists, whose political ideal I do share, whenever they do try to impose or aim to impose their ideal upon all who doubt anarchy or who are its enemies. All such attempts are, inevitably, self-defeating, since they do provoke negative feed-back, often of a severely repressive type. Once one equates one's own political, economic and social beliefs with beliefs in religious doctrines, one becomes aware why this is the case. From then on one will tend to try to advocate anarchy rather with respect for human nature and all its present foibles, than against it. - People are different. Let them make their different choices, away from anarchy, as long as they want to. - - 19.) A full franchise includes the right to vote oneself out of any coercive political, economic and social system and into any system that corresponds to one's own individual choice or invention, and to have, moreover, all the other voting powers that one wants to have - among likeminded volunteers. - - 20.) To oppose party politics and party powers does not require that one opposes the political, economic, social and military policies of individual secessionism but, on the contrary, it requires such a consistent opposition to statism and consistent expression of voluntarism. - But if one is completely committed to nonviolence and to all its postures and attitudes and "actions" then one will not sufficiently explore this voluntaryist option and obligation. - (Yes, one OUGHT to secede from a Hitler regime and from a government armed with anti-people "weapons" or mass murder devices.) - - 21.) Most governments are "good" only for the waging of more or less open and aggressive international or civil wars and for their prolongation against the wishes of external and internal dissenters. Only full autonomy for all dissenters can establish peace, justice and freedom for all. It would soon maximize prosperity, at least via the examples set by some dissenters. And this autonomy for all volunteers and their associates would be possible and maximized only on a non-territorial, i.e. a personal law basis. - - 22.) Secessionists of the world unite, into a world federation that works for non-territorial autonomy for all volunteers who desire it, for all minorities that wish it for themselves and for other minorities and even for the majority. - FIOT, John Zube, 9.3.1986. – Slightly revised: 28.12.04, 28.8.12. - - - A larger collection of such slogans on or related to Panarchism, 407 points, was microfilmed and later digitized: 82, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PEACE PLANS 689.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Clippings, Letters & Notes on Len Casley's Secession and his Hutt River Province, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510. - P.S.: To my knowledge not one of numerous mass media reports did seriously discuss the rightfulness and significance of individual secessionism and exterritorially autonomous communities for our times and problems. Instead, they did the usual thing: ridicule this limited practice. - And this "prince" found himself reduced to e.g. dispensing titles and medals and entertaining tourists. Neither the journalists nor the general public nor the political science academics were mentally prepared for this pioneering action. - Thus I did not bother to list their "contributions" here. - PIOT, JZ, 18.1.99.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some comments to Jim Stumm's version of Panarchy, 46, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Comparisons between States, Proprietary Communities and Panarchies, p. 25, in ON PANARCHY V, in PP 554.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Freedom Definitions & Notes - Transcription from old Leitz ... This requires individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for ... Shall such proposals and personal law and voluntary taxation proposals have to ... -  -  Similar - More results from » One result from a Google search.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some further notes towards panarchism by JZ, 25 12 04, in correspondence with RCBJ. - Including some Q & A attempts on panarchism. - File: Pan JZ notes 25 12 04 Peace & Pan. - Mainly on the connection between Panarchism and Peace. Some questions and points needed further clarification. And they still do. - - That panarchy (the combination of all the diverse panarchies that as diverse individuals as human beings are, would choose for themselves, once they are freed to do so) would, under present conditions and for people as most of them are today, in combination with other libertarian steps, finally lead to a lasting peace, based upon freedom and justice for all (just as much of them as they want to arrange for among themselves), has, I believe, been shown by me in my two peace books, 1962 & 1975: They are online: - ... However, other questions on the relationship between panarchy and peace, especially, why the numerous and very early and incomplete practices of panarchy were not fully developed and sufficiently and consistently applied, to have brought about a lasting peace, already a long time ago, such questions have not yet been sufficiently answered. - At least some attempts should be made to answer them, too. Otherwise too much doubt will be cast on the panarchist proposals for our time. Then the historical evidence for it will not be considered to be strong enough. - This is of particular importance at a time when one long review and an essay on Liu’s book on the subject will soon be made available, … anonymously, for discussion and interested websites and even the whole book might become soon accessible via e-mail or online. [By now it is on - JZ, 29.9.11.] ... Scanning is easy and fast. – But proof-reading! What a chore. - On the other hand, it gives you a chance to insert your comments! - - Peace on Earth!” - Yes, but how? - Peace through Panarchy? - Yes, but did this already happen in ancient times, to a sufficient degree, under their conditions, and with men as unenlightened and prejudiced, custom- and tradition-bound as they were then, or can it only be expected, under present conditions, with men, in at least some countries already somewhat enlightened, and is it thus possible now or in the near future? - That is still to be decided. - I for one am not prepared nor able to wait indefinitely. I want peace, and everything that really makes for it, now, for myself, my children, my grandchildren my great-grandchild and my friends. Thus I want it clarified: Upon what other conditions than panarchy does a full and lasting peace, based upon full liberties and rights also depend? - E.g.: “Good will towards all men!”? - Towards all peaceful people only? - Yes, but what would that mean, in details? - - - I. QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS - Too many questions still! - Better answers than mine would be welcomed by me. - - A good book that I am presently reading is Geoffrey Blainey: The Causes of War. It is weak on economics, has nothing to say on panarchism but is good in refuting diverse popular views on the cause of war and of peace. - The Berrima District Library service had recently cancelled this book and put it on sale. Also several other books that are of interest to me, e.g.: Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft. Both are well preserved copies. So the question arises: Were these instances of censorship or only of replacement by still newer editions? The Thatcher book was almost brand new, appeared only 2002 and was not even registered at any of the local libraries. The usual bias against such books may be involved. It may be almost as strong among librarians as it is among teachers. - - - Can one be too self-critical or never enough? Especially on a topic as important as this one? - - - When comparing the very long documented history of part-realizations of panarchism, personal law, exterritorially autonomous organizations (*) and the presumably still much longer but not historically recorded story of the non-territorial organization of man’s societies in ancient history, more or less full of assumptions or speculations, one has to ask: Why didn’t they bring about peace on Earth, as such organizations could or would tend to do now? - (*) Shi Shun Liu, Ph.D.: Exterritoriality, Its Rise and Its Decline, 1925, 237 pages, reproduced by me in PEACE PLANS 383, printed by New York. Columbia University Press, 1925. (Review: Non-Territorial Governance – Mankind’s Forgotten Legacy, by RCBJ, Ph.D., December 20, 2004.) This outstanding historical study has been all too long out of print, and is all too rare second-hand. It was put online by GPdB at - To my inevitably limited knowledge, it is, probably, still the best book on this subject, one full of facts and thoughts. One day it will be considered a classic. The minority autonomy that it describes, is a very long-term historical practice and points at an ideal still to be fully developed and realized. However, some of the facts on this subject are also evidenced in many other writings. My own, still very incomplete and dated bibliography on this came already to ca. 56 pages. Then it was integrated in a long first Pan A to Z file, of 440 pages, almost 3 Mbs, of notes, references and quotes on this subject, alphabetized and ever growing, e.g. with this second edition. More such references other entries are wanted for inclusion. I have not yet got around and at my age I may never manage to include references to all my files on this subject. - - My two peace books, online at are based on this idea, and so are many of the writings of Ulrich von Beckerath, although they are more fully developing only one special aspect of it, namely: full monetary freedom. - Most free marketeers, libertarians and anarchists, have still ignored this model or are full of prejudices and wrong premises on it or merely imagine that their particular ideal would already sufficiently represent all freedom, peace and justice options. - (However, by now more has been published on this subject, at least online, than ever before. - JZ, 30.9.11.) - - What prevented past panarchist practices from becoming fully successful? Why were they defeated, again and again, or pushed very much in the background, in practice and in public consciousness and in the history and law books, in writings on constitutions and international law and are almost completely left out of most of the public political discussions today? Especially out of all governmental conferences and peace programs and that of all peace movements that I am aware of? - - The assertion of the peace-promoting effects of panarchism, and my attempted proofs, which I stated in my two libertarian and panarchist peace books, must be compared with the historical experience with e.g. the Greek and the Roman Empires, themselves, initially, slightly panarchistic, which fought endless wars and were finally overcome by invading “barbarians”, who themselves, and this largely, but only among themselves, practised personal laws, rather than territorial ones. - - Thus the prolonged experience with and records of our all too warlike past and present has led most historians and political scientists to believe that personal laws and exterritorial communities were just oddities and that they have nothing to do with war and peace questions. (If personal laws and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers had already been fully realized and, as a result, had not achieved peace, then they would even be right. But there were several factors, which prevented that full realization.) - At most they might concede that between those tribes, which did practise them sufficiently, they contributed to peace between them, although they did not always guaranty it. And it certainly did not prevent them from committing aggressions against foreigners. (They and their properties were still considered to be "fair game", to be plundered, slaughtered or enslaved. The barbarians were not consistent panarchists. Neither are we, as yet. - - At the same time, one has to consider that their very practice of personal laws and their long experience as wandering tribes, not yet firmly and permanently settled ones, had led them to believe, that they were entitled to go on marching and settling wherever they wanted to, without having to respect any exclusive territorial claims of anyone. In this respect they might be considered as merely freely migrating people. But, they were armed and dangerous to those who resisted their migrations. Moreover, unlike modern and peaceful immigrants, they were certainly not yet conditioned to respect the property rights of others, in land and other possessions, especially if the others were strangers and they felt that they themselves were stronger than these strangers. - After all, they even kept slaves – and so did the strangers with whom they fought for possessions or at least for the right of free passage. - Quite naturally, they were feared and resisted, as in our times e.g. large gangs of motor-bike riders are feared, although most of them are quite peaceful people who simply like motor bike riding in company with others. - - - One might also consider e.g., how unpopular, in our times, among peace-loving people e.g. large and drunk crowds are and how dangerous they can be to themselves and to others. These crowds may begin as people just trying to have a good time among themselves – and then, under the influence, some or even many of them might turn into a raging and rioting mob, with its participants no longer practising their usual peacefulness, as they do at home and with their neighbors. - - - Thus one might generalize, that their panarchism and personal law tradition and respect for it, applied largely only to their civil law, among themselves, to people of their kind, not to their international law rules or principles, whatever there existed of them already, towards strangers. Only to some extent did they learn to apply it also to the strangers, e.g. the Romans. - - - The same can be said about e.g. Islam, the Arabs and the Turks. They did not always respect the faith and possessions of others but tried to spread their own faith with the sword. They conquered and subdued, enslaved and robbed and merely respected some religious differences and autonomy of the conquered but certainly did not leave them alone altogether, if they had the military might to subdue them. This in spite of the fact that they held that the Koran, its religious and civil laws, applied only to its believers. That was not enough to confine their actions to their own lives and possessions. They still wanted to spread “the” faith by force of arms. They, like all too many Christians, were crusaders. Some still are and believe in “holy wars” against the “non-believers”. [Christians, at least by now, rely more on peaceful missionaries and their charitable deeds, after an all too long, intolerant and bloody history. - JZ, 29.9.11, 29.8.12.] - Many “might equals right” notions were and are still very much in evidence and practised, not only among the readers, interpreters and misinterpreters of Max Stirner’s The Ego and His Own. - - - The "right" to engage in conquests and plunder were taken for granted as they were and are, even in our times, at least to some extent and among some movement and by some governments. - Men were, largely, warriors and strove for military victories and honored military abilities and heroes and strove for glory and considered their victories as a rightful way to riches – at the expense of the defeated and conquered. [People, who do manage to ignore many of their own individual rights and liberties are, naturally, not careful to respect them in others, considered to be mere “aliens” or “foreigners”. – JZ, 8.2.12.] The slain and the prisoners were stripped of their possessions. Prisoners were often also enslaved and considered to be war booty, too. Victory celebrations are not unknown, even in our times, either. There are little regrets and no official mourning occurs for the numerous deaths the victors caused on the other side. - Among some tribes the prisoners were even eaten. - - Can one expect, from such people, sufficient panarchistic understanding and tolerance? - Even many of our own and popular sports are physical contact sports for teams or individuals, that celebrate the own victories and the physical defeat of the other team. Many sports are still some kind of “war games”, or substitutes for real wars, satisfying some warlike instincts, even though conducted, mostly, without weapons but with somewhat controlled unarmed combat. Boxing, wrestling and other unarmed combat sports are still very popular. Incapacitating others, at least temporarily, is still the aim in them. Sometimes and intentionally, considerable injuries are inflicted upon the members of the other team – and cheered upon by the crowds. In that respect we are still not far enough from the once popular gladiator fights for entertainment purposes. Compared with them, even bull fights and cock fights are already a step in the right direction, away from considering other humans as rightful targets for attacks and for physical victories over them – all, naturally, restrained by the agreed-upon rules on this kind of “warfare”. Now there are also the more obvious war games with paint guns. Well, some of our primitive or barbaric or semi-civilized ancestors would not have been satisfied with such “sissy” games and mere paint-guns as "weapons", although they would have adhered to their personal laws, and respected the personal laws of members of some other and more or less closely related or respected tribes – not of all other tribes, mind you. - - The appeal that violent actions have for many people is also demonstrated by computer games, and the popularity of many movies depicting violence. - How many war movies and games are there? And how many or few poems and songs, which describe panarchist tolerance and freedom? - Panarchist writings, remarks and ideas have certainly not yet spread widely enough or even explosively in our times. But at least the number of e.g. Google search results on this topic has grown rapidly in recent years. Even most of the minds of our times have sill to be patiently prepared for such ideas. - Thus, in the early times of man and in the times when at least part of man’s history was already recorded in writing, the then existing panarchistic practices and customs were not yet able to conquer and pacify the world. - - Considerable progress has been made since, which I need hardly to enumerate to anarchists and libertarians. At the same time, territorial States have also “progressed” all too much, in numerous wrongful and harmful ways, so it has become all the more urgent to counter the growth of their powers and wrongs with the numerous and very diverse panarchies of panarchism and to achieve complete freedom for their establishment and  development. - - From my point of view the limited practical applications of exterritorial autonomy and voluntarism can serve merely to prove that such organization forms are not impossible but quite practical. They do not prove that they are, under all circumstances and under all faiths, power systems, customs, traditions and ideologies and while numerous prejudices and practices are still very popular, the strongest of all factors and quite irresistible. - Even under the present degrees of freedom of expression and under the numerous new opportunities for expressing and informing oneself, panarchist ideas, opinions and facts have not yet spread like wild fire, although this might come to happen, very suddenly, like e.g. the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the Soviet Empire. - - That might happen through the establishment of numerous panarchistic societies and governments in exile, appealing to all the opposition groups under despotic and aggressive regimes. Or through finally achieving a comprehensive declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and a militia federation for their protection. Answers to numerous problems are still not known to all territorial governments and most of their victims. However, under the experimental freedom of panarchy they could come to be supplied very fast. - A simple analogy: I do not know how to run a post office very efficiently but I do know that under fully free competition much better postal services would soon be supplied by those able and willing to do so. - - The technological and economic potential to spread, today, the panarchist message of total experimental freedom in all spheres, always at the own risk and expense only, does exist and, theoretically, such ideas could be general spread within mere days, as great “news”! - - This alternative political framework was never quite consistently applied, developed to its optimum, while excluding all wrongful alternatives to it, e.g. slavery and imperial powers. - Consistency, even now, among political leaders and their supporters is the exception rather than the rule. - - Like many of the traces of e.g. monetary freedom in the past and those of cooperative or partnership alternatives to the employer and employee-relationship and the few instances of somewhat close to ideal militia forces and national guards for the protection of individual rights and liberties - as opposed to standing armies sworn to loyalty to a King or other “great” leader - the panarchistic alternatives were never sufficiently developed and consistently applied in all spheres where they were greatly needed to become fully effective. If e.g. the main diet remains dangerous junk food and only occasionally healthy food is eaten, then the negative results are predictable and the bits of healthy food that were eaten cannot be blamed for them. - - - Why is panarchism still so weak today and territorial statism so strong in practice, in its institutions, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions and in international law (although e.g. in a colonial islands country like the Philippines was, it arose only as late as the 1890’s and many of the numerous present territorial States were founded much later still, after WW I and WWII, in the period of decolonization)? - - - Why is there still so little interest in the alternatives offered by panarchism, personal law and exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities, in spite of the numerous wrongs and harms caused by territorial statism, the numerous wars and mass murders it has led to? - - - Why do even those peoples with some of the most prolonged personal law and autonomous community experiences, like the Jews and Muslims, know so little and appreciate even less about these traditions of their own and their possibilities for the present and the future? - - - If personal law and its voluntary institutions are really as old as mankind, at least in considerable traces and practices, then why are we still dominated by territorial States, however “representative” they may be or are in their false pretences? - - - If panarchy is the solution to the problem of war, then why haven’t its ancient traces spread and conquered the world and turned it into a peaceful one? - - - Why was peace so relatively rare and short and never quite complete, in most countries and possibly never fully realized world-wide? - - - Why is the belief still so strong, that there were always wars and that there will always be wars? - - - Can we rely on mere faith in panarchy any more than in faith in anarchy, laissez faire, classical liberalism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, in democracy, republicanism, in leftist or rightist ideologies or in the welfare State? - - - Indeed, as e.g. Prof. Rummel has demonstrated, in his very extensive web pages (alas, still not made more easily accessible on a CD) democracies were more peaceful – but were they peaceful enough and did they prevent all wars? - - - What made panarchy, so far, in its theory and limited practices, so unsuccessful in competition with other systems, whenever it comes to national and international affairs? [Actually, it was perhaps nowhere ever in free and complete competition with territorial statism. If such a competition were fully practised then, I believe, it would win even against large odds. For no other system offers each and everyone the political, economic and social system of his or her own choice, something that no territorially imposed system can do. - JZ, 29.9.11, 29.8.12.] - - - Why can it still be so easily suppressed or even ignored by territorial powers and their believers? - - - We do have to put such questions until they begin to hurt and we will begin to finally look for satisfactory answers and cures for these self-inflicted “wounds”. All insights begin with doubts and questions, rationally pursued. - - - I can only hope that at least some of my readers will lose some sleep, like I did - while pondering such questions! - - - The connection between panarchy and peace should not just be presumed to exist, a-priory, but there should be offered sufficient and convincing historical practical proofs for it that it does works, and also facts and evidence that its potential, once fully developed and applied, is even strong enough to overcome the remaining great obstacles in our times. Well, so far, it did not! But can it and this rather soon? - - - If so, how, by what means, why, through whom and when? (See my draft on the Aphthonius system, applied to panarchy, a system which, with a few simple questions tries to draw out basic answers on any reform proposal. [See also my two peace books - and if you do know of better ones, please, to point them out to me. - JZ, 29.9.11.) - - - Was panarchism, with its multitude of diverse panarchies, all only for their volunteers, ever fully realized anywhere or only ever on an all too limited scale? - For instance, the degrees of autonomy which Jewish communities obtained in some countries were still so limited and threatened, in most cases, that they are still not sufficiently appreciated by most Jews in our times and often seen, rather, as part of a system of oppression, exclusion and prosecution, even as part of an imposed ghetto system. Formally, even the still surviving Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had their Jewish self-administration, even while the extermination machinery operated full steam and had reduced this population already from about 500 000 to about 50 000. [Naturally, they had no choice about the deportation quote but merely on who was to join the next transport to the extermination camp! - JZ, 29.9.11]. - There, Jewish people, under threat of immediate death, were forced to assist in the extermination process. This was, obviously, hardly genuine self-determination, self-government and a-territorial autonomy but constituted, instead, extremely limited options and the coercive and extreme restriction of individual choices. - - - The limited opportunities that were offered, under the misleading term of “self-government”, were far from genuine self-government, or self-management, of all selves, i.e., of all individuals, in all “public” spheres, so far monopolized by territorial governments, but, rather, instances of a kind of self-abuse or of merely seeming consent to being used, exploited and abused by despotic rulers or seeming representatives and their parties. - As such this "territorial", "representative" and "democratic" "self"-government still goes on in all too many countries. - JZ, 29.9.11.] - Genuine self-government and self-management, in all spheres, for individuals, according to their personal preferences, still does not exist anywhere, fully, in the political, economic and social system spheres. Even in direct democratic Switzerland it is confined to the majorities achieved at any time and place. Everywhere the dissenters have to submit or emigrate (if free to leave and to immigrate). - Territorial governments so far, with very few exceptions, got only collectivist and territorial majority mandates, at best, rather than individual ones, like powers of attorney or simply and obviously, quite voluntary membership and full exterritorial autonomy for all dissenting minority groups. - - Naturally, we were and are always permitted to say “yes, Sir!” to them, but rarely, if ever: “No! No way! I veto this action against me, against my property, against my private and voluntary sphere of rights and liberties and free contracts with other human beings!” – unless we are prepared to lay down all of our few remaining liberties or risk our lives, immediately. - - - Even most of the resistance and freedom fighters and members or liberation movements and revolutionary forces were always ready to restrict our individual choices and liberties further, rather than to expand them, in theory and in practice. - - - Even the remaining royalists in revolutionary North America were badly treated. Not only that abuse occurred: The revolutionary alternative government treated its own loyal civilians badly, e.g. by a paper money inflation and did not sufficiently supply its fighting soldiers, either. The “honorable” Washington was involved in cheating his soldiers for their back pay. First he ordered them to march somewhere into the wilderness. There they were then “paid off” with depreciated paper money, at its nominal and forced value. Then and there they could not effectively resist such a pretence of paying them in full. (Details are provide by the first American economist: Pelatiah Webster, Political Essays, on the Nature and Operation of Money, Public Finances and other Subjects, Philadelphia, 1791, 504 pages, which I microfilmed in PEACE PLANS 994/95, together with some comments by Percy L. Greaves and by myself. – I got a photocopy of it from a copy in the library of his also famous widow and Mises scholar, Bettina Bien Greaves.) - - - Could panarchy, not only to some extent and in very early times, exist, partly and temporarily, as it undoubtedly did, see Liu’s book on this, but could it then and there have quite overcome the remaining martial spirit, a warrior caste, a warlike people, the practice of slavery, hero or personality cults, intolerant religions and ideologies, with monopolistic institutions and systems? - - - Can it, if fully appreciated and realized, always successfully resist such factors or even overcome and abolish them? Has it, so far, in all spheres? Is this “battle” over and done with and won? Or are still hard “conversion” battles on hand, even for this most tolerant political, economic and social philosophy, framework and practice? - - - Should we say, like some Christians do: “All you need is faith! Or: All you need is love!”? Or should we use our  equivalent: “All you need is faith in panarchy and its tolerance and justice and peacefulness and freedom, freedom even to be un-free? Then and only then everything will be granted to you, without any further effort by you, by the “divine” power of panarchy?” - - - Should we “permit” no “doubting Thomas” in our “ranks”? - - - Should we, quite consistently, favor all kinds of individual and group desertion and defection even from our own “movement” and preferred panarchy, like we do from territorial armed forces, coercive trade unions and, especially, territorial States with compulsory membership? - - - What is our stand e.g. on espionage and treason, either by strangers or the own members? - Marat, by the way, one of the monsters of the French Revolution, in an earlier draft of a new criminal law, conceded to soldiers the right to desert! [Which territorial government does recognize that right by now? - JZ, 29.9.11.] - - Do we have to fear and prosecute espionage and treason, subversion, fragmentation, defection, or, rather, invite, welcome and initiate them, as long as they are all in favor of individual rights and liberties or, at least, confined to voluntary because still statist victims? - - - Have we, as yet, agreed on accepting new international law rules between diverse panarchies of volunteers? - - - How enterprising, competitive, successful and numerous have panarchists been so far? - - - Were most panarchists so far even fully consistent in striving for exterritorial autonomy or did most of them still they want exceptions and still continued, in parts, with territorialist ideas, laws, institutions, proposals and reforms? - (I must admit that I did so myself, with regard to local governments, in my first and 1962 book manuscript on the subject.) - - - Can we still and rightly believe any territorial political leader’s declaration that he has only peaceful intention or that his measures or treaties have assured peace for our times? - - - Do we lack in examples of regimes from which secession, by individuals and groups, would, obviously, be quite rightful if not even obligatory? - - - - - - - -SOME SUGGESTED ANSWERS - CERTAINLY, NOT YET PROVIDING THE LAST WORD ON THIS SUBJECT. - But at least some part-answers, until, finally, some better ones are provided. - - The warfare that occurred e.g. among the Germanic personal law tribes and, by them, against the Roman Empire, during its decline and fall, the long period of the long migrations of armed tribes and peoples, all over Europa, should make us skeptical towards the power of personal law communities to establish and maintain all kinds of peace, not only internally among the members of voluntary personal law groups but also between all of them and towards foreign countries, their rulers and peoples. After all, these wandering and armed tribes conquered whole new countries and their own leaders became the rulers of these countries. - Indeed, they did not systematically exterminate the resident population. Not did they fully enslave them. They did even leave them in possession of their old laws and customs and allowed them to adopt, if they wanted to, the personal laws of their rulers. But these new rulers and their followers were not just peaceful immigrants, making their individual contracts with the current owners and employers. Nor were they mere tourists and sight-seers. They were still warlike conquerors, at least towards those, who were not allied with them or were not members of their tribe and they meant to stay, in dominant positions. - Moreover, both they and the conquered were slave masters and in their clashes many of their captives became slaves. - - To what extent the defection of Roman slaves to them, often as prisoners of the invading tribes, contributed to their victories, does not seem to have been fully answered as yet. At least I have found no writings on this subject. A comprehensive history of the role of desertion and defection may still have to be written. - - Here we should always keep in mind the conditions and ideas of these times in other spheres than those of personal laws: Slavery was still considered to be a rightful institution and so were warlike expeditions and conquests, with all their associated wrongs. - - Nothing quite wrong was seen in turning captured soldiers or civilians into slaves or hostages, or subjecting them to tortures - in order to extract some or the other secret from them. - - Among such people even fully developed panarchist ideas and some practices could not be expected to always and  firmly establish and keep the peace, no more so than they could among irrational and fighting animals. At least no more so than the justified clauses in our crimes acts do prevent all crimes with victims. - - Personal laws did then merely prevent some of the clashes that would otherwise have occurred between members of different communities, in the same way that e.g. degrees of Prussian and Bavarian local autonomy prevented many clashes between Prussian and Bavarian governments. (But they united all too well for wars of conquests towards “foreigners” and managed to persuade themselves or let themselves be persuaded that their aggressions were merely defensive acts.) - - Among people still believing e.g. that “points of honour” would demand and justify duels, the individuals so concerned, and such notion persisted somewhat even into our times, though, largely reduced to mere fisticuffs, we should not expect sufficient knowledge of and appreciation of peaceful coexistence options between people who do prefer, for themselves, different laws, customs, institutions, constitutions and jurisdictions. Their thoughts and actions, their ideals, are certainly not yet dominated by the thoughts and motives of exterritorial autonomy and of the greatest possible tolerance for tolerant actions. - - Nor are most people, nowadays, convinced that “heretics” ought to be violently suppressed, slaughtered or burnt, otherwise, their own and supposedly vengeful “God” would hold them collectively responsible for the omission of such “deserved” punishment or their particular ideology could not be sufficiently realized and protected among themselves. - - How much justice, rationality and tolerance can one expect from people still suffering from belief in witchcraft and in “possession” by evil demons or a devil, or those believing in the divinity of absolute kings and, consequently, insisting upon the torturing and burning of witches and the “deserved” execution of all rebels against such kings? - - What can one expect from governments and their subjects when they have never bothered to sufficiently clarify the concepts and practices of aggression and defence and can thus go on pretending, on all sides, that they are merely engaged in “defensive” actions, regardless of how many millions are mass-murdered in the process of these “defensive” actions, even when most of these are civilian victims, or non-combatants? By their own standards they are always only “defenders” and the other side only represents the “aggressor”. - - In reality, at least as exclusive, territorial, centralistic and coercive rulers over dissenters, both are already aggressors against human rights of their dissenters among their subjects and as such one can all the more expect aggressions from them against “foreigners”, the “foreign devils” as the Chinese inhabitants of the “Kingdom of Heaven” called them. - - Further: All the atrocities committed by colonial powers against more or less strange or different natives in far-away countries pale to insignificance to the official atrocities committed by governments of “Christian” “nations” or different “Christian” sects against each other (Christians are those supposed to love not only their neighbors but also their enemies, instead of merely being just towards them.) or against their related people in neighbouring countries, with whom they have close cultural and trading links, not only numerous common bloodlines and closely related religions. - - Likewise, the atrocities committed by “native people”, and against each other, have, often, been much worse than those inflicted upon them by their foreign and “white” conquerors and colonial masters. - - People, who remain so motivated, can hardly be expected to think and act panarchistically. Even today we still do have some religiously motivated civil wars of extermination, expropriation and forced deportation e.g. in Indonesia, in the Sudan and in and around Israel and the religious civil war in Ireland is still continued - at least by some underground factions. - - Moreover, we still have largely religiously and ideologically motivated international terrorism, mostly uniting even different races in e.g. some communist faith and supposedly “liberating” or indiscriminate “punishment” actions against “capitalists” or “bourgeois”. - - What can one expect from people, who have never bothered to sufficiently define what “enemy” and “ally” really means and simply leave the decision on such subjects to a territorial government and its loyal ministers and journalists, just as they left them, formerly, to a king or emperor or local prince? - - What can one expect from any age in which the “principle” of collective responsibility still predominates in political and military thinking and actions, regardless of the number and size of the atrocities, which are the result of this kind of “thinking” and “acting”? - - What can one expect even from a modern age, that never bothers to clearly define the purpose and the limitations of weapons and merely assumes that bigger and more destructive and mass murderous “weapons” are still genuine weapons, even defensive ones and this in spite or because of their mass-murderous effects, which turns them from protective devices into inherently aggressive ones, into genocide “weapons” or portable and cheap extermination camp packages? - - Only yesterday did I receive, forwarded as e-mail, by a “libertarian” an article in favor of “neutron bombs” for “defensive” purposes, which praised them for killing “only” people - while leaving buildings and land intact and their tanks and other weapons still useful! That is really a case of the “property rights” of victors being considered to be more important than the human rights of the victims of such “weapons”. - - It, too, assumed that all the conscripts of the armies of dictatorships were guilty of the aggressive wars conducted by the dictators of these conscripts and that these conscripts ought to be exterminated en masse, rather than the dictators themselves, and that the possibilities to induce these conscripts to surrender, under a rightful separate peace or to engage in a military insurrection or to participate in a broad revolution against such a dictatorship or merely to defect and join the forces of the external enemies of the dictatorship, ought to not be examined at all – just because it would be so easy to wipe them out with neutron bombs! And, relatively non-polluting, too! - - “Oh, sancta simplicitas!” (Don’t expect more than pig Latin from me!) - - Just because neutron bombs are not as polluting as are fission and fusion bombs, does not make them rightful and sensible. - - What can one expect from an age in which tribute levying from the own subjects is still continued as supposed “taxation by consent” (via “representatives”) and, supposedly, only for protective, defensive and welfare purposes that all are supposed to have been agreed upon. - - Further, what can one expect in an age, supposedly characterized by a free market, i.e., division of labor, free enterprise and free exchange, in which the exchange medium and the value standard are both monopolized by the territorial State and its central bank and given compulsory acceptance and compulsory value (legal tender) power, and in which such monetary despotism is questioned only by very few people and these do, mostly and merely, want to see central banking modified rather than abolished or competed out of existence or into insignificance. Among these were, for a long time, even men like Milton Friedman and his famous son, David Friedman. - - What can one expect from an age in which even libertarians do mostly merely want to return to the gold coin and 100% gold coin redemption standard rather than advancing to full monetary freedom? The simple or even primitive ideas are still more popular, even among scholars, than are those ideas, which embrace all freedom options. The minds of most libertarians still remain stuck upon the concept of supposedly sufficiently “limited” governments, even when they are still unlimited with regard to their territorialism. - - What can one expect from an age in which even the land reformers have not yet become tolerant enough to favor all kinds of land reform experiments – among those who volunteer for any one of them? (My father, Kurt Zube, or “Solneman”, belonged to this crowd, although, in another chapter of his “Manifesto for Freedom and Peace”, he did also advocate panarchy. (It is now also online at - - What can one expect from an age in which the authoritarian relationship between employers and employees and the resulting industrial warfare and class warfare do still predominate thinking and actions and becomes at most governmentally regulated and limited? - - What can one expect from an age in which businessmen and professionals mostly demand compulsory licensing and regulations from a territorial government rather than genuinely free enterprise? - - What can one expect from a working class movement that has largely ignored its productive cooperative alternative self-help options or dreams still, at least in some of its segments, of the nationalization or occupation of factories, rather than purchasing them, peacefully and on terms, within a few years, largely out of the additional profits obtainable through this conversion? - - What can one expect, in tolerance, from an age in which compulsory unionism and collective contracts and compulsory strikes are still in favor with all too many and people practicing their right to work, in opposition to strikers, are often violently attacked, not only slandered as “scabs”, as if the jobs involved were the exclusive “property” of the striking unionists, even after they had abandoned their work places? - - What can one expect in tolerance and knowledge of its options while education is largely entrusted to State bureaucrats, and “regulated” by them? These bureaucrats are, sometimes, e.g. in NSW and California, as numerous as the teachers teaching in the classrooms of this system. Their “achievements”, apart from the polished backsides of their pants, are large degrees of ignorance and prejudices, compulsorily spread, during many and largely wasted years, while the basic 3 Rs could already be successfully taught within 3 weeks to 3 months. - (Already for the last almost 200 years, e.g. by Joseph Lancaster’s “monitor system”. This could be done by one teacher, instructing 1000 pupils at a time, in one large room, with the aid of “monitors” among them. This was successfully done in self-disciplined quietness, although is as large classes. In them individual pupils advanced at their own speed, yet fast, largely by being alternatively teachers themselves and then pupils again. Most modern and supposedly scientifically trained teachers still show no interest in this alternative. Perhaps this should not surprise us, since it would make most of them superfluous in this profession.) - - What can one expect from an age which has tolerated the relatively recent imposition of monopolistic police forces and the establishment and maintenance of standing armies or monopoly “defence” forces of governments, for some centuries, submitting even to conscription and cruel and abusive treatment of recruits and officer candidates? - - What can one expect from an age where rulers and subjects, legislators and journalists, writers and scholars are largely influenced in their writings and verbal utterances by avalanches of popular prejudices that were never sufficiently and systematically confronted with the best refutations that were so far found for them? - - What can one expect from a supposedly enlightened age that has not yet managed to establish a single and comprehensive world library service and bibliography and abstracts and review services, far less a comprehensive index to all writings and that has presently, once again only a single libertarian street-front bookshop, that of Jim Peron, in Auckland, NZ? - - What can one expect from a world in which even the libertarians have not yet established a common and growing libertarian encyclopedia, projects list, directory, archive of their ideas and registry of their talents and resources, and a general common market between them? - - (This in spite of technological alternatives like microfilm, floppy disks, CDs and small external HDD’s that can come to contain, if one bothers to digitize and insert them there, very cheaply, a whole special library. Up to 3 books on one microfiche, up to 6 books on a floppy disk, up to 3000 books on a CD and even 1 million books on a single external hard disk with 320 Gbs.  Instead, e.g. CDs & DVD’s are extensively used rather for music, games and software than for books, because of the bias in favor of bound books and against screen reading. I, for one, would rather get 3000 freedom books on a CD now, cheaply, than, maybe, if I am lucky in 10 to 20 years either in print or online, if at all and if I should still be alive and able to appreciate them by then.) [By now the tablet computers are popularizing this alternative reading and publishing option at greatly reduced prices per book. – JZ, 29.8.12] - - Colonialism, which persists still, to some degrees into our time, at least in form of its “independent” “creations”, with their arbitrarily set frontiers, was taking for granted the rightfulness of conquests or annexations of other countries and of their populations and resources and was rationalized as being benevolent and civilizing, as a development aid and educational service (“The white man’s burden”!), attempted to economically exploit such colonies. However, in most cases the tax payers had to invest more in these “possessions” of their governments than some people drew out in profits from colonial protectionist enterprises and in salaries as soldiers and officers involved in “protecting” the colonial possessions. - By now anti-colonialism has, largely, won the day and neo-colonialist attempts to reestablish or maintain commercial monopolies or special privileges for investors have usually turned out to be no more successful than other mercantilist, protectionists or other monopolistic attempts. Taxpayers in developed countries are forced to pay for “Foreign Aid” that largely benefits only the ruling elites in severely underdeveloped countries – in their personal foreign bank accounts. Iraq and Afghanistan were such an artificial territorial establishments of decolonization and independent nation-building, with troubles arising from this for decades, into our times. So were the divisions of Germany, Berlin, Korea and Vietnam, Also the arbitrary division of the “Jewel in the Crown” into Pakistan, India and, later, Bangladesh. All of these still contain formerly conquered or annexed colonial areas and their populations. Thus the continuing clashes between these artificial territorial State constructs. - - At least by now conquests are not longer generally approved of by public opinion. Military “victories” are no longer valued for themselves. National prestige, honor and glory, the militarist tradition, military strength, the possession of slaves, have largely disappeared as popular aims or values and only the statist “defence: or established borders against aggressors or invaders is tolerated by it. Better some progress than none. - - Large numbers of volunteers for “defence” can by now only gained via lies and propaganda and actions that make it appear as if one’s country had really suffered an unprovoked attack. The men in power can arrange or prepare for such incidents, no matter how many of their own nationals lose their lives thereby, as human sacrifices. The “unprovoked” and “unexpected” attack on Pearl Harbor is probably the best documented instance. To make any war popular enough to be conducted nowadays people must be deceived into believing that they are on the rightful, the defensive side of a war, rather than on the side of the aggressors. For most governments anything goes to make them believe that. - - Even President Eisenhower did already realize: ”The people love peace so much that governments had better get out of their way and let them have it!” Alas, he saw the main threat to peace merely in what he termed the “military-industrial complex.” - - Alas, notions of “territorial integrity” however little integrity is shown by particular territorial governments, still spook in all too many heads. - The addiction to territorialist powers, institutions, principles, dogmas and opinions is the worst addiction of all. Rejecting this institutionalized intolerance, self-abuse and abuse of others, has been rendered most difficult. It is not even sufficiently, publicly and theoretically considered and discussed as a practicable possibility and as a moral imperative: the a-territorial (or exterritorial) imperative, the opposite to Robert Ardrey’s “territorial imperative”. - All the more important is it to make the relatively few writings on this subject (compared with the avalanches of territorialist political writings) readily and cheaply accessible, at least in one of the affordable alternative media, and to discuss them thoroughly. - - Why is almost everywhere the “sanction of the victims” given to territorial statism, its centralism, monopolies, compulsory state membership and subordination, imposed constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and institutions, while the voluntarist, decentralist, competitive, self-governmental, freely experimental, minority autonomy and exterritorial alternatives are largely left out of public consciousness, even that of most scholars, of most writings on politics, economics and social reform and, naturally, that of most territorial politicians and their debates, conferences and summit meetings? - In this respect we know too little about pre-historical conditions and can largely only speculate. Even the documented part of history does not tell us enough about this. The documented and pretended reasons or motives for the abolition of most of the last features of voluntary, peaceful, decentralist, competitive exterritorialism (a-territorialism) of panarchism are not always the real ones and the unstated ones may also be full of unchecked premises and poplar prejudices. - - With so many primitive and barbaric features continuing, at least partly, even into our times, how could we have expected the early traces of panarchy to have already become dominant influences then, when the more developed panarchistic ideas have not even become dominant influences in our times, as yet? - Today not even as important basic individual rights as individual secession (an obvious part of freedom of association) is recognized with regard to States and their armed forces, not even fully with regard to trade unions and not even for one of the major religions. - Nor are basic rights like free trading, even across State borders, the right to own and bear rightful arms, the right to organize oneself for the armed protection of one’s rights, the right to hire alternate suppliers for wanted public services, freedom of contract in labor relationships, freedom to conclude international treaties, the right to decide oneself about war, peace, armament and disarmament, to negotiate with an officially declared “enemy”, to make a separate peace with him – or with segments of the population subjugated by him, including his armed forces, the right to form fully free juries and to be judged only by them, as well as the right to choose alternative and competitive arbitration arrangements to governmental court systems, the right to engage in political, economic and social experiments, together with like-minded people, the right to adopt another kind of international law than territorial governments are agreed upon, the right not to be subjected to tributes levied by other governments or the own, misnamed “taxes” granted by supposed “representatives”, to which one is imagined to have given one’s consent, no matter how much one argued and voted against them. - - For peaceful relationships between freely competing and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, the recognition of the rights of their voluntary members to all the diverse principles, articles of faith, institutions, laws, constitutions, jurisdictions and civil rights, customs and traditions, that they prefer for themselves, is a primary requirement. - Even today we are still very far from an agreement on individual rights declarations that are nearly complete and consistent. - On the contrary, in much of modern, even anarchist and libertarian philosophy, not only in the official philosophy of law and politics, the very concept of natural law, human rights and simply of “right” is still controversial and widely denied, while popular opinion upholds, at the same time, many imagined human rights that are really only unjustified claims to the services of others. (A “right” to jobs, to housing, to minimum income, to education, etc.) - - Ancient personal law traditions occurred, obviously, in times when, at least during wars, the individual and group rights of those declared to be enemies or acting as enemies, were not fully known and respected. Not even the rights of the own members and subjects were, e.g. slavery, and the subjection of women and children. - They were times when collective “duels” with other tribes or nations were still considered to be rightful and honorable actions, times when “the spoils of war” were taken for granted, including the execution of prisoners, their enslavement and that of civilians, the rape of women, the plunder of their possessions, when babies were often as thoughtlessly slaughtered as some parents, still nowadays, act towards their unborn children. - Such actions were largely taken for granted or even defended as “rights” (the laws of war, the laws of the victors), rather than questioned and abolished. - Between mutual plunder-bunds, perpetually warring nomadic tribes or cannibalistic ones, in times of the burning of heretics, of torture as a means to establish justice, in times of militarily competing territorial kingdoms and empires, of feudalism, serfdom and slavery, of kingdom and empire building, of colonialism, and while these are popular or tolerated, a panarchistic peace is obviously impossible, even though on both side some traits of personal laws and jurisdiction may still have been widely practised and may have somewhat reduced the evils resulting from conquests. - - - The above and other such questions are certainly more questions than I am able to answer quite satisfactorily, even to myself. - But one thing is certain at least to me. As free, competitive and tolerant societies as panarchism or experimental freedom for voluntary communities and individual secessionism would make possible, do require a sufficient knowledge of and recognition and respect for the individual rights and liberties of others, which has certainly not yet existed for the last 300 years. Moreover, only for about the last 300 years, or even less, has some serious interest in human rights existed and it is still not strong enough to lead to widespread and clear distinction between genuine individual rights and mere welfare claims against others, camouflaged as “human rights”. - Under such conditions, lasting until today, it should not be surprising that panarchism, personal laws, voluntarism, individual choice for governments and societies and quite voluntary membership in them, including the individual withdrawal option, are not yet recognized or even sufficiently discussed. - - - As for the past, when personal law was still somewhat practised: Why were then international wars still  conducted, why did civil wars still occur and bloody revolutions, why were conquests still made and retained and military victories celebrated? Obviously, the personal law principle and a-territorial form or organization were not yet universally and consistently applied – and couldn’t, under the prevailing other ideas and customs. - - - Panarchy itself, its so far all too limited theories and practices, should not be blamed for not having achieved full recognition and its peace, justice and freedom promoting potential under the past and present conditions. - - - Even the Nazis recognized traces of personal law by claiming as “Germans”, as part of the German people and nations, the “Volksdeutschen” (ethnic Germans) who had lived in foreign countries for generations and invited them “home”. That did not prevent the Nazis from organizing one of the worst conquest, empire and mass murder attempts ever. Full respect for the basic rights and liberties of others was certainly not their characteristic and strength. Nor were they for the Soviet regime. While internally they did not recognize and tolerate any dissent, in other countries they fostered that of communists, and trained, armed and organized them, officially or underground, as alternative territorial governments and made numerous forceful political take-over bids with these local sympathizers, towards the establishment of a world-wide state-communist empire. - - - Non-territorial tolerance wasn’t even the characteristic of the British Empire and its Commonwealth, nor is it that of the present Chinese Empire or the US empire or of any of the new territorial States set up as a result of whatever part-decolonization and “national” independence was achieved, always with more or less arbitrarily set boundaries and giving individuals no other chance than emigration or submission if they did not agree. - - Indeed, territorial secessionism for local majorities was to some extent recognized in our times and in some instances even officially enforced: The division of India into India and Pakistan, the division of Germany after WW I & II, that of Korea and Vietnam. But these divisions brought new minority and majority problems and were no substitute for free choice for individuals and their voluntary groups. - - Moreover, whenever not officially arranged or approved, geographical separation aspirations were regarded as subversive and treasonous. I many instances they would also and inevitably, by their very nature, infringe the rights of those who would not want to secede, or who would want to secede from the territorial secessionists. E.g., the Biafra secessionists did not recognize the right to secession from them - of some coastal tribes. Many of the newly independent States of the former Soviet Empire do not fully recognize the rightful aspirations of the Russians who had long lived in their countries. To that extent the opposition to territorial secessionism is justified. - - - One should also ask how far territorial secessionism and decentralization would have to go before one would arrive almost (Not completely! The personally chosen law system would then be applied only within these small territories or properties, not outside of them, via individual choice.) at the equivalent of personal laws and exterritorial organizations? In my opinion this would be achieved only via small utopian colonies or intentional communities of like-minded people. Thousands of attempts have been made and more or less tolerated to establish and maintain them, especially in the US. Likewise, for the “proprietary communities” recommended in the writings of Spencer Heath and his grandson Spencer Heath MacCallum, since about 1936. In any larger territory and their “organization” the number of dissenters would still be large. They would either have to submit to the local majority or to emigrate. - E.g., the Persian, Greek, Roman, British and American Empires were still territorial ones, largely based upon conquests or annexations, even though, to some extent, they recognized some rights of natives to degrees of seeming independence, even under local princes of chiefs or puppet regimes and within “reservations” allocated to them, into which they might be coercively deported – and then lorded over by a bureaucracy that worked largely for its own benefits rather than for those of the natives. - The American and English Empires have a reasonable good record (apart from their treatment of Red Indians, Negroes and Asians within the US) of, relatively soon, withdrawing from many of their conquests. But paradise was not to follow within the territorial States they left behind, usually made up of numerous dissenting groups, herded together under “uniform” State governments. And dissent has certainly not ended within the USA or UK, Canada, Australia, S.A., etc. either, precisely because not even geographical and far less personal secessionism was tolerated there. They are even widely considered to be at least subversive, if not outright treasonous. - It must also be recognized that empires, at least to some extent, kept peace internally, even though, often, with all too repressive measures, while they more or less suppressed all dissenters equally within their borders, and that the downfall of Empires and their replacement by much smaller territorial States or independence attempts led to many wars and civil wars, among the formerly equally suppressed groups, which are still not allowed to freely secede from any major State or empire. - - - The wrongs of territorial rule are not ended by e.g. granting members of minority groups some concessions, like access to government jobs and not officially discriminating against them or by retaining some fragments of their former diverse autonomy, e.g. in their costumes, songs and dances. The Nazis for instance, in spite of their general anti-democratic stand and defence of the “leadership principle”, still recognized the election of officers within the “Landsturm” of Tyrol and these troops served them as occupation forces in Norway. (Perhaps they assumed that these southern mountain people would get along better with northern mountain people.) Their Quisling regime there was merely a puppet government, not an independent one, even if, like some other puppet regimes, it had been named an autonomous republic.) Such concessions to slight deviations from uniform rule are usually made only to help impose or hide essential features of enforced uniformity, all the more severely, like e.g., conscription into a Red Army, taxation and monetary despotism and an international trade monopoly and the monopoly of a ruling party. - - - Military victory and its “glory”, hero cult promotions, medals and powers were practised even in our times still, rather than liberation of a country or of its diverse peoples or of members of an army of conscripts, forced to serve a dictatorship. - Warlike, intolerant and fanatic people are not suitable for panarchies and will not keep the peace between them. They do act like criminals with victims and will have to be restrained and penalized, while attempting to reeducate and rehabilitate them, if possible. - Glory hunters, power addicts, militarists, fanatics, looters, rapists and slavers are not good prospects for panarchies, regardless of whether they do so act in their official capacity or privately or collectively, “as revolutionaries”, guerillas, underground resistance fighters, “liberation armies”, “freedom fighters” or terrorists. They apply or aim at territorial rule and misrule, even if they do make some concessions to panarchism, e.g., by recognizing and making an alliance with just one government-in-exile, for all the diverse people, after a victory, an alternative government that is, in effect, mostly no more than a puppet regime or satellite.  Their imperialism or absolute monarchism was not sufficiently reduced and restrained when they granted subjected peoples some degrees of autonomy or nominal autonomy under personal laws. - - - Thus the personal law regimes and alternative and exterritorial institutions and practices of the past did not prove enough for our times. They were not sufficiently autonomous, consistent and enlightened, nor were their voluntary members. - While aggressive wars (or defensive wars still practicing all too many aggressions, under the pretence that all of them would merely be defensive acts) are still considered to be rightful and even individuals are given the authority or “right” to involve a supposedly uniform whole people (rather, a conglomeration of diverse peoples, all also with numerous dissenters), a whole territorial State, or country, or, rather, its whole population, in a war, largely only for the motives and aims of the powerful territorial decision-makers and at the expense and risk of all their subjects, even of those among them, who strongly disagree with them, panarchy is, indeed, not possible between such “peoples” and their “leaders” or misleaders. - However, panarchism, once it is fully realized, in spite of all the indicated difficulties, would greatly reduce the chance of such intolerance ever occurring again. It would tend to prevent leaders from becoming too powerful over all too many. - Standing armies of professional soldiers and large corporations, working under contract for territorial government, for the spoils they can thus and indirectly extract, from involuntary taxpayers, under the pretence of increasing national security (while arms races do, as a rule, achieve quite the contrary, no matter how much is spent on arms), do also make the establishment of panarchism difficult. They, like the politicians and the bureaucrats and the other hand-out receivers and parasites, do constitute powerful vested interest and lobby groups for territorialism. Among them the government-maintained teachers of the compulsory schooling and indoctrination system for young people constitute one of the largest groups. - - We have advanced only insofar as even dictators and authoritarian “democratic” or “republican” “great” leaders feel compelled to camouflage their aggressive actions are defensive acts. The policy of “the great lie” is still in operation, in all countries and there are numerous mass media, other writers and “scholars”, who parrot it. - - - As long as even advocates of productive coops and of open coops and of various land reform schemes do not consider the peaceful and businesslike spread of their ideals, all only at the risk and expense of their supporters, but demand, instead, privileges or an exclusive territorial monopoly for their particular “ideal”, and as long as free experimentation is considered rightful only for scientists, technologists, farmers, writers, poets, actors, artists, life style advocates, entertainers, etc. but not for sovereign free entrepreneurs and sovereign consumers in the political, economic and social spheres and as long as the very thought of this is condemned, even by people like Ayn Rand, as absurd, or condemned because of a contrary definition of “government” or “society” that one has in one’s head, the victory of panarchist ideas and practices will still be far away. - They do have a long obstacle course to run in which most cheers are still for the obstacles rather than those who want to jump over them. These opponents would rather increase the number and height of obstacles than remove them. - - We still live in a time when in physical contact sports, e.g. in football, wrestling and boxing, the infliction of pain and injury upon the opponent is, within certain limits, considered to be quite fair and some cheating against the fairness rules is considered acceptable – if only one can get away with it. Winning, although merely a game, is considered to be all-important, no matter what the price is in one’s own health or that of one’s opponent. There are hundreds of millions who watch these “gladiatorial” games with great interest, expensively in person or comfortably in front of their TVs, cheering on their favorites and betting on them. - But at least these fights and attendances are confined to volunteers and certain places and times and some limiting rules. They have become largely spectator sports, where only a few champions do their things to each other before admiring and cheering or booing crowds. The spectators, mostly, do not fight against each other, although they might try to out-shout each other. But their “victories” in these mutual domination attempts are still celebrated and, sometimes, the mere spectators get violent, too, in their enthusiasm for their champions, against other spectators, who favored other champions or even merely against the properties that surround them, taking a delight in destructive “actions”! - Generally speaking, such contests seem to be somewhat acceptable substitutes for mutual and armed aggression, especially for all-out wars. Mostly only their champions suffer and their observers do “fine” themselves, voluntarily, by paying high prices for their tickets. My reaction was always: Who cares, which end of a field or in which net a ball ends up most frequently? I find such spectacles entirely boring. - Well, mankind, too can survive these incidents and practices, although, sometimes, they do get out of hand, e.g., with excited soccer crowds or, as happened once in Constantinople, in ancient times, when it led even to street fighting between those, who favored the different colors of their different teams. Under or for the colors of their different teams they actually fought each other, hard as this is for me to understand. But, alas, I have met some such types myself: Any excuse will serve them for the “pleasures” of a fisticuff. Some fighting ape-men and even ape-women are, apparently, still among us. However, without the powers and facilities of territorial States at their disposal, they are relatively harmless. Freely competing police forces and security services could deal with them, using ever more ingenious technologies that use non-deadly force. I was told that English soldiers used to fire indiscriminately into crowds of Muslims and Hindus which used to stab or club each other in the streets. Thus, these soldiers were, perhaps, saving some lives, through the resulting dispersion of such crowds. Perhaps spraying them with pig urine or that of Pariahs, and telling them so, might have been more humane and effective. - - Keeping the score among different panarchies would not lead to broken noses, arms and legs. Their members might be quite out of “touch” with each other except as traders in the market place, unless they would boycott each other even there. - - Can one build a successful framework for all kinds of panarchies with this kind of people? - - Can the ancient “barbarian” personal laws be used to sufficiently tame the barbarians of our times or reduce their numbers? I would favor e.g. panarchies that encourage deadly duels of all kinds, among their members – to help reduce their numbers! - Although I morally oppose abortion, I would not use force to prevent them. I would rather welcome panarchies that legalize or subsidize abortions, since it would help to reduce the numbers of the kind of people who are prepared to do this to their own offspring. I would resist this practice only by persuasion attempts and offers of adoption options and of transplant options – as soon as these become medically possible. (Victor Koman was the first that I know of, who promoted the transplant alternative.) - - Test cases suggested: Would panarchism, together with criticism of collective responsibility notions and practices, induce most terrorists to disarm and deactivate themselves and make them peaceful and self-realizing rather than indiscriminately aggressive against imagined enemies, based on notions of collective responsibility? - - - Consistent appreciation and practice of tolerance towards tolerant people, love of diversity and decentralization, combined with voluntary centralization, appreciation of peaceful competition and peaceful cooperation, of free enterprise, of free trade, of free consumer choices, of anti-monopolism and voluntarism in every sphere, all of these and more, are, alas, not yet strong enough among modern politicians, “great leaders”, great writers and philosophers, great media people and great reformers or popular movements. - (Even my father, and individualist anarchist and advocate of panarchism, who coined the slogan: “To each the government of his dreams!”, did not favor it when it came to land reform. There, his own favorite system was to be universally applied as, supposedly, the only just and rational one!) - And all too many of the still primitive or superficial anarchists even dream of the abolition of interest and of capital markets, of speculation and of capitalism and of free markets - as steps to liberty, justice and peace! - What can be done with such people? - How can one do it, when using only the conventional or newly fashionable media? - - - Under individual free choice of governments and societies - the ethnically, religiously or ideologically motivated laws of the diverse and exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities might come to institutionalize corresponding discrimination and exclusiveness in their own communities, but then these would not be able to prevented those, discriminated against by themselves, from establishing their own communities, according to their preferred characteristics, or to establish mixed or quite tolerant ones, without any such discrimination between their e.g. members and citizens, employers, employees, tenants, clients, contractors and customers. - - - - - …. - Exterritorial or personal law organizations, full minority autonomy, their voluntary communities or experimental, utopian or intentional community group efforts, even in the spheres of political, economic and social systems (that are presently largely, constitutionally, legally and juridically monopolized by territorial governments, with compulsory membership and subordination), have had a very long, diverse, wide-spread and tolerant history, one that has lasted, probably, for much longer than that of completely territorialist States (which are a relatively recent invention and practice). - - Exterritorialism, with its personal laws, voluntary membership and individualistic options for almost all, once it is fully understood and applied, which was never as yet the case, has at least the potential to achieve and preserve peace, maximize tolerance for tolerant actions, spread freedom, peace, security, progress and the production and retention of wealth and enlightenment. - - Thus its numerous traces, successes and failures in the past ought to be studied and explained. Then the best of them ought to be revived, always only among volunteers and there and quite rightfully, reasonably and consistently expanded - towards their optimum, rather than remaining suppressed, ignored or unappreciated. - - Fully developed, it amounts to the rightful and reasonable alternative to territorially imposed statism and is, I hold, the solution to all the problems caused by territorial statism. - - Its theory and practice recognize individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, or voluntary State or society membership or complete free enterprise and consumer sovereignty, including free individual choice among governmental and non-governmental but, nevertheless, exterritorially autonomous societies and communities of volunteers. - - They would combine their kind of  consumer sovereignty with completely free , even exterritorially autonomous enterprises and services providing corporations (or competing governmental and societal service offers) for all single or combined public services, for all peaceful and tolerant individuals (not for aggressive criminals with victims). - - This choice and competition is to be extended to all of the present territorially monopolistic organizations, including the present constitutions, legislation, jurisdiction and administration. - - As free choices, for individuals and their groups of volunteers, could provide us with a better, safer, more free, just and peacefully progressive future. - - To introduce such free choices for peaceful individuals is not only rightful but dutiful. - Personal law and exterritorial autonomy are moral imperatives. They constitute what might be termed the “exterritorial imperative”. (Some might prefer “aterritorial”, “non-territorial” or “non-geographical” or other equivalent terms. I for one will not quibble about them.) - - At least for human beings and their societies Robert Ardrey’s generalizations in his book: “The Territorial Imperative” are misleading. With this particular generalization Ardrey even ignored evidence that he himself mentioned in this book, not only the numerous facts reported in books like that of Shi Shun Liu - if there are really any other books as good on this subject as it is. – JZ, n.d. & 8.2.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Further Panarchist Notes to TC 98 of 13 Sep. 81, 3pp, Reilly, 63, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - - - Some Further Panarchist Notes, mainly to comments in THE CONNECTION, Nos. 128 & 129, page 8, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - - - Some further Whispers by JZ, the Closet-Panarchist, on relevant contributions in TC 146, with comments to Robert Shea, Filthy Pierre, 64, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, SOME MORE NOTES ON BUTLER SHAFFER'S STAND AGAINST ALL INSTITUTIONS AS OPPRESSIVE. - Some notes on this were written on 3.7.96, probably upon finally reading his book "CALCULATED CHAOS". In some way these notes got separated from the book when I recently got around to reviewing it at some length. Only yesterday did I find them again, together with a letter to Thomas Greco and Shaffer's article "CRUTCHES FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL CRIPPLES". Now I do not simply transcribe them but try to develop them or ramble on about them (Take your pick!), whilst perusing them again. The first version of these further notes may, consequently, be still rather incoherent. I do not know as yet whether I will take sufficient time to sort and revise them sufficiently by my own standards. Currently I am just in need of a few extra pages as a filler to finish a set of 3 microfiche. - - It is true that "we" (*) have established and maintained all too many wrongful, harmful and often self-defeating (**) institutions, boards, authorities, quasi-autonomous organizations and ideological ones, like churches, sects, unions, parties, largely independent of the choices and wishes of "their" consumers, a captive crowd? - - (*) The "we" is misleading, since, mostly, they were rather established politically, territorially, legally, supposedly in our name and in, supposedly, our interests, by "them". - (**) They are self-defeating - except for the pockets and powers of those who run them. - - Now and in supposedly free countries not even students are allowed to escape compulsory unionism and its coercive levies and arbitrary subsidies. Far less are individuals allowed to individually secede from armed forces and States. - - Legal monopolies like those of States, utilities, unions, the post office, railways, taxi license holders etc., by the dozens and even hundreds, are allowed to impose their flawed, unwanted and monopolistically overpriced services and disservices. - - Juridical, police, defence and prison services are still largely monopolized, with this privilege remaining unquestioned by those free marketeers who are still favoring "limited governments" as ideal, rightful and necessary because they cannot or will not expand free market, free enterprise, free trade and free competition ideas into 3 spheres: political, economic and social systems. - Like territorial totalitarians, they want their economic freedom system universally applied to or by their enemies as well as by and to the advocates of free markets. Thus these whole system package deals, for populations and countries and their particular nationalized "services", if they deserve that name, remain mismanaged, not subject to market discipline, for which party, bureaucratic and military discipline as well as territorial voting systems are rather poor substitutes, just like the division of powers into the classical three branches of government is. - The scandals in governments, parliaments and bureaucratic departments and those resulting from the mixed economy and powerful vested interest groups are endless and costly. - But the worst institutions are the territorial States, which continue to outlaw and suppress most attempts towards at least some more geographical decentralization and are in the vast majority of minds the dominant model for the organization of public affairs, together with vague ideas on "unity", "strength", "equality before the law", "solidarity", "collective responsibility", "voting", "consent", "representation", "democracy", "equality" etc. - This situation is worsened by an altogether distorted to falsified but popularized view of human rights, that exclude some of the most important ones altogether, especially in the political and economic spheres, while they do wrongfully include as "rights" mere wrongful claims against others, e.g. for housing, education or a minimum wage. - - For individuals and their voluntary groups and communities, whatever is popularly believed to be in the "public sphere" is usually completely preempted by the existing official and territorial institutions. There, and with almost unanimous consent, free experimentation among volunteers is outlawed and even prosecuted as treason, subversion, or "wrongful" resistance" and ideologically attacked as "chaotic" (anarchistic in the popular sense), "States within States", "against the national interest", “undemocratic”, “elitist”, “divisive” or simply “too dangerous” to be “permitted”. For instance: Freedom to issue optional money is perceived to be "inflationary". Militias are equated only with those of right-wing or left-wing militant totalitarians. - The organizations, ideas, methods and aims of free marketeers and anarchists are still overwhelmingly attacked, without sufficient knowledge and understanding of them, and most organizations and institutions are manned by enemies of freedom ideas and practices, statists, even though sometimes "limited government" ones". As territorialists even these advocates of "limited governments" are authoritarians and even totalitarians - but without being aware of this. - - The influence of anti-freedom notions remains strong even among members of the libertarian and anarchist movements and organizations. - - Being surrounded by vast and powerful as well as wrongful, inefficient, uneconomic and sometimes absurd constitutionalized and legalized public institutions and subject to a monopolistic jurisdiction and police force and overwhelmingly powerful bureaucracies, it becomes easy to generalize and to condemn all existing and proposed organizations and institutions as having all inherent and inevitable flaws. Some anarchist groups came to reject all organization, idolizing only spontaneous actions. They even oppose an official chairman or secretary for any meeting as being too autocratic. - - Organizations without authoritarian and even totalitarian flaws, including the egalitarian ones, are hardly envisioned by more than a few and even by these often only incompletely. Panarchists are still as rare as Protestants were at the beginning of the Protestant Revolution and Republicans at the beginning of the French Revolution. - - We are still very far from living in an enlightened age. In spite of numerous educational and cultural efforts and even vast subsidies, many of the institutions required to ensure and speed up enlightenment have still to be established or sufficiently developed. - - For instance, a market for alternative organizations to territorial States, class warfare unions, national armies and police forces, and one for alternatives incentives for innovators and authors, to legal patents and copyrights. Such markets have still to be surveyed, evaluated, publicized and realized, i.e. marketed themselves. - - No ideas archive for all freedom ideas exists as yet.  The numerous anarchist and libertarian websites and blogs are not yet a sufficient substitute for it, not yet sufficiently interlinked or their positive ideas tied sufficiently together by automatic search engines, which, like human brains, are still confused by the all too many different meanings and definitions of the same words. The "market place for ideas" is still more of an illusion than an effective reality. I remember visiting the library of a teacher's college in Goulburn, N.S.W. and finding among its ca. 100,000 books only ca. half a dozen pro-freedom books. Consequently, in a supposedly free country very little is taught about many fundamental liberties in its schools. In the whole world there exists no freedom academy. [Admittedly, there are by now some approaches in this direction- but all of them tend to stress their subjective value preferences and particular interests and more or less toe their “party line”, perhaps inevitably, because they are led by individuals with all their remaining subjective convictions, beliefs and preferences.] Neither a comprehensive freedom library nor complete freedom publishing and book service has been established, one embracing all media. Not even a complete freedom bibliography and abstracts service have been provided. - - Are we as disorganized and chaotic in this respect perhaps out of fear of organization or of the mere clerical jobs involved? Are we statists and expect governments to provide such services for us? - Can't we provide them cooperatively and competitively and in division of labor and be it only labors of love, unpaid but undertaken out of love for liberty, justice and peace? - Under these conditions many dangerous errors persist, even among some of the famous writers and speakers of the freedom movements. - For instance on immigration, monetary freedom, abortion, weapons, military organization and revolutions. They and their supporters have not yet fully mobilized all their most important assets, namely all the pro-freedom writings. Many to most freedom lovers may thus not yet have encountered those freedom writings, which could most influence them. - Even the proper definition of "rights", not only of many particular individual rights, is still largely unknown, unappreciated or remains questioned within the freedom movements. Controversies still rage in it on many basic other points. This in spite of the fact that many of them could, probably, become settled, soon, through he extensive and systematic use of digitized “argument mapping”. E.g. indiscriminately mass murderous "weapons" are condemned together with those that can be and are used defensively. Militias for the protection of individual rights are considered to be militaristic. The monopolization of decision-making by governments, e.g. on war and peace, armament and disarmament, kinds of weapons, international treaties and war aims is still widely considered to be rightful, necessary, representative and democratic, no matter how often such powers are despotically abused. - Most free marketeers do not dare to expand free market thinking and institutions into the spheres which, in their minds, are the exclusive “hunting preserves” or “rightful spheres” of "limited" governments. - - Liberty lovers do still and mainly resort to expensive and relatively inefficient media, channels and ways of communicating that, for all too long, in spite of the hopes, expectations and promises pinned upon them, have failed to promote enlightenment sufficiently, for decades to centuries, even within the own ranks. - - E.g. print on paper publishing, temporarily, in all too limited issues, instead of using, comprehensively, the print on paper publishing options upon demand only. – The microfilm options for libertarians remained under-utilized for decades and the disc-publishing options are still only fractionally utilized by anarchists and libertarians now. - Under these conditions it is easy to become a nihilist towards all institutions and organizations. There are so many terrible cases that seem to support such a misjudgment. The wrongful systems and institutions still prevail and by the historians and current mass media the rightful alternatives are usually barely mentioned and discussed, if at all. - - However, rightful and sound alternative institutions and systems are not impossible but merely out of sight, out of the headlines and out of the minds, even of most academics and, partly, also outlawed or contrary to customs and customary ways of thinking and established definitions. - - The rubbish notions that are widely and repetitively taught e.g. on war and peace, unemployment, inflation and poverty and on the causes of crises, are so overwhelmingly numerous and diverse that the few correct statements remain mostly buried, in obscure, unnoticed, unappreciated writings or even widely opposed. Private bankers are still blamed for inflations and deflations are considered to be rightful and economical by a large school of libertarians! - - Not even a comprehensive and up-to-date libertarian encyclopedia has been compiled, at least not in English, and to my knowledge, although the techniques for doing so are now more efficient and affordable than ever before. - - Some of the brightest libertarian minds have fallen for primitive, over-simplified or limited ideas on explaining e.g. crises, poverty, wars, unemployment and inflation. It is likely that without a proper survey and evaluation of all such ideas, they most will never manage to dig themselves out of these rubbish heaps (sometimes hundreds of diverse views on a simple aspect of liberty or fact, like an economic crisis) into the light of truths on a subject. - - We are so overwhelmed by avalanches of wrongful institutions and laws, popular errors, myths and prejudices that many have come to believe no rightful and useful institutions are possible at all and that all truths and facts are mere illusions. (However, many still fall for primitive notions that give them the confidence of convictions and turn them into true believers or fanatics.) - - Consumer sovereignty and free choice or rejection of institutions by individuals, or competing governments or panarchies, are not, in most minds, sound and obvious alternative approaches to get rid of most of the wrong and harmful organizations, gradually, individual by individual, while allowing all to leave each other alone, even in the spheres of political, economic and social systems. - - The governmental and the societal model of the vast majority is still territorial. They can thus perceive of experimentation only within whole countries and upon whole populations, successively, instead of many experiments being undertaken simultaneously in one and the same country, but by different groups of volunteers, with each such community being exterritorially autonomous under personal laws. Consequently, the only permitted experiments, in the spheres of political, social and economic system, are those of territorial governments and their experiments, largely imposed also upon diverse involuntary victims, remain dependent upon popular views, which are rarely well enough informed and innovative. - - This opposition to panarchism, via the almost always implied territorial model, tacit and unconscious (while territorialism is taken for granted), exists in spite of the fact that mutual tolerance and panarchism (exterritorial autonomy among volunteers) is already the unconscious and unprincipled practice in our private lives, daily, in thousands of ways. - Our minds are, instead, concentrated and confined largely to the coercive and territorial, monopolistic and hierarchical institutions, although they do wrong and harm us, to a great extent, in the remaining 3 spheres of public affairs, which are preempted by territorial governments, their constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and bureaucratic institutions. - - Even the large precedent of religious tolerance or religious freedom is largely ignored and its principle is considered as inapplicable in these 3 other spheres. The same applies to largely free scientific and technological experimentation and many voluntary progressive steps all around us. - - We, i.e. most of us, wrongly imagine that in these 3 public spheres such experimentation and tolerance is not possible, because we do not discard the territorial model, in our thoughts and practices. It allows only monopolistic intolerance in these spheres, country wide, over whole populations. - Thus it comes about that even some great, usually very clear and pioneering libertarian thinkers, like Butler Shaffer, whose output I do otherwise greatly admire, come to some wrong conclusions about institutions and organizations in most of their writings. They become victims of psychological "thinking" and of popular notions on organizations and ideas as inherently oppressive. However, note the exception to this in his letter to Thomas Greco, page 3, marked by me with double lines. If only he would further develop those thoughts! - - Condemning all institutions, without questioning and without bothering to define those traits, which make them wrong and harmful, is like condemning all human beings, because the vast majority today is still relatively ignorant, prejudiced and involved in wrongful or harmful practices, which are considered by them to be ideal or at least satisfactory or tolerable. - Indeed, the character of most present public institutions and organizations is "bad", but does that mean we have to condemn good characteristics and almost flawless organizations and institutions as well? - Should we condemn man as he is, presently, while e.g., for the sake of convenience, parents abort even their own offspring by the millions? Abortionists, since WW II, have probably caused more deaths of innocents than all the armed and organized efforts, upon orders, did in WW II. This "solution" is rather final for its victims, too, and the "little strangers" involved are not really strangers to their executioners. - Should we, at the same time, ignore the kind of personalities that we could develop into, if sufficiently informed and surrounded by alternative systems, and free to choose among them, once we are no longer bound, like pawns to a political chess board, to a game played by others with our lives, limbs, health, liberty, property, security, with our families, by territorial Warfare States and their masters? - - Man does not only make his institutions but he is also largely shaped by them, not only when it comes to drilling conscripts. (The institutions of freedom, all for volunteers only, are likely to turn out better human beings than our present territorial, monopolistic and coercive ones. - Already Immanuel Kant was aware of that. - JZ, 6.10.11.) - - Do we have to pass on and imprint our worst institutions and ideas upon our babies and children, never giving them a chance to learn about and experience alternatives to them? - - Surrounded by official and unofficial crimes, it is almost surprising that so many young people do still grow up so relatively honest and self-supporting. - - Should we characterize man by the criminals among us? Should institutions be characterized by the criminal ones among them? - - Should we condemn a very talented and peaceful person because he lives among so many mediocre, foolish and aggressive ones? - - What kinds of characteristics and behavior of men and institutions would make them innocent or at least self-responsible, learning from their own mistakes and errors, while leaving others alone? Obviously, States and all too many organizations are presently set up in a way not to leave dissenters alone but to subjugate them, by territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and policing. - - When one is surrounded by "savages" and their "customs", including modern forms of slavery, cannibalism and human sacrifices, it become easy to condemn human civilization, culture and character altogether and to overlook many remaining positive traits and possibilities. The disgust developed towards the predominant organizations and their actions becomes so strong in some that they become prepared to participate in merely destructive and murderous revolutions and terrorist "actions". Some would even resort to ABC mass murder devices and would welcome the end of the human race in favor of other living things, like e.g. cockroaches, which might survive a nuclear holocaust. - - Shaffer, certainly, did not get as far but he came close, in one respect, namely in his condemnation of all institutions. His condemnation is partly excusable - if one accepts his definition. His way of defining them makes his condemnation appear as a logical conclusion. I do agree with him that authoritarian, monopolistic and coercive institutions ought to be condemned. But are all other institutions inevitably of that nature? Is his definition of them correct? Read his book! Then peruse my review or, rather, these unordered brainstorming notes of a single mind. - - On this point he reminds me of anarchists unable to comprehend and approve of voluntary and competing governments and also of statists unable to appreciate non-governmental societies. - - How can one condemn all institutions without first surveying all their inherent and avoidable characteristics and sorting them out into those which are inherently wrong and harmful and those which are inherently right and harmless? - Who would condemn e.g. organized bushwalkers, tennis players, coin- or book-collectors as a threat to the human race and a green planet? - One might consider collectors of books made of paper as "enemies" of trees. Compared with micro-fiched books they are, to some extent. But in book-form the processed wood fibers tend to survive, usually, far longer than they would have, if left in their natural state. Most trees have a limited lifespan, then fall down and rot away, when exposed to the weather and microbes, within about 20 years, producing more soil and carbon dioxide. Books are, largely, protected from these transformations. Moreover, much to most of the wood used is now grown and harvested in sustainable fashion. To leave acids in wood pulp paper and thus to limit its lifespan is merely a technical mistake, as far as books, rather than newspapers are concerned. - - - Human beings can be innocently organized and tolerantly active - as is proven by tens of thousands of hobby etc. organizations doing their own things. This kind of self-responsible and exterritorially autonomous associationism, in which voluntary membership, individual secessionism and individual neutrality are clearly recognized as rights and respected, taken even for granted, as obviously required and right, has simply to be expanded into the spheres of political, economic and social systems, as was done before, to a large extent, e.g. to religious, scientific and technical organizations and to forms of running enterprises. - - One should distinguish between organizations and institutions that are: 1. with or without legal monopolies. - 2. with or without government subsidies. - 3. with or without compulsory membership, i.e. outlawing or permitting individual secessions. - 4. with or without full exterritorial autonomy, i.e., independent of the present territorial States or supervised, taxed, regulated or controlled by them, free to organize themselves to please their own members rather than some outside lawmakers, bureaucrats or judges. Under freedom they will cease to be dissidents, revolutionaries or terrorists - in most cases. - 5. with or without internal democratic or republican features. - 6. with or without hierarchical structures. - 7. with or without self-management schemes. - 8. with or without the internal decentralization of autonomous work groups. - 9. with or without charitable contributions. - 10. with or without earnings from their activities. - 11. with or without taxing or tribute levying powers. - 12. with or without animosities and "actions" against former members that dared to leave them. - 13. below, at or above their optimal size.- 14. with or without sufficient internal adjudication. - 15. with or without sufficient internal self-policing. - 16. with or without a common ideal or faith or conviction. - 17. with or without a largely self-defeating egalitarianism. - 18. with or without an individualistic approach to their members. - 19. with or without guidance by the profit motive and free pricing. - 20. with or without freely contracted salaries, wages and rewards. - 21. with or without internal free market or free contract arrangements. - 22. voluntary integrationist or voluntary segregationist, rather than compulsory integrationist or compulsory segregationist ones. - 23. isolationistic or favoring free exchange with outsiders. - 24. condemning or favoring monetary exchanges. - 25. cooperative in one of dozens of different ways or hierarchical management oriented, with all the modern varieties of management, seemingly ever-changing but more and more tending to approach self-management and wide-spread ownership among employees. - 26. with or without a leadership cult. - 27. with or without internal competitive features. - 28. with or without ceremonies and cult actions. - 29. with or without formality, rigid rules and prohibitions. - 30. aiming merely to practise autonomy or, instead like prohibitionists and totalitarians do, interfering with the actions of non-members. - 31. with or without knowledge of, respect for and extensive use of all individual rights. - 32. with internal freedom of contract or without. - - They might, e.g., be Bohemians or fanatics. - - - Regarding point 7: The historically or presently practised forms of cooperation or self-management and the proposed ones are already so numerous that I doubt that a single work has ever surveyed all the different types. One contact, Paul Brennan, many years ago, wrote a master's thesis on them. But the variety to be dealt with was so large that he had to narrowly confine his topic to a fraction of the existing models. - - How can one condemn, wholesale, what is fully known to no one? - - There are also uncounted differences in hierarchical enterprises. Already effective suggestion box schemes can largely dissolve the dangers of hierarchies by fully involving all employees in arriving at better decisions, e.g. on how to improve products and services and increase earnings. If legally allowed to do so, enterprise forms and management, as well as self-management practices, are continuously changing and developing. Most generalizations on the lot of them tend to be wrong. Moreover, different forms or organization do suit different kinds of people. - - I feel certain that a thorough attempt to list opposite or different characteristics, positive and negative ones, could come up with dozens of further such distinctions. - In spite of all these varieties one will tend to find in all associations, organizations and institutions some common human failings, like personality clashes, misdirected ambitions and power drives, envy, impoliteness, incompetence etc. But in some they can persist for all too long, even ruining an enterprise and in others they are limited in the harm they can cause. - Especially in the more individualistic and in some of the fraternal and religious ones, the disturbing tendencies, due to faulty human nature, would either be reduced, suppressed, largely avoided or at least rendered relatively harmless, especially to outsiders. On the other hand, in the oppressive or egalitarian and authoritarian ones, these all too often unpleasant human characteristics would tend to come to the fore and be perpetuated. "Scum rises to the top" - in them. Someone should go through Hayek's chapter X of his "The Road to Serfdom", titled: "Why the Worst Get On Top", point by point, to examine closely whether this rule applies not only to territorial institutions with compulsory membership and majority voting but also to freely competing panarchies of volunteers only, which are merely exterritorially autonomous. Here, too, distinction would probably have to be drawn, e.g. between panarchistic democracies, anarchies and limited governments. - - In organizations with compulsory membership and excessive power over members, abuses are likely to multiply and to persist. In organizations from which one can freely secede and when one is free to set up alternative and competing ones, if one wants to, abuses will be minimized, though not altogether abolished. - A proper survey should be able to list all those features which tend to cause havoc and all those which tend to keep the peace and promote enlightenment and progress. - Free choice for all people between all of them would have an enlightening and progressive effect, at least in the long run and for most people, even though in a thousand years some ignorant and prejudiced fanatics might still come to exist. [It might take a very long, great and systematic effort to breed stupidity out of the human race.] However, I doubt that the institutions with which they could commit the greatest wrongs and damages would tend to survive for as long under these conditions. Ulrich von Beckerath used to remark that during his lifetime most monarchies had disappeared. - - When institutions are properly sorted out according to their characteristics and likely wrongful and harmful effects, then a new science of organizations might develop. As a result, one would no longer come to condemn organizations and institutions wholesale but only certain types characteristics of organizations, etc., which have deteriorating effects upon their members and pose threats to the members of other organizations. - We have already done the same for religious associations but have so far tried in vain to bind territorial governments sufficiently by constitutions and governmental bills of rights, interpreted and applied by governments. - - Hopefully, all private and official criminal organizations, which victimize non-members, will soon come to an end. Competition would tend to develop close to ideal protective associations and federations, including a confederacy of panarchies and of local militias motivated, sworn in, trained, armed and organized to defend nothing but genuine individual rights and liberties, to the extent that these are already seen and recognized at least by some people even now. - Even the sexual abuse of children is presently all too largely allowed to continue - thanks to the corruption and incompetence of territorial power systems and e.g. their laws on libel. - - - For me the main features for rightful and, in balance, beneficial organizations, are: 1. voluntary membership. - 2. full exterritorial autonomy. - 3. The assurance of these two by recognition of individual sovereignty, expressed in individual secessionism, which is a rightful and necessary supplement to individual associationism. - 4. The replacement of territorial laws and jurisdictions by personal laws and jurisdictions. - 5. Free competition in the supply of any public service, including the provision of package deals by new forms of governments and societies: panarchies, which are exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities. - - - A revision of all reformist, resistance, revolutionary, liberating and defensive theories and actions would be required, with these conditions in mind. I hold that this would lead to a new kind of politics, new kinds of liberation and defence and reform efforts. Politics would finally become a genuine science, based, like the natural sciences, upon free and self-responsible experimentation and a much greater readiness to examine and accept new theories and models, provided only that they are never territorially imposed but, instead, merely freely demonstrated by volunteers and this at their expense and risk. - - - Once these major changes have taken place for a while and the new ideas and practices have finally sunk in, then our views of organizations and institutions would, most likely, change fundamentally. - - The reverse might also happen: Once we change our views of institutions and organizations fundamentally, then these associations will also become fundamentally changed, not all of them uniformly but only in these fundamental aspects, which permit their peaceful coexistence, in the same territories (not in the same private or cooperative properties) as long as any of them still retain enough voluntary followers. - - - Under the above fundamental characteristics (those of panarchism) the consequences of the present forms of coercive organizations, especially those of territorial States: wars, despotism, tribute impositions, mass unemployment, inflation, involuntary poverty, terrorism, internal dissent and resistance, violent revolutions, widespread ignorance and prejudice, would tend to fade away, at least slowly, if not fast. - - One-man-revolutions would not only become possible but become the rule, for all the individuals who choose this option for themselves, and a necessary and rightful part of a peaceful evolution of all exterritorial States and free societies and also of all peaceful and tolerant individuals. - - While it is certainly true that even the smallest organization or institution, that of the nuclear family, does not always operate peacefully or ideally, it is also true that territorial family laws, not even in the latest of their frequently changed versions, have not succeeded in establishing and maintaining complete peace and justice in freedom in this particular sphere. On the contrary, the achievement of peace and justice within family groups has not even been seriously tried in any attempts to legislate on such matters, simply because only uniform and territorial "solutions" are considered. "One law for the ox and the lion is oppression!" - - In most countries, only one kind of marriage and family law is permitted for a whole territory and all its subjects, instead of a whole menu of marriage or cohabitation contracts, freely listed, publicized and chosen from. Over-legislation has occurred here, too and has been extended to outlaw even mere texts, sounds and images, sculptures and public actions, rather than merely invasive actions. - - Here, too, large numbers of errors, myths and prejudices are still involved, private and publicly imposed ones, which lead to crimes with victims. But to condemn all marriages wholesale or all sexual associations just because some people are involved in e.g. incest, rapes or other crimes against family members, in abortions for convenience or compulsorily, by law, even in late stages of pregnancy, or to insist that all engage in promiscuity or in formless free love relationships only or in one particular form of marriage alone, while dozens if not hundreds of different ones have been practised among human beings in different countries and for long periods, is to make the same mistake here which has been made for political, economic and social system organizations on a territorial scale, practised upon all too many involuntary victims, going even to the extent of government-practised or tolerated holocausts or "ethnic cleansing" or great scientific and technological preparations for them, at huge costs: The MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction "policies", which are supposed to be effective deterrents - for ever! - Indeed, the various forms of possible and desired family and sexual associations and disassociations can serve as good examples for panarchism in other spheres. There exists no good and compelling reason, nor any moral obligation, why different forms of marriages and family relationships should not be available at least to all adult persons, upon freedom of contract in this sphere, based upon a survey and full publicity for all the different systems that are practised, were practised and have been proposed. Full freedom of contract, here, too and everywhere else (as long as no claimed individual rights are infringed) and also of disassociation, in terms of a contract, by individual choice. Likewise, there should be free choice of governments and societies, constitutions, laws, jurisdictions, penal and police systems, for individuals and their voluntary communities, as well as full freedom for individuals to secede from any of them and to ignore or boycott any of them. (That does not mean "freedom" for a careless rejection of all accumulated responsibilities for long-term and dependent partners and, especially for one's dependent offspring. - JZ, 6.10.11.) - - Why should we have only the option to choose among Hundred-thousands of consumer items in the stores and among the services of hundred-thousands of specialists in a market society based upon division of labor, but only of one form of marriage - or of State, societal, ideological or economic system organization, the one currently prescribed by constitutions and laws for one territory and all its inhabitants? (Apart from some remaining personal law practices and territorial jurisdiction difficulties.) - - - In every sphere we should be free to associate as much as we like with beloved persons, friends or business associates or otherwise alike or similarly interested people and to ignore as much as is humanly possible all those, whom we do dislike and thus do not want to have any dealings with. To a large extent, but only in the private spheres, this is already a common practice, especially in cities, in which much of the human population lives by now. Voluntary segregation and voluntary integration are common practices there. The most diverse interests and activities leave each other largely alone or clash only when they are given political clouts over each other. - - The extension of consumer sovereignty and the right to vote, the right to consent or dissent should be expanded to the utmost, in the organizational and institutional sphere, so that we can finally realize the old principle of justice: "To each his own", by the panarchistic proposal and application: "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams." - - We might add: as long as the dream or chosen nightmare does persist for its voluntary victims. At will - or after giving a fair notice - they should be free to withdraw from it at will. In case of criminal abuses against a member by an exterritorialy autonomous community, the right of this member to secede, individually, could and should be rightfully practised immediately. Other panarchies, in their own interest, would tend to support such a secessionist and dissenter, granting him asylum and protection. - Naturally, like free families, not all free societies and all freely chosen governmental systems will always work optimally or harmoniously. But in them crime and dissent will be minimized. - Unanimously approved systems and customs, laws and institutions will have their effects upon the behavior of their members. - Compare the low degree of juvenile delinquency in orthodox Chinese and Jewish communities. - Moreover, for quite a number of reasons, that are inherent in this institutional form, they will tend to be peaceful towards each other while, at the same time, becoming very powerful in defence, should a new prophet or "great leader" arise and find many armed followers to threaten the peaceful panarchistic communities. - Actually, the number of armed fanatics, which a new Big Brother could attain under these conditions would already be limited. For already early on, in any new dogmatic and fanatic or totalitarian movement, the members, aware of their exterritorial autonomy, would not only want to hear promises but to see them realized. There would be no valid excuses for not acting almost immediately and positively and upon promises. Some positive achievements would be expected, soon, from every new "leader". Without them new members will be rare and old members will drop out. - - Luckily, we are no longer living in times where the promises of rape, loot and murder towards outsiders or dissenting subjects, will, based upon territorial monopoly notions, easily gather and sustain large armies, at least not in most present countries. - Until large-scale territorial religious intolerance and later territorial nationalism arose there, too, the Balkans were somewhat of a model, for a long period, of local autonomy under personal laws. The central government was far away and did not meddle much with local affairs, which were subject to local governments, largely separated out according to religions. (See: MILLET SYSTEM, DHIMMI) - - Would e.g. most terrorists, if their movements were granted full exterritorial autonomy, still and forever continue with their terrorist activities? I believe that they would do so only if a) they remained territorialists and b) they continued to apply the immoral principle of "collective responsibility". (Sufficient enlightenment efforts, combined with practical examples could, I believe, cope with both these intolerant and sometimes mass murderous beliefs and actions. – The should be aided e.g. by an as complete declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and by a model militia federation of volunteers for the defence of these rights and liberties. - JZ, 6.10.11. - - - With panarchic forms of governments and free societies we could achieve free market competition, free enterprise, free trade, consumer sovereignty and choice in the last spheres in which they have so far been suppressed by territorial States, even in supposedly free, democratic, republican or constitutionally governed countries. Then, and in the long run, we could expect the same kinds of benefits from such liberties as are the already widely (but not universally) recognized natural results of freedom in the more obviously economic activities. Those who choose apples for themselves do not politically fight those who prefer oranges for themselves. - Only certain types of organizations and institutions ought to be thoroughly criticized for their wrongful and harmful features. I would even favor their forceful suppression, like that of criminal gangs, whenever they threaten outsiders. On the other hand, if one member of a criminal association kills another member of it, that should be its own affair. Outsiders should rather welcome than deplore or try to punish such a reduction in the ranks of criminals. - - All the diverse opposites to criminal organizations should be publicized, explained and then freely and widely practised, by all who like them and as long as they do, in all their diverse features, but among their members only and at their own expense and risk, in whatever they consider to be their rightful and beneficial features. The sooner this is done the better. - - Although I am an anti-communist and opponent of State socialism, for ethical and economic reasons, I do advocate, as necessary for our times and conditions, the advocacy, establishment and recognition of panarchies for all kinds of communists and State socialists, not only for "libertarian socialists", as well as for Russian, Chinese and all other minorities or majorities in certain areas, where, otherwise, they would be more or less suppressed by territorial nationalists, ideologues or ethnic groups. Such tolerance – but only for their tolerant actions - would help to contribute to finally abolish these evils altogether or at least help to reduce them to insignificance. Let them swallow their own poisons and try to digest them and remain healthy. They will either die trying or become finally cured of their "mental diseases". This is especially important for those familiar with ABC mass murder devices, revolutionary practices of fanatics and oppressive liberation” techniques. Even a cornered rat becomes dangerous. - - - For a while, maybe for centuries, each country and the world would become a showcase offering possibly as rich a variety of different human governments and societies as we have in religion and in individual lifestyles. However, I do believe that, in the long run, these varieties would tend to become reduced, rather than endlessly multiplied. Time will tell. Not all would remain popular among their members and financially viable to keep them going indefinitely. But quite a few could be continued for a long time, not only on a national but also on an international scale. - - This panarchistic freedom, applying also to religiously motivated communities, would, I believe, gradually reduce the number of different religions and sects as well as those representing secular beliefs. "Thou shalt recognize them by their fruits!" - Most religious beliefs, like most ideologies, are not very fruitful and territorial States have limited their autonomy. When fully liberated as well, members would want to see more than promises to be realized in a "heaven". - Religions survive or revive strongly largely due to opposition. Tolerance is a killer for them, in the long run. Members leave them, pay only lip service to them, intermarry or integrate with other groupings, which are somewhat less exclusive and prejudiced. (The percentage of atheists is gradually increasing. - JZ, 9.10.11.) - But full freedom for religious and all other groups must exist in order to gradually play down and abolish many of these self-chosen distinctions and different practices. As long as any of them remain fashionable they should by no means be suppressed. - Only actions with involuntary victims should be suppressed or fought and this by much more rightful and efficient protective associations than territorial governments were so far able or willing to supply. But I will not take up here and now the discussion of ideal militias for the protection of individual rights, those, which are claimed by voluntary members of different panarchies. – Voluntary members of the ones with wrongful and harmful practices towards their own members would only have themselves to blame for their choices until they would individually or in groups withdraw from the organizations that they once favored and choose for themselves. - - I have gathered and published much material and many arguments on this, in several of my books, reproductions of books, articles and compilations, especially in Peace Plans 16-18, 61-63. Moreover, in the sub-series "ON PANARCHY", which comes now to 24 volumes (At least these have been digitized by now. - JZ, 9.10.11.) I have gathered many different contributions discussing the panarchistic options and traditions, towards an encyclopedia on panarchism. This is an on-going effort, undertaken in the hope that such a reference work will help to promote a new science of institutions, organizations and of moral and unusual "politics" and to achieve for all as much prosperity, security, progress, privacy and wisdom as they are willing and able to provide for themselves. - - Politics as the continuation of war by other means needs a fundamental change. It is now a criminal "science" of more or less oppressive and exploitative power games as well as of confidence tricks, e.g. with social security systems, investments in governmental insecurities and the enforced use of depreciated or short supplied governmental paper money as the only permitted currency. Politics should no longer be considered as "the art of the possible", or as necessary "Realpolitik" or as the will and road to power of self-proclaimed super-men, but as the accumulated knowledge of rightful and sensible human institutions and organizations, exterritorially, voluntarily and thus peacefully co-existing, in the same territories. - Exterritorially and voluntarily this would be possible in spite of and also because of their internal differences, freely chosen and practised by each participant in any of them. - - Each national area and even the whole world would become a free market for different kinds of political enterprises and economic and social communities and systems, all practised only exterritorially, voluntarily, among the own members, but with free and voluntary relations with all other such communities, which do want to relate and deal with others, as traders, tourists, scientists or human beings. - - Between them would exist not territorial borders or any international government but one or several versions of international law, which different panarchies would subscribe to, as well as international arbitration and defence federations based upon full recognition and application of individual rights and liberties, at least to the extent that these are known and upheld, rather than rejected by some of the victims of outside interferences with members of a panarchy. Self-renounced rights will not lead to any accusations from victims of their infringements. They will not feel victimized and this is a choice that is right for them at their stage of development. - - The fate of the unborn, of infants and children are a special case. For a long time already international intervention was considered justified in the case of religious sacrifices of children, of child slavery and prostitution, i.e., whenever their natural guardians and their communities failed to protect them. - Within decades or centuries the same kind of protective interventionism that was applied to slavery may be applied to unnecessary abortions. [In some cases fetus transfers might become possible, to willing alternative mothers, in order to save both, the endangered mother and her child. - At least Victor Koman had high hopes for this option some years ago. - JZ, 6.10.11.] However, in the meantime there will be pro-abortionist as well as anti-abortionist panarchies and panarchies that leave such decisions in the hands of their members. - - In an age of mass extermination devices and anti-people weapons nothing less than panarchistic liberties and institutions will suffice to assure our survival, liberty, justice and peace. - PIOT, John Zube, 2.6.1999. - Slightly revised upon re-reading: 8.5.2005. 6.10.11, 9.10.11, 8.2.12, 29.8.12. – JZ - SHAFFER, BUTLER D.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some notes and thoughts and quotes and references to the proposal that the decision on war and peace, armament and disarmament, especially the arming with ABC devices, and on international treaties, should be undertaken by the people themselves, in referendums and by the militias into which they ought to be voluntarily and properly organized for the protection of their individual rights, page 32, in ON PANARCHY V, in PP 554.

ZUBE, JOHN, SOME NOTES FOR A TALK ON PANARCHISM TO ANARCHISTS, 5/86, rev. 1/87, 34, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. Also in 33 KBs. - John Zube, Some Notes for a Talk on Panarchism to Anarchists (1986) - "Panarchist are receptive to anarchist notions but: are anarchists receptive to panarchist notions? They ought to be! For panarchism embodies the best of the anarchist notions without being authoritarian about it! It remains tolerant towards dissenters and lets them do their own thing. Even those panarchists who prefer anarchism for themselves, do not want to impose it upon others." - A translation of this text into German can be found in PEACE PLANS 671 on pages 44 ff.) - - These notes were prepared for the anarchist festival, May 1986 in Melbourne but not used there, for lack of interest in such a talk. Only a discussion in a very small circle resulted. - - In November 1986 I used a German translation of it as the basis for a talk to the Open Mind Festival of the Freenetwork in Kerpen/Buir. There about 30 people were present but not much of a discussion occurred there and then, either, for lack of time - and probably also of interest, since only one person showed some serious interest in panarchist literature afterwards. - John Zube, 6.1.87. - - PANARCHIST ARE RECEPTIVE TO ANARCHIST NOTIONS BUT: ARE ANARCHISTS RECEPTIVE TO PANARCHIST NOTIONS? - THEY OUGHT TO BE! FOR PANARCHISM EMBODIES THE BEST OF THE ANARCHIST NOTIONS WITHOUT BEING AUTHORITARIAN ABOUT IT! IT REMAINS TOLERANT TOWARDS DISSENTERS AND LETS THEM DO THEIR OWN THING. - - EVEN THOSE PANARCHISTS WHO PREFER ANARCHISM FOR THEMSELVES, DO NOT WANT TO IMPOSE IT UPON OTHERS. THEIR VOLUNTARISTIC, INDIVIDUALISTIC, COOPERATIVE, AUTONOMOUS, MORAL, UTILITARIAN SCIENTIFIC AND REALISTIC OUTLOOK IS RATHER: ANARCHISM FOR ANARCHISTS AND ALL KINDS OF ARCHISM FOR ARCHISTS. - TO EACH THE GOVERNMENT OR NO GOVERNMENT OF HIS OR HER DREAMS. - (Latest version, upon a suggestion by Gian Piero de Bellis: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice! - JZ, 25.10.11.) - - FREEDOM OF ACTION AND FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT BELONGS TO ALL WHO ARE PREPARED TO CONFINE IT TO THEIR OWN SPHERE, THEIR OWN LABORS, FUNDS AND LIVES. - - EVERY OTHER AND "EXCLUSIVE" PROPOSAL OF ANY SUPPOSED IDEAL, AS BEING BEST SUITED TO ALL PEOPLE AS THEY ARE NOW, IN SPITE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS, PREFERENCES AND AIMS, ONLY SERVES TO SET THEM AT ODDS WITH OTHERS AND IS, BASICALLY, AUTHORITARIAN, EVEN TOTALITARIAN BY BEING INTOLERANT TOWARDS ALL OTHER SOLUTIONS WANTED BY DISSENTERS FOR THEMSELVES. - - ANARCHISTS WHO ARE NOT ALSO PANARCHISTS ARE THUS MERELY A SUBSPECIES OF TOTALITARIANS. - - PANARCHIST TRY TO POINT OUT TO THEM THIS UNJUSTIFIED AND REMAINING TOTALITARIAN ATTITUDE, ONE WHICH MOST OF THEM ARE NOT AWARE OF AND WOULD, AT PRESENT, DENY IN MOST CASES. - I do not deny their good intentions but these are not enough. - - Each faith, each ideology, tends to deviate from its original ideas, sometimes in a quite fundamental way and usually without most members being aware of what has happened. They still imagine to be loyal upholders of the traditional doctrines. - - I mention only the "love thy neighbor" Christians who organized large-scale mutual slaughters, sanctioned by priests on both sides. You can think of many other examples. I only challenge you to consider your own. - - Anarchism has not been spared this fate. Not only has it suffered numerous schisms over details, nay, some of these "anarchistic" groupings have rejected, in practice and in theory, some of their original doctrines or insights. - - They have become heretics towards their own original heresies. They have interpreted, revised, "reformed" and qualified their original creeds so much that with some of them all too little of their original ideas are left. - - Possibly this happened because their original prophets and apostles were also human, i.e. not always consistent and swayed by prejudices. - Moreover, their „holy“ books are not yet fully accessible to all and still not fully indexed and abstracted now, so that it is not easy to find out what the originators had to say on any particular point - or what they considered to be the most fundamental aspects of their new radical faith. - - (They also shared some of their premises with the statists and only very few of them have queried these premises up to now. - For instance, all too many of them, all supposedly the most radical individualists, have uncritically adopted the doctrine of equality, which in many ways is also the guiding error of the statists. (Equal citizenship, equality under the law, uniformity in a single community.) - - Many anarchists have merely, in a totalitarian way, over-extended that error by insisting e.g. on equal property or equal abolition of property or equal poverty, equal earnings, equal votes on all aspects of living etc. - Another common and unchecked, but believed-in, doctrine is that of "territorial integrity" or the "territorial imperative". The difference merely being that those calling themselves anarchists, want it on a smaller scale, in local communities and intentional communities. - Most anarchists also went along with most of the worst economic errors of the statists. They merely wanted these errors practised less bureaucratically, in a decentralist and collectivist small scale. - - It is simply not easy and perhaps even impossible to shake off environmental influences, the spirit of the times, the generally accepted prejudices, completely, however radical one imagines one's opposition to be. - Some uncritically adopted the statist faith in force as the ultimate remedy and expressed it in variations of “revolutionary libertarian socialism”, coming close to struggle and revolution for their own sake. Others embraced, in a similarly doctrinaire way, the Christian belief in love, by advocating exclusively non-violent and educational approaches. - - In other words, generalizations, polarizations, oversimplifications, various secondary ideas and doctrines led them astray, away from their original and basic ones. They often see this process operating among their enemies - but hardly ever among themselves. - - I will not attempt to prove to you in detail what the original and basic doctrines of anarchism were. Read and abstract original writings yourself to check my assertions on this out. - - But I do assert that the main and basic aim of anarchism was to do away with COMPULSORY association with and subjection to others. To do away e.g. with tyrants and absolutist kings, authoritarian, aristocratic or democratic governments - institutions obviously not based on unanimous consent. Most were rather vague on what was to follow. (Societies of egoists, according to Stirner, a cooperative society, according to Engels and Marx, a society based on contract, according to Proudhon etc.) - - But when you analyze their various proposals and notions of a society without coercion, privileges and monopolies, or coercive "rule" of man over man, the only common basic feature was VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND VOLUNTARY RESISTANCE AND DEFENCE AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD NOT PERMIT THESE. (Naturally, there were and are some, who consider various genuine individual rights, like e.g. property rights and rights to trade freely, as "privileges" and who imagine, that under "protection" by territorial States they would or could turn into wrongful monopolies and powers, while the same people remain blind to or indoctrinated against "capitalists" and in favor of the wrongful and legalized powers and monopolies of the small group of people, who do "represent" the "territorial nations" as leaders or, rather, misleaders and monopoly decision-makers of the population of whole territories, whole countries, sometimes, as in Australia, of a whole continent. - They imagine the capitalists to form the exploitative and oppressive 1 % and ignore the reality of the territorial statist rulers, the real 1%, in their marches, demonstrations and protests. - If you do not even see and know your real enemy and consider your benefactors to be your enemies, what rightful and sensible things can you achieve? - One must concede that the statist, communist, State socialist propaganda and dogmatism was so far more successful than the libertarian enlightenment efforts. No wonder, the libertarians did not use all their enlightenment options, all the tools, methods and institutions of a fully developed free market for enlightenment services. (See my New Draft digitized book manuscript of 2010 on this, so far not online but only available from me as an email attachment upon request. At least on , entitled "Plans for Action", there is a review of it. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - - All too many did then jump to the conclusion that sooner or later all would or should share this preference and that nothing that somehow reeked of statism and hierarchy and rule or government or orthodox or modern economics ought to be permitted to continue, NOT EVEN AMONG VOLUNTEERS, because they wrongly assumed that all would volunteer or should volunteer not only for a voluntaristic society but would, within it, realize the same secondary ideals or preferences. - - But people as they are, different and prejudiced and misled, are likely, given individual choice, to make now, in the foreseeable future, and many of them probably in the far future, different voluntary choices for themselves than anarchists would. - Panarchists assert that according to the basic anarchist doctrines of individualism, voluntarism, choice, consent, rights and liberties, they ought to be given that right even to the extent of choosing slavery and despotism - FOR THEMSELVES - as long as they can stand them, or any mixed bag of statist or religious welfarism, etc. - - Instead of opposing all such different choices, anarchists should fundamentally (for moral and utilitarian reasons) welcome and even advocate them - because once these choices become generally recognized, then their own would likewise be recognized. To each his own. - - Then they would no longer have to convert their opponents to anarchism but would merely have to make their own choices for themselves, while letting the others do their own. - That is a much easier task - because it respects other people with their different choices. - (Compare the "Doctrine of Otherness" formulated by David Brin in the editorial to "ANALOG", April 1986.) - Each to his own tastes and inclinations. And that applies, naturally, to the potential victims of those cannibalistically inclined, also to all kinds of power addicts and power mongers. - - Instead, anarchists have set themselves up - in opposition to their basic doctrines - as enemies of all States, of all governments, even those that would only rule over volunteers and this exterritorially and thus do not invade the rights of non-members, even of adherents of capitalism, i.e. of the free market or free exchanges and of their opposite, that of mutual "cannibalism" among consenting adults, where are some sacrificial victims, supposedly for the common good and this with the sanction of these victims. - - Do such non-coercive governments (towards outsiders) exist? - - For precedents you have to look no further than to your nearest Rugby League or Rugby Union Clubs. They do all organize violence but by members and to members only, and to members of voluntarily competing clubs, who similarly subscribe to violence as a "game", a violence that leaves non-combatants unhurt. Tennis players, golfers swimmers and sportsmen are not conscripted and do not try to physically harm their opponents, playing the same games or to force rugby or soccer players to play tennis or golf etc. They have peacefully sorted themselves out, according to their individual preferences and in this respect they are already panarchists, or voluntaryists, although unconscious ones. They take their right or liberty to do so quite for granted. Only in the political, economic and social spheres do they still deny it, are prejudiced against it or remain ignorant of or disinterested in their genuine individual rights and liberties in these spheres. - - Is there something fundamentally different between football clubs and coercive governments? - I see their only fundamental difference as consisting in the voluntary membership of their sports clubs, which also means non-territorial rule (apart from ownership or lease of playing fields) and which leads, automatically, to voluntary taxation or dues and fees. Coercive governments are just bigger football clubs with COERCIVE membership which use us as footballs and tax slaves and a whole country as their exclusive playing fields. They do not make escape from their risks and burdens easy but dependent upon their discretion and the few exceptions from their victimization are confined to their leaders and their favorites, among the latter are those, who vote for them. (However, even those tend to pay more in direct and indirect taxes than they get in hand-outs and subsidies, apart from some welfare, subsidies or bailouts of the favorite rich.  By now, apart from the remaining open seas, they have monopolized the whole planet. - - But, mind you, they only abuse US in this way. They are such monsters only for the dissenters and nonconformists. For their voluntary members they are jolly good shows and they should be recognized by us as such - FOR THEM. - - Panarchists merely want States and free societies to be run as differently and tolerantly as sports clubs are: Football for some, cricket, tennis, golf gymnastics, weight lifting, running or swimming for others, each according to the own preferences. - - Perhaps I should and, with a special effort, I could, quote to you hundreds of references from classical anarchism, proving my case that their basic notion was voluntarism and that they objected mainly to the coercive nature of States and churches and other vested interests and pressure groups and to imposed privileges. So far, apart from my collections of related remarks in my “Slogans for Liberty” file and in my “On Panarchy” series, I have not made such an effort. - - I do hope though, that, for my purposes here, just some such quotes, still in the classical anarchist tradition, will serve: 1.) "Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." - said Victor Yarros, as quoted by J. Martin, in “Men Against the State”, p. 237. - - 2.) "Anarchism, as I see it, admits of any kind of organization, so long as membership is not compulsory." - Joseph A. Labadie, quoted ibid, p. 245. - - 3.) "If we, in any way, dominate the lives of others and prevent them from doing what they wish to do, then for all practical purposes, we cease to be anarchists. - E. Malatesta, La Question Sociale, Nov. 25, 1889. - - 4.) "I am in favor of free competition in all human enterprises, and to the utmost limit." - H. L. Mencken, Prejudices, 3rd. series, article: The Dismal Science, p. 280. (Admittedly, he probably did not mean it in a panarchistic way.) - - 5.) "... each and every individual has the unquestionable and un-abridgeable right of free and voluntary association with other equally sovereign individuals for economic, political, social  and all other purposes, ..." - Emma Goldman, MOTHER EARTH, Vol. IV, 1909-1910. (Un-curtailable?) Alas, she wrongfully concluded that this would require the abolition of property rights rather than their establishment and maintenance. In "Anarchism and other Essays", p. 62, she speaks of the "sovereignty of the individual". - But would she have favored it being expressed in panarchies, even by proprietary anarchists?) - See also Kropotkin, Gegenseitige Hilfe, S.134, (Mutual Aid) which I have recently microfilmed. - (Anarchists, who are without sufficient knowledge of or interest in economics, tend to become, almost inevitably, intolerant dogmatists and authoritarians in favor of their all too limited and flawed "ideal", just another form of coercive egalitarians. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - - While anarchists WISHED that everyone would sooner or later subscribe to their own ideals, what they really opposed was only the coercive imposition of the ideals of others upon themselves and upon other victims of the State, i. e. RULE against one's will, over oneself or over others against their will, when those ruled over have not acted invasively but merely want to be left alone to do their own thing. The original anarchists did not demand that any rule that is FULLY BASED ON CONSENT ought not to be tolerated. - Otherwise, to be consistent, they should not have tolerated either, that their followers followed their examples and teachings. Then those confused anarchists would be right who never even appoint a minute-taker, chair person or other official for their meetings and organizations, "on principle", no matter how disorganized and fruitless their meetings may become. - (Indeed, the anti-organizational approach is ONE anarchist method, if ALL agreed upon it. But OTHER anarchistic methods are also possible and right, provided the basic anarchist requirement is fulfilled, namely unanimous consent to the method, even if that method grants 51 voluntary members a degree of temporary rule over the remaining 49 voluntary members. The rule of 51 consenters over 49 dissenters would only be ended when the latter would prefer to be rather outside than within that association. As long as they prefer to remain in it, they are still giving their primary consent and differ only on details that are secondary to them.) - - This basic issue of voluntarism became rather confused because the anti-property anarchists saw in the State a protector of property rights (rather than a protector of privileges and exploiter of property rights) and, their animosity to property being their first priority and interpreting the State in this way, they, quite naturally, wanted to do away with it altogether, in all forms, as seemingly ONLY upholding imposed PRIVILEGES. All who were consenting to it or demanding it, were merely classed either as privileged people, oppressors and exploiters or as fools, with the wishes of neither of these to be respected. - The possibility that people might voluntarily uphold contractual property relationships between themselves was not considered by them - although it should have been. Only the individualist anarchists saw and preferred that option. - - The special place that landed property has among other property, either as genuine and natural property or as a privilege and monopoly and the various zealously represented theories on "the ideal and only right" land tenure system, helped to muddle the situation further. If any State did represent a single and completely wrong land tenure system, then that State, naturally, ought to be abolished, in order to get rid of that land tenure system. So they thought. - - The fact that many of the somewhat liberal States permitted extensive experimentation with landownership and use by various ideological groups, was often conveniently overlooked by the zealots. Even my father, although he is a panarchist and subscribes to the open cooperative system, has so far failed to apply this possibility to the land problem. His favorite land reform scheme, according to him, is to be universally realized - with no chance for dissenters to realize their own among themselves. See his “Manifesto for Freedom and Peace”.  And so do most George-ists think. Their “single tax” scheme is to be applied to all, believers and dissenters alike – as, supposedly, the only just one. (In spite of at least dozens of George-ist experiments having been undertaken by volunteers and having demonstrated, in however limited form, the possibility of competing land tenure systems.) - - Moreover, most land-reformers, opposed to the private "land monopoly", have turned a blind eye to the most dangerous land monopoly, the large-scale collectivist one, the land-tenure of nations and nation states, that of "territories" - that now constitute nuclear targets. - - For others the State was not embodied in "private property" in general or in "rent" in particular, as the first enemy of mankind but in "interest". To drive out this, to them primary evil, this “Satan”, as “seen” by them, they believed that they had to aim at doing away with the State completely, even for volunteers. Thus, again, they came away from voluntarism and often became even statists, although not as comprehensive ones as the totalitarian communists are, in order to liberate mankind from what they considered to be a primary evil. There was no room for voluntarism in their scheme, either and yet they still considered themselves as "anarchists." - - (I do regret that the Gesellians in West Germany, for political reasons, have become rather quiet about Gesell's anarchism and did not want to reprint his two books on this.) - - However, neither "equality", nor "no property", nor "abolition of private land or rent or interest" or "abolition of money" or "abolition of interest" are primary anarchist ideals - even though some anarchists put them first. They are all deviations from the primary voluntaristic, associationist, autonomous, individualist, ideal, one of personal independence even of individual and minority group sovereignty and autonomy, one of contractual and voluntary association only - with individual secession or withdrawal always to be free after all rightful contractual obligations have been fulfilled. - - Luckily, for the chances to realize this kind of voluntaristic anarchism, which includes anarchism for volunteers and also archism for volunteers, peacefully coexisting, exterritorially, at the same time and in the same territory, we do already, in many, mostly minor ways, but that are high in the value-scale of the average person, live in an age of freedom of action, of independence from customs, rituals and traditions of others. - - This expresses itself e.g. in different individual choices of professions, of crafts and hobby activities, in various schools and practices of music, painting, fashion, architecture, plays, sports, dancing, diets, games, religions practices, memberships in various associations and clubs etc. etc. - - In all these spheres we have already largely become panarchistic anarchists. To that extent the desired revolution or fundamental reform is already 90% ACHIEVED and this with the consent of most conservatives and radicals. (This did possibly result from our extensive migrations on this globe, and mixing in the past, which to some extent continues, although still over-regulated, e.g. regarding drugs, gambling, pornography and prostitution, worst of all by taxation, „protectionism“, compulsory licensing, passports and custom duties. - These numerous and diverse individual practices, on their own, do largely invalidate the claims of a "territorial imperative" as opposed to a "nesting" and "proximity" instinct among humans.) - - Moreover, we mostly favor rightful and sensible experimentation, i.e. at the own cost and risk, in science and technology, in the arts, in private life styles, in business and at work (at least to some extent) and in intentional alternative communities. - - Nevertheless, most of us have so far failed to GENERALIZE AND INSTITUTIONALIZE that kind of tolerance, experimentation and practised diversity. We have failed to extend it into the most important and large spheres, especially those of politics, social arrangements and economics. - However, panarchists, as opposed to anarchists, did just that. Starting from the basic premises of the classical anarchists, they want to apply voluntarism, contracts, tolerance, diversity, in these spheres, too, quite independent of the territorial location of individuals and groups and of the dissenting views of other and larger minority groups and even of majority groups living around and between them, independent of the current territorial constitutions, institutions, laws and jurisdictions, customs and practices. - Their aim is minority autonomy for all minorities, for archists and anarchists alike, autonomy for the largest majorities as well as for the smallest minorities and the absolutely smallest minority, the individual. For this they advance moral as well as utilitarian reasons, political, economic and even military and pacifist arguments as well as revolutionary and reformist ones. - They think of themselves as consistent anarchists and those presently calling themselves anarchists to be still, partly, authoritarians. - Moreover, they hold that this panarchist approach is also the only moral and practicable way to achieve anarchism for all - IF THESE forms of social arrangements should ever become the preference of every single individual that is of age (however unlikely that may be). (Those not yet of age might be allowed to make this choice once they have reached a sufficient degree of maturity. For babies and infants it would be made, during these stages of their development, by their guardians.) - - Who is right, the modern anarchists, who are relatively numerous compared with panarchists, or the panarchists? That question has not yet been settled. Matter of fact, it has rarely even been raised. I raise it whenever I do get the chance. - - For panarchism to win - i.e. EVERYBODY TO WIN HIS IDEAL FOR HIMSELF AND AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND RISK ONLY - anarchists (and libertarians) have to be won over first. Once they have been won over, they will then CEASE TO ANTAGONIZE and can BEGIN TO BEFRIEND their present competitors and opponents and begin a COMMON STRUGGLE with them against INSTITUTIONALIZED TERRITORIAL INTOLERANCE AND COERCION, against the SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF ACTION AND TOLERANCE in the most important social spheres, and in politics and in economics. - - Their close bond with their former enemies would then be AN AGREEMENT ON ALL OF THEM DOING THE OWN THING, BUT AMONG LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE ONLY and an awareness of the potential of voluntary and non-territorial autonomy for realizing this ideal. - - Their common enemies would be totalitarians, dictators etc. and their fanatic followers. Often that would mean merely a narrow upper crust and their secret police members. Even towards these the aim ought to be not to exterminate them as PERSONS but merely to end their POWERS. - Towards that aim panarchists ought to combine e.g. outlawry and tyrannicide threats (while dictators persistently threaten "proletarians" with "proletarian nuclear weapons" or threaten other dictators not with tyrannicide but by wiping out their victims, in the “modern” and scientific way) with amnesty, asylum, anonymity and protection offers - once they do abdicate, flee and surrender to us, preferably after destroying at least one of the "modern" anti-people "weapons". - - In such and many related defensive efforts, panarchistic anarchists could even cooperate with the best intentions of the better types of democratic governments, thus 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, but only those that represent merely 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 ruling over volunteers and dissenters are free to leave them, without having to leave their homes, native land, jobs, friends and  relatives. - Only then do “consent”, “representation” and “mandate” become meaningful rather than deceptive and misleading notions. - - 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 enemies. (And this without requiring government offices, salaries and large pensions!) They can propose practicable, because panarchistic, methods to settle the present wars and civil wars within and between the present “countries”. - - They can increase the defensive strength of the country they live in. They could rally friends and allies for attacked democratic governments even from the military ranks of the first victims of enemy regimes, its soldiers and officers, who would mostly prefer being liberated to being forced to act as cannon fodder or executioners and oppressors for others. - They can help democratic governments to reduce terrorism. - They can offer the only comprehensive program to overcome the threat of nuclear war and of wars with chemical and biological weapons. - Their experimental freedom approach holds the solution, or the road to the solution, to every social, economic and political 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 themselves 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 for 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 no longer be afraid of losing power altogether but would know that they could retain it over their remaining voluntary supporters and voters, provided that 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. (Ideally, that would not be required, either.) - - All that is needed would be an understanding, acceptance and application of panarchistic principles, which by their very nature tend to minimize opposition and friction (once understood and consistently applied). - - Panarchist declarations and appeals have only to be well enough designed and published to lead to numerous self-liberation attempts, without the possible aid provided by armies of foreign democratic governments. - - Designing and publishing such appeals would be so much cheaper and easier and also more popular than sending armed forces. - - But they must include a comprehensive monetary and financial freedom program to prevent situations like now in Afghanistan, where unemployment is presently up to 80% and in Iraq it is probably also in double figures. - - Alas, so far they are so misunderstood that there is much opposition to them, based on popular prejudices, whenever they are heard or read and numerous misunderstandings exist on panarchism even in anarchist and libertarian circles. - I am speaking to you in the hope of dissolving some of these, aware that it would require many more such efforts to fully convince you. (The best way to convince yourself would consist in inducing you to close examine these alternatives. I would not know how to do so. - JZ, 15.10.11.) - - So far, I see in anarchists and libertarians the primary obstacle for the realization of panarchy. Only you could convince me that my impression is wrong. - - I think I have by now talked enough on this and would rather engage with you in a discussion, now or at later opportunities, of your questions, doubts and objections. - - If I have offended you in any way, it was not intentional. Remember, however much you disagree with me, I want full liberty for you to practise your beliefs among yourselves – at your own risk and expense. That ought to be a suitable basis for rational discussions between us. - John Zube, Draft of 1986, slightly revised: 28.12.04, 2.10.11, 29.8.12. - - - Appendix: TRANSCRIPT OF SOME NOTES RECENTLY MADE WITH THIS TALK IN MIND: 1.) Panarchy means a free market for politics and economics, for systems and ideologies, even including those amounting to anti-politics and anti-economics. Each to his own choice. Each to be the master of his own fate and none to be master over the fate of other more or less rational adults. That also implies that all their own free actions take place only at their own expense and risk. Each would purchase, on the free market, whatever political or economic or “insurance” package deal he likes for himself, at a competitive price. Alternatively, he would provide such services cooperatively, mutually, charitably or would receive them in this way. Consumer sovereignty in all spheres. This would mean even a free market for central planning efforts among central planners and for regulators - among those who like to be regulated, for despots among those who like to subordinate themselves to them. Naturally, it also means anarchism for anarchists, not only archism for archists. - - 2.) Wanted: More panarchistic literature references for my series "On Panarchy" and letters and articles discussing aspects of panarchism and supposed difficulties. - - 3.) Who knows of still more instances of everyday activities that are already panarchistically practised in great diversity, without causing but rather reducing friction, running rather smoothly, satisfactorily and harmoniously with other such free activities - than I have listed so far in my writings on this subject, especially those compiled in "On Panarchy", Nos. I-XXIV  (a series that is being continued)? [So far I only collected some texts for further digitized issues but have not edited them for the first further issue. – JZ, 29.8.12] - - 4.) Who knows of other historical and contemporary precedents for panarchy than those I have listed? - - 5.) Panarchism is the almost unknown ideal for anarchists. It offers in most cases a nonviolent and voluntaristic solution for all rightful aims and preferences in their clashes with the aims and preferences of others. But it is not confined to nonviolent and persuasive means only. It has the potential to become self-realizing and powerfully defensive in defensive, liberationg and revolutionary struggles and to achieve a lasting peace, based upon freedom and justice and to achieve it faster and this with a minimum of bloodshed and costs. - - 6.) Panarchism can realize what is rightful among the aspirations of terrorists and can thus turn them from their indiscriminately destructive and murderous activities into constructive and peaceful ones. - - 7.) Panarchists could and should re-write the Ten Commandments in an attractive way. - - 8.) Panarchism means you can eat your heart out - but not that of your enemies or neighbours. You can cannibalize what is your own but not what belongs to dissenters or neutrals. - - 9.) On Panarchistic International  Relations: Conscription does not make sense among volunteers, nor do taxes for armaments and military conflicts. There will be volunteers and voluntary contributions for certain defensive efforts, against the few temporarily remaining and relatively small aggressive powers, but no more. The internal victims of these powers will be liberated rather than killed or starved en masse. - Panarchists have friends, neutrals and allies everywhere - and very few fanatic enemies - because panarchism favors exterritorial autonomy even for fanatic dissenters and all their followers, as long as they do apply their fanaticism only among themselves. - Panarchism opposes collective responsibility and all "weapons" which apply this "principle", quite wrongly, as e.g. nuclear devices and all other indiscriminate mass extermination devices inevitably do. - Panarchists feel and act as allies of all minorities, everywhere, that strive only for exterritorial autonomy for their volunteer - no more, no less. Thus their potential for “solidarity” with others exceeds that of all other ideological movements. - - 10.) The various minorities of all countries, in a panarchist international federation, between them, do constitute the largest majority. Panarchism can come to mobilize their combined strength. Thus its influence could come to exceed that of the presently greatest territorial power. - - 11.) Panarchists can act as spokesmen for all rightful aspirations and can thus make friends and allies everywhere. - - 12.) Only panarchists can realize fully liberating liberation efforts, i.e., efforts that do not go beyond the degree of liberation that various people do want for themselves. They let each advance at his own speed towards his own ideal, alone or in associations with others. - 13.) Tyrannicide rather than mass murder! -  They appeal to all to dissociate themselves from dictatorial regimes and those armed with anti-people or mass murder weapons. They rather attack mass murderers individually than the cities and countries they live in. In accordance with their principles they say: rather a Hitler, Stalin or Mao dead than millions of their victims. - To panarchists even bombing the palaces of a terrorist ruler is not yet discriminating enough, because too many innocents might be hurt and a valuable building might be destroyed. If a person is a genuine enemy of mankind, then technology and good will among activists should suffice to eliminate him with bull’s-eye hits, if all other efforts have failed or cannot be applied to get him to confront a world arbitration court, to abdicate or confine his efforts to voluntary victims only. And their guilt could and should be established in advance, in public hearings, in other countries. (The accused could defend themselves, if they can and want to, via broadcasts or electronic mail, which might include sound and pictures and could be online, like a chat-session. – JZ, 29.12.04.) - However, their right to rule over VOLUNTARY supporters or voluntary victims should never be denied. - At the same time, the right of ANYONE to rule over whole large territories and to keep mass extermination devices in readiness, should be denied. - - Panarchists would only fight tyrants and despots, and violent fanatic movements, in a truly defensive way. - - They would spare and even liberate their victims, as soon as possible, with rightful and as nonviolent means as are possible and practicable but would not confine themselves exclusively towards the latter. They realize that it is the tyrants, despots and fanatics who ought to be nonviolent. - They would not imprison those, who deserted or surrendered or were taken prisoners and who declared that they were forced to fight for a despotic regime. - Even in their tyrannicide policies - after public sanctioning of them and putting a price on the heads of convicted tyrants and seeing to it that their own popular rulers are still better protected against assassination attempts, than they are now, they would, like Thomas Moore proposed, double the price for those who captured one of the tyrants alive and brought him before an international court. - - They would even grant convicted despots asylum and amnesty - if they surrendered at least one mass extermination device to be disarmed, or if they had destroyed it themselves. (We should rather spare the live of one such villain than risk the lives of thousands to millions of innocents by driving him to a desperate act or one of revenge. Even a cornered rat will fight.) (Compare the losses of human lives, on both sides, in the recent efforts to fight the tyrant of Lybia in the conventional way. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - - - Among panarchists there are at least some who know how to cope with a sudden influx of millions of refugees and deserters, how turn them into prosperous producers and exchangers and this within days. Neither unemployment nor inflation are riddles to them but immediately solvable problems. From these the solutions could spread rapidly. - - Panarchists are at any time prepared to trade freely with others, allow their free migration and settlement, recognize their autonomy aspirations (determined by their individual voluntary members) and to fraternize with the conscripts and tax victims and victims of other oppressions and with those who live in nuclear weapons targets on the other side. - - Such policies can, potentially, give them the strongest defensive position and an enormous strength for liberation purposes. - - 14.) To anti-property anarchists: That people ought to be free to "exploit" each other, if they want to, in a proprietary, contractual and free-trading way, in their own voluntary associations and through free contracts with outsiders, does apparently go beyond the imagination of fanatical enemies of property. [Popular actors, singers, musicians, poets, novelists, reporters etc. do also “exploit” their fans, with their full individual consent! – The usual notions of “exploitation” are also very flawed. However, people will be free to organize themselves in a way that would eliminate, among themselves, at their own risk and expense, whatever they consider to be exploitation. – JZ, 29.8.12.]  They want to destroy it for all, even those who highly favor it among themselves. In this they are as totalitarian as those who advocate and insist upon either abstinence, or monogamy or polygamy for all. They are blind to the understanding that a propertarian society permits all to pool and share, socialize and combine their property and use it between them as they please. They are also blind to the various free market options for the acquisition of very large private productive assets for all willing to work for them or to use their current assets for this purpose. Thus "robber-anarchists" might be a more suitable term for these "anarchists". They want to establish their free and non-violent society at the expense of others, ignoring e.g. the lease and purchase options, even their savings and the future value of their own labour (which could be capitalized and used for purchasing enterprises). Thereby they rather prefer violence and bloodshed (associated with expropriations and occupations) to peaceful trade. I see no way for panarchistically tolerating these intolerant parts of their “programs”. - - 15.) Each to have as many privileges as he wants to have and as are granted to him by his own voluntary followers and at his and their expense and risk. - - 16.) Panarchy is the only rightful and workable alternative for all. It is the proper framework for all attempts to do the own things differently, according to the own ideals. - - 17.) Among the worst aspects of exclusive territorial rule over voluntary and involuntary members is that it channels progress only in one direction, that approved by politicians, bureaucrats and the majority. - (Admittedly, sometimes two different aims are sponsored at the same time, even if opposite to each other. But the complete range of possible choices for individuals is not permitted under such regimes, however „democratic“ they are and however much they merely talk about „self-government“, while outlawing genuine self-government, i.e. individualized free choices, actions and decisions. Territorial “self-government” is not the free government of free individuals over their own affairs.) - Numerous already somewhat discovered and expressed, known or unknown alternatives and options are constitutionally, legally, juridically or adminstratively prohibited from coming into existence here and now. Imagine what would happen if we did the same regarding religion, philosophy, arts, science, technology, medicine and agriculture! - - 18.) “No question is ever settled until it is settled right.” And when people act within their rights then between them even their wrong solutions are, for the time being, right for them – since they are voluntarily accepted by them and they are free to learn from their own mistakes as well as from the mistakes of others. - Any old or new ism, like any religious faith, is right for all its believers and thus its believers should be free to practice it - among themselves. - - 19.) It is simply absurd to make the realization of innovations, in one's own sphere, dependent upon governmental, bureaucratic or majority approval. - - 20.) Panarchists could be a-political 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. - - 21.) Even in family, friendship and scholarly circles, people don't fully agree. How can we expect them to agree as populations of whole territories? Let them sort themselves out, individually, according to individual preferences, for tolerant experiments among themselves, self-realizing the degrees of liberty, which they do want for themselves. Everything else, even when running under anarchistic slogans and banners, amounts to despotism. - - 22.) National experimental freedom is insufficiently educational - apart from wrongly restricting moral choices, creative activities of individuals and groups. It must be replaced or at least supplemented by experimental freedom in all areas, based on voluntary participation in exterritorial experiments. - - 23.) The all too popular attitude among anarchists towards dissenters to the anarchist faith or conviction can be summed up with: No freedom for non-anarchists who disagree with our own notions of freedom. Organizational variations are only permitted to anarchists. - Anarchism, when proclaimed or implied in this form, amounts almost to a declaration of war against all others and it does also disagree with its own original and primary notions of rights, individualism, voluntarism, choice, tolerance, independence, consent and equal liberty. - - 24.) Man must now be organized in a way to minimize the risk of nuclear war. Panarchism provides that organizational framework. It does not restrict any rightful aspirations, not even any wrongful and useless or destructive ones - provided, they are realized only within the own sphere, i.e., among their own volunteers. - - 25.) Anarchists want the State abolished, either by revolutions or by reforms or nonviolent actions. Panarchists want to abolish only 2 of its most important and coercive features: Territorialism and compulsory membership. They would leave the rest up to the free choice of individuals. - - 26.) Panarchy means tolerance in the sphere of actions, also experimental freedom and unrestricted liberties and rights - where they do matter most, nowadays, in politics, social arrangements and economics. Individual people, in their own choices in these important spheres, are to be quite independent from the preferences and actions, the systems and organizations, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions of others, even if these others form large majorities. - - 27.) Freedom of choice and choice of freedoms. - Slogans from an advertisement of the St. George Building Society, seen on April 4th,1986. It is one with which panarchists would agree. - - 28.) "Inviolability of territory" and "territorial integrity" do violate individual rights and the integrity of individuals, at least as far as dissenters and nonconformists are concerned. They also do harm to the conformists - but that is their choice. - - 29.) The right to resist and revolt are largely realizable and also limited, in theory and in practice by individual secessionism. When individuals are free to secede, then they do not have the right to resist or revolt otherwise. - If they aim at individual secessionism and associationism, then their resistance against totalitarian regimes will be more successful. - - 30.) When governments are reduced to voluntary support only, most of them will sooner or later be deserted and the rest will continue their "demonstrations of the practical and moral disadvantages of authoritarianism" until almost all of them are also converted to self-management principles and practices. - - 31.) Exterritorial autonomy of volunteers would constitute the best kind of “propaganda by deed” of those, who are nihilists towards “establishment” values and institutions. It would constitute “anarchy in action”. - Most people cannot be persuaded, they can only learn from practical examples that are not set merely far away, in some foreign countries, but right before their own eyes. Then curiosity, envy and the urge to imitate the successes of others, given freedom to do so, will assure the rest. - - 32.) Is man a territorial animal? He is rather an animal that forever seems to move to new territories and even when he is settled somewhere, he still seems to roam a lot around his country or the world, at least in his district, time and funds permitting and he pursues his profession, hobbies and interests regardless of and independent of those of others – in an exterritorial and relatively tolerant or tolerable way. - - 33.) Since even anarchists cannot fully agree among themselves, even after discussions spanning at least 150 years, and can agree far less with others, their framework for the future ought to make possible the highest possible degree of autonomy for dissenters, even for non-anarchists. Such a framework is inevitably panarchistic and would offer all kinds of anarchists as well the greatest and immediate chance to realize their particular ideals for themselves, but among themselves only and at their own cost and risk. - - 34.) In the ten points listed by Chas Bufe, in a 16 pp pamphlet: "Listen, Anarchist!", reviewed in “FREEDOM”, 3/86, he states in point 9 a fundamental panarchistic, i.e. secessionist idea: "We should accept the fact that freedom of association implies freedom to disassociate." For the sake of clarity he should have added: "even from all kinds of anarchist communities." - - 35.) Freedom of expression and information are, for many, almost self-evident liberties. But they alone do not suffice for our purposes, as was demonstrated by decades of rather fruitless anarchist agitation. They must be supplemented by freedom to act upon one's information, however limited and misleading it may be, at one's own expense and risk. Freedom of action and experimentation are moral and useful not just in some limited and minor spheres - but in all. However, they must be subjected to the primary requirement of voluntarism, of individual choice. This implies freedom to join or establish any and to secede from any group or system or organization, even an anarchistic one. - - 36.) Not just some licensed and limited autonomy is to be achieved (that was granted even in the Soviet Union and by the Nazis), as a moral and essential state of affairs, but full autonomy, which is limited only by individual choice, and which means non-territorial and personal law organization and voluntary membership. - - 37.) Anarchist enemies of Panarchism argue in practice, often unaware of this, against a ) an extension of freedom, cooperation and competition, - b ) maximizing tolerance, - c ) experimental freedom for all, in all spheres, - d ) minority autonomy, - e ) individual sovereignty, - f ) individual secessionism or withdrawal options, - (According to an email received today, even the current Pope is now for a world government and a world bank! Thus he has become a mis-leader of perhaps 400 million Roman Catholics in the world! He certainly did not advocate these institutions only for their voluntary victims. - Some of his predecessors were more enlightened, e.g. when they upheld the subsidiarity principle and all kinds of voluntary self-help options. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - g ) voluntary associationism, - h) the consent requirement, - i) freedom for individual choices - OR AS IF THESE APPLIED ONLY TO ANARCHISTS! - - In the political and economic sphere they want us to fill our shopping basket only with the same assortment of goodies that are "officially sanctioned" by the anarchist movement - or their particular section of it. - - They are, often quite unaware, advocates of 1.) territorial rule, - - 2) imposed laws (however few and anarchistic and informal these may be), - - 3.) imposed uniformity (even if only the uniformity of an anarchist utopia), - - 4.) government (even if it is a highly limited and decentralized one). - In short, without being panarchists, they are not really anarchists. - - 38.) Panarchy means: 1.) No taxation without individual consent. (Replacement of taxes by prices, fees and subscriptions.) - - 2.) No dictatorship - unless it is wanted by the individuals involved. - - 3.) No majority votes - except among volunteers and applying only to them. - - 4.) No conscription. - - 5.) No nuclear targets any longer. - - 6.) No national borders and national enemies any longer. (Individuals to be free to pick their own friends - and enemies.) - - 7) No economic or political monopoly or privilege any longer. Only those remain that are based on the unanimous consent of volunteers and that are practised at their expense only. 8.) It would mean, especially, for our times: No funds, soldiers, targets, motives and enemies for nuclear war but, rather, friends and allies everywhere - against a few remaining criminals, enemies of man. - - - I do agree with Bob James’ recent definition, in his REVIEW, No.2, p. 4: "... VOLUNTARY CO-OPERATION is a more accurate rendition of anarchism." I would merely add: "Voluntary strife is covered by it, too." - FIOT, largely through panarchism and microfiche and the fullest use of all digital options. - JZ, 23.4.1986. - Somewhat edited 6.1.87 & 29.12,04, 25.10.11, 29.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes for a Talk on Panarchism to Anarchists, 5/86, rev. 1/87, 34, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes on Moral Recognition. - What does "recognition" mean and how and when, if at all, should a government, group or being be recognized - and by whom? Plan 247, pages 74 - 76, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes on Nozick's Meta-Utopia - pp11ff, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes on Panarchy, in reply to Diogenes of Panarchia, TC 111p45: "An entertaining fantasy ... impracticable ..... , 70 (Extract from Edward Gibbon on the Roman Empire.), in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes to Philip Tetloff: "Expert Political Judgment" - ( Posts:  - - glowing review in THE NEW YORKER: - Sample chapter 1 from the book: - - Note that I haven't read the whole book but just its first chapter, put online and a few of the short reviews of it: Can one judge a whole book merely by these? Only if all of them do share a common premise and if that premise is wrong. - - The common and false premise of the author and the reviewers is, in my opinion: territorial organization, decision-making, constitutionalism, legalism, jurisdiction, administration, policies and "measures". - They are all taken for granted, considered to be rightful or unavoidable, as natural or as the given reality, not as a wrongful, irrational, intolerant and despotic system (even when under democratic or republican camouflage). - - From it follows centralized and monopolized decision-making for large collectives, made up not only of followers but also of numerous victims, opponents and dissenters of various kinds. - - Herbert Spencer called it "the great machine". F. A. Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom", pointed out why the worst do get to the top in it. - - The "great machine", a vast destructive bulldozer, an extermination machine, equipped with the most modern mass murder and destruction "weapons" - in charge of madmen: Power addicts, habitual liars and cheats, religious gurus and dogmatists, true believers - and be it only in majoritarian territorial "democracies" or pretended "representation", e.g. "Christians" involved in a new "Crusade" or "Muslims" involved in a new world conquest attempt, driven and supported by the most popular prejudices, errors, myths, fads and flawed hypotheses, e.g.: religious intolerance, racism, the myths of the "chosen people", overpopulation notions, hatreds and fears of foreigners, belief in security through brute strength, or in more or less permanent or frequently repeated indiscriminate warfare, even in "ethnic cleansing", i.e., open mass murders. - - In which direction will a madman jump next? What spleen will next grab his imagination and drive him into insane actions? - Where will a great arsonist light his fires next?  - Where will he (or she) employ "his" great destructive bulldozer next?  - Who and where will be the next victims of a mass murderer with WMDs at his disposal? - Or with conventional "weapons", which allow him to produce similar hundreds of thousands of mass-murder victims? - Whom will he put next into his or her concentration camps or exterminate with his or her "modern", "scientific" and cheap ABC extermination camp "packages". - -That, indeed, becomes unpredictable. E.g.: Will people reserving to themselves the right to determine interest rates or other prices, either raise or lower them or keep them for a while? - Will central and territorial administrators of population policies take coercive steps to increase or reduce or to stabilize populations, with whatever coercive means that take their fancy? - Will central note-issuing banks, issuing legal tender money, increase or decrease inflation or deflation or continue a stagflation? - Will education ministers increase or decrease their imposed or subsidized mis-education systems? - Will "defence" ministers employ more or less inherently aggressive and mass murderous weapons and warfare methods? - Will transport ministers block or hinder transport more or less by their monopolies, licences and regulations? - Will health ministers prevent more or less new cures and persist more or less with old health fads? - Will immigration ministers put more or less illegal immigrants into concentration camps or deport them or prevent their arrival; will they increase or decrease "authorized" immigration? - Will ministers for postal services and communication restrict them more or less and increase their prices, while suppressing free competition? - What lies will the various propaganda ministries resort to next? - What kind of new taxes, prohibitions and obstacles and licences will "our representatives" and "great leaders" introduce next? Will they increase or decrease taxes and "concessions" and "exemptions", will they simplify taxation or further complicate it? - What kind of "new deal", "co-prosperity sphere" or "great society" or utopia will next grab their fancy? - Will they increase or reduce the "war against drugs" or just keep it going indefinitely, as it is now? - Will they abdicate, however unlikely and rarely that ever happened? - - Do most of the "freedom fighters", resistance movements, military insurrectionists, revolutionaries and liberators have really something much better in mind, or, often, even something still worse? - Are any of our territorial mis-rulers really aware and appreciative of all individual rights and liberties or even interested in them? - Are their opponents sufficiently aware of or interested in all fundamental rights and liberties? - - In this kind of world-wide madhouse almost anything can happen, anywhere, anytime, to anyone. - Under this kind of condition reliable predictions are, indeed, close to impossible. - - - So, what has to be fundamentally changed in order to make scientific predictions in the "social sciences" possible? - Let all the different movements, sects, believers, ideologues, reformers, revolutionaries, liberators, dogmatists etc. sort themselves out, by individual decision-making, including individual secessionism and voluntary reorganization into freely competing and peacefully coexisting communities, societies, governments, utopias and States, which are all only exterritorially autonomous and which apply their personal laws, constitutions, jurisdictions and other institutions only to their own and voluntary members, wherever on the Earth's surface they may live or work. - - Establish merely an international law between them that is based upon respect for all individual rights and liberties, to the extent that any of them are claimed by the members of any of these voluntary communities of like-minded people. - Let them be as free or un-free among themselves, always at their own risk and expense, as they want to be. - - Outlaw only any aggressive actions and preparations for them. - and establish much more rightful and rational, i.e. competitive institutions - for upholding basic rights and liberties than territorial States ever provided so far. (A vast topic on its own, with quite insufficient precedents in the past. It is partly discussed in my first peace book.) - - Then you will become able to predict results of particular communities of volunteers or competing governments, by their own known principles, practices and institutions, all unanimously supported as well and as long as they want to and can. - - E.g., the results for consistent free traders and for consistent protectionists can be safely predicted. - Likewise the results of continued monetary despotism in some voluntary communities and those of full monetary and financial freedom in others. - - Each community of volunteers, exterritorially autonomous, a free experiment, among volunteers only, can then be judged upon its own merits or demerits, under optimal conditions for it. Then it will not suffer under any internal or external threats or trends caused by dissenters, opponents and non-conformists or by leading power mongers and power addicts (except those, unanimously approved of by their voluntary members as their "leaders" or gurus or "prophets"). - - Moreover, then it can also be predicted, for the long run, how these different societies and communities will tend to influence each other, without coercion, invasions, occupations, interferences, blockades, propaganda campaigns and "foreign policies", in the same way as really and fully introduced religious tolerance can be predicted in its results, or full freedom in the sphere of education and enlightenment, with all technological options being fully utilized. - - In short: Successful experiments of this kind will tend to grow, by more and more people joining them or setting up similar experiments. - At the same time, the unsuccessful experiments will shrink, naturally, by more and more people seceding or deserting from them. - Finally, the latter will almost disappear or become reduced to insignificant and no longer dangerous sectarian groups. - This panarchistic or polyarchic method and model would introduce experimental freedom in the social sciences, as far as humanly possible and desired - by their voluntary participants. - From their experiments and the theories their observed facts would lead to, a new kind of political social and economic sciences would arise, much more based on observable and recorded facts than are the present social sciences. - As far as all the associated and continued argumentation is concerned, I do recommend the recently developed computerized "argument mapping" of Paul Monk and others, which offers hope to finally settle theoretical questions that have remained unsettled for centuries because of the conventional methods used for their discussion. - PIOT, John Zube, - 7. 9. 2006. - - (PIOT: Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice. -, - The effects upon war and peace have been described by me in two books: & - My literature list, for micro-fiched editions, is on: - Some of my favorite monetary freedom books are on and the beginnings of a list of URLs to libertarian texts, still flawed and very incomplete, but growing, soon, is on - With your assistance, this list could come to grow into a catalog for an electronic libertarian library. - File: Tetloff, Expert Political Judgment, notes by JZ 

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes to: "Foreign Rights and Interests in China" by Westel W. Willoughby, 1927. (micro-filmed in PP 673/4.) Page 57, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PP 689.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes, Thoughts, Questions and Proposals on Len Casley's Secession with his Hutt River Province, Australia's 7th. State and its development potential, in short hints, August 1972, by John Zube (based on AIR discussion.), page 25, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Panarchist Articles, 1986, in PP 607.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Panarchist Comments to THE CONNECTION, No. 87, of 2 June 1980, 7/89, Filthy Pierre, 14, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - - - Some Panarchist Notes from TC 90, 13 Oct. 80, with some Panarchist Comments by J. Zube, on 24 July 89, to Tom Donaldson, Diogenes of Panarchia and Filthy Pierre, 4pp, 28, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - - - Some Panarchist Notes from and to THE CONNECTION, No. 101 of 24 Jan. 82, by JZ, 13 July 89, 14pp, FP, Diogenes of Panarchia, Stumm, Pyrrho, Dunn, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - - - Some Panarchist Notes from and to THE CONNECTION, No. 105, 22 July 1989, 9pp: Pyrrho, Diogenes, McElroy, on The Voluntaryists: 112, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - - - Some Panarchist Notes from TC 107, of 23 Oct. 82, with Comments by J. Zube, 25 July 89, 9pp, Foldvary, F.P., Taylor-Radford, Diogenes, Downard, Jonsson, Kysor, Pyrrho, 24, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. - - - Some Notes to THE CONNECTION No. 133, 75, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - - - Some Panarchist Comments to THE CONNECTION No. 134, 78, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - - - Some Panarchist Notes to THE CONNECTION No. 136, 88, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - - - Some Panarchist Notes to THE CONNECTION 144, 30.6.87, 53, with comments to Filthy Pierre, Thersites, David Owens, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Panarchist Notions, 1996, 23 Kbs., - John Zube,  Some Panarchistic Notions - The original, modified 04, came only to 50.5 Kbs., so I reproduce it here: Pan for Joe Toscana Edited 21 1 01. - Slightly revised: 24.8.04. - - John Zube, PO Box 7052, Berrima, NSW 2577, 26 March 96. (Old files: PANFOR.JOE, also: PANFORJT.ASC) - SOME PANARCHISTIC NOTIONS (NOT PANANARCHISTIC! - his wrong term!) FROM JOHN   ZUBE, MARCH 1996, for use by JOE TOSCANA in his publications. - Panarchism means "laissez faire, laissez passer" for governmental and non-governmental services and organizations, as many as different people and their groups desire, in any territory and right across all territories and their borders, world-wide. "Laissez-faire, laissez passer" means here, as originally: "Let people produce, let people exchange, freely" and not: let any crime or legal monopoly remain continued. No constitutional, legal, administrative, juridical, policing, military or diplomatic or decision-making monopoly at all, for anyone, over any dissenters. - - All services to be freely (competitively! - JZ, 25.9.11) supplied and individually chosen, quite freely, by volunteers, or refused, in particulars or wholesale. - It means voluntarism applied to all institutions. - Thus it would give each individual and minority- and, naturally, all majority preferences their own undisturbed choice. - "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!" (Later either RCBJ or GPdB suggested replacing the last word by "choice". I agreed. - My father, KHZ (Solneman) used "dreams" in his version, in his Manifesto for Freedom and Peace 1977: "To Each the State of his Dreams.") - It would be the equivalent to religious freedom or religious tolerance. - It would apply in the political, economic and social spheres that panarchistic freedom that we do now take already for granted in the arts, in literature, in poetry, in philosophy, in film and the theatre, in sports, in fashions, in science, in technology, in entertainments, in gardening, in fashions, in hair styles, in professional services, and in the numerous different daily choices in our private lives. - It would deprive all governments - and all private associations - of all coercive and exclusive and exploitative powers, since it would be up to individuals (not to the results of general elections, where individuals have only one vote among millions, once every few years), to cut their connections with any government, any time in emergencies and otherwise after an agreed upon withdrawal period. - It would make all tax payments and all war involvements quite voluntary and thus reduce them to a minimum, if not prevent or abolish them altogether. - - I hold that ideal volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, rightfully armed, organized and trained, would be helpful to necessary and in any case justified to realize and maintain panarchism against the remaining intolerant fanatics and "true believers". - - The explanation of this would require another and long article. Much on it has been stated in PEACE PLANS 61-63. Now online at . - - However, I believe that non-violent resistance, defence and revolutions could then also be developed and utilized to the utmost, as far as they do go and are found to be effective. - - - Among them would be effective tax strikes, refusals to accept government currency, mass fraternization among conscripts ordered to slaughter each other for the benefit of their rulers, mass desertions from wrongful regimes and open arms policies for deserters and refugees, governments in exile and alliances or neutrality for them, rightful and sensible full employment programs, based on monetary and financial freedom, for millions of refugees from despotic regimes, a treatment of POWs that would induce the enemy's soldiers to desert, to become allies or neutrals, the unilateral destruction of all ABC mass murder or anti-people "weapons" by the potential victims themselves. - Numerous old and new freedom proverbs, slogans and ideals have already anticipated this freedom framework and opportunity for all. E.g. "To each his own" (the old Latin : "Suum cuique". - "Equal liberty for all". "Equal rights for all", "no privileges or monopolies for anyone!" "Self-government", "self-determination", "independence". "opting out",  "alternative institutions", "experimental freedom", "minority autonomy". "Free choice in everything", "freedom of action", "decentralization", "self-management", "self-control", "self-discipline", "self-responsibility", "free societies", "intentional communities", "utopias" for volunteers, "individual sovereignty", "consumer sovereignty", "competition", "cooperation", "voluntarism", "voluntaryism", "autonomy", "autarchy" (in Robert LeFevre's meaning), "anarchism", "individualism", "libertarianism", "capitalism", "collectivism", "socialism", "tolerance", "mutualism", "radicalism", "freedom of association", "freedom to dissociate oneself", "opting out", "enfranchisement", "liberation", "the one-man revolution". "Mutual convenience relationships" vs. "single convenience relationships" (Don Werkheiser). "No one is good enough to rule any other man without his consent." "Follow your own drummer!" - (Admittedly, these and other popular notions are not always as widely interpreted as de Puydt did. - JZ, 25.9.11.) - It could satisfy even the rightful, i.e. self-concerned, aspirations of any kind of conservative, reactionary or authoritarian. Democracy, republicanism, cosmopolitanism, humanism, communism and any other ism, that you like or know of. All could have their panarchistic realization for their true believers, which would deprive them of any justification or rational excuse for attempting to force their preferred system upon dissenters. In other words still, panarchism means "doing your own thing" to or for yourself - at your own expense and risk. - - Only the application of all such terms is different from their conventional usage and much more general and consistently and radically applied. - - The "right to vote" and "consent" do get a new meaning with this revolutionary reform, too. - It would do away with all borders and frontiers and "spheres of influence" - except those around individuals and their rightful property, whether private and individual or corporative, partnership, collective or cooperative property. - The subjective value theory would find a new application - and would lead to the tolerant practice of all other value theories, too and of "value-free" philosophies - among their true believers, without any of them constituting any threat to the non-believers. - - Panarchism and its diverse panarchies for their believers can be introduced peacefully, in a reformist way or forcefully, in a revolutionary,  defence or liberation situation. - - Fully and consistently explained, publicized and used, panarchism can become largely self-realizing, gaining allies among all isms and movements and parties, drawing the majority of all people to it, excepting only incurable criminals, fanatics and terrorists with victims. - - This model has also the capacity to reduce crime, fanaticism and terrorism to a minimum, namely that among mentally defective people. - - With this program all wars could become reduced to limited and rightful "police" actions, exclusively against the real war criminals and their fanatical followers. - - Its experimental freedom and full publicity for it would help to solve all solvable social problems as fast as possible, with numerous different and autonomous experiments being undertaken at the same time by those most interested in making them work to prove their case. "Actions speak louder than words." - - Believe it or not, mass unemployment and inflation could be permanently ended within a day - by people who know their individual economic rights and the technique to properly apply them. So far, among a million unemployed or a million inflation victims you are lucky to find even one seriously interested in such options. The sanction of the victims is all too widely spread. But full experimental freedom would permit a few to give a lead and practical demonstration of how well full freedom works for them. - - Territorial and coercive monopolism hasn't offered any generally satisfactory solutions in the past or present and is not likely to do so in the future. Its very nature and the diverse nature and interests and ideas of man prevent that. Their territorial "solutions" involve more aggression than defence, more injustice than justice, more crime rather than less crime, more poverty rather than less, more unemployment and inflation rather than none. They are not even ashamed of sending refugees back to their despotic rulers! - - Territorial sovereignty and "independence" has many and unavoidable wrongs, flaws and risks and may still bring about a general holocaust. It is in no way better than coercive and exclusive religious hierarchies were. - - Panarchism would abolish the major preconditions for all wars, civil wars and revolutions. - - Perhaps most important of all, panarchism would do away with the threats arising from the mere existence of ABC mass murder or anti-people “weapons” and of territorial governments able and willing to use them. E.g. no nuclear targets would remain nor any war and peace making monopoly. Motives and means for conducting international wars would tend to disappear and almost everybody would gain a personal interest in becoming also a disarmament inspector against the build-up of ABC mass murder devices by anyone, anywhere and at any time. - - Imagine the almost general outcry of all kinds of religious and non-religious people if the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches tried to arm themselves with nuclear "weapons" against each other. Everybody would realize that his own fate would then be at stake and that of mankind. No nuclear strength advocates would then get far with such an aspiration. Most religious people, today, would not even entertain such a notion in the first place. It would be too obviously wrong, self-defeating and absurd. On this aspect consult especially my book "An ABC Against Nuclear War", reproduced in PEACE PLANS 16-18. (Now on ) - - Would anything significant remain of the present exclusive and coercive privileges of territorial governments, once panarchism is realized? Anything that anarchists could rightly object to, although it would only be applied by others to themselves, at their expense and risk? - I cannot think of anything. The abortionists would tend to abort themselves, undisturbed. The anti-abortionists would cherish the lives of all their children. Only in the far future would vast the majority be likely to consider unnecessary abortions as we consider now child sacrifices or child murders. The remaining minority of abortionists would THEN be treated like criminals with victims. Their unborn children would THEN no longer be considered as their "property". And transplantation options would exist for the unborn into willing and able mothers. - However, the few so far existing panarchists would have to become able and willing to overcome the territorial statist prejudices and fixed ideas in the heads of the presently overwhelming majority. - Here the technologies and media of the information revolution provide more and better avenues for enlightenment than were ever available before. These avenues can also provide better enlightenment tools and references than ever before, faster and much cheaper and easier ones, too. For instance, the first 17 volumes of my ON PANARCHY encyclopedia are out, on 17 microfiche (24 by 2011.) and there are several supplementary volumes in my series. - - If man refuses to take up the discussion of this alternative, first in the alternative media, then, indeed, he may wipe himself off the face of the Earth. He may thereby have proven himself to be after all not a rational and moral enough animal - and would thus have vacated this precious planet for other species and their development, who might do better. - - Exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities, based upon individual secessionism and associationism, is, so to speak, just the other side of the coin, which has so far largely been left out of the discussion of public affairs. Once a sufficient public discussion of the panarchistic options for everybody would occur, the victory of panarchism would be almost certain. The best arguments and facts are all on its side - as well as the very nature of man. - - We have all been and still are disfranchised regarding our most important individual vote, the one which would permit us to secede from any majority and to establish or join an exterritorially autonomous minority, whether statist or anarchistic, of our own individual choice and for the realization of our own ideals, independent of majority opinions or the opinions of presumed experts - but, at our own expense and risk only. - - In short, panarchism means governments and non-governmental societies by individual choices, everywhere (In every territory, not, e.g. in every house, farm, business or factory! - JZ, 25.9.11), but only for those, who choose them, rather than territorial impositions upon any non-criminal dissenters. - It offers a peace-promoting and just freedom framework for people as they are (apart from their remaining territorial prejudices) rather than they ought to be, in our opinion. - To anarchists it offers the fastest road to their kind of anarchism for themselves and it literally disarms their opponents and turns them at least into neutrals, if not outright allies, in an international federation, which has only one platform: full exterritorial autonomy for all who desire it for themselves, regardless of whatever internal policies they want to unanimously apply among their volunteers. Sufficient unanimity would remain assured by upholding individual secessionism. - - All kind of anarchies for all kind of anarchists AND all kinds of archies for all kinds of archists. Who could and seriously object against this non-compromising compromise, offering to each his own, the essence of justice? - - Is this a completely utopian and impractical approach? - Just consider the number of individual and panarchistic (exterritorial, autonomous and voluntary) choices we do already or still enjoy as Australians, in our private lives, compared with the relatively few extra ones, in the so-called public affairs, which we would still need to achieve the full freedom of panarchism. - - In other words, the remaining "public affairs" should become denationalized, privatized, individualized, collectivized, co-operatized options and choices for individuals and their voluntary groupings and communities. - No longer any imposed package deals! - Each to fill his "shopping cart" only with the goods and services that he really wants and is willing to pay for. - - Modern self-help, information and exchange network and the Internet do already provide somewhat analogous services to those of panarchies, though so far only on a much smaller and more limited scale. - - Consider also how many people, their lives, liberties, rights health and property and earnings are still and daily sacrificed on the altars of the new territorial "Gods", from "big brothers" to "democratically elected leaders", beginning perhaps with the estimated daily 40,000 child victims that could be saved or that could save themselves under panarchic liberties. (Numerous legal restrictions keep them starving, sick, ignorant, in poverty, orphaned without guardians or adoptive parents and tied to places where they can presently only vegetate or die in misery.) - - Atheism hasn't as yet conquered the world and made all religions harmless but religious freedom or tolerance did bring religious peace and gradual enlightenment wherever and to the extent that it was realized. - The same could be said for anarchism and panarchism in the political, economic and social spheres. - All people are not yet ready for some kind of anarchism. But, by all means give them the anarchist options. Just do not force any one of them upon any person. - - Most find it harder to give up statism than to give up e.g. smoking, drugs, alcohol, meat eating, over-eating or other habits. When you can successfully talk all people out of all such habits then you would have a chance to merely TALK them out of statism. But if you demonstrate to them, daily, in their neighborhood, how much better off you can be as a free person, THEN you have a good chance to get them to join you, sooner or later. Whether they understand the theoretical reasons for your successes or not, they would tend to imitate your actions. (You would, probably, become interested when you find out that e.g. your neighbor, as a member of his panarchy, does pay only voluntary taxes or voluntary contributions and no compulsory taxes at all, except those contributions which his voluntary membership requires of him. - Moreover, other panarchies might even require less in contributions, because they offer fewer services in their package deals. - JZ, 25.9.11.) - You can find the largest collection ever of texts, arguments and discussions on this subject in my PEACE PLANS series, all on microfiche. - (That has changed, greatly, in the meantime. Many more such references are now offered online than I have time and energy to at least skim through. - JZ, 25.9.11.) - - Anarchists and libertarians should be among the first to take an interest in this option and to discuss it in full, including all its historical precedents (personal law, capitulations, consular jurisdiction, extraterritorial treaties, the millet system, the cof or sof of the Berbers, governments in exile, autonomous trading posts), the large present analogies of religious freedom and freedom of the high seas and the remaining traces of personal law and of the original diplomatic immunity. The latter, alas, has been deteriorated, by more or less criminal governments, to a state of affairs where it grants immunity even for crimes with victims. At worst, as a “penalty”, the offenders are sent home! The practice under competing personal law systems rarely went that far away from justice. - - Under panarchism the State would not be destroyed or abolished but gradually competed out of existence, neglected, by-passed, boycotted or ignored. Right away it would be totally deprived only of its wrongful exclusive and coercive territorial powers. People are not the property or playthings of governments. Individuals should become free to hire or fire governments, as far as their own individual "public" affairs are concerned. Only that option would turn the remaining governments into servants rather than masters. - - Panarchists could fully utilize all the internal factions and movements and dissatisfactions and utilize all their centrifugal forces to "atomize" and "fragment" or split up all excessive State powers, i.e. all State powers that go beyond the consent of individual victims. They would aim at unity only among volunteers and realize the 1850 dictum of Caroline Chisholm: "Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name 'national'." - - Consensual, voluntary subordination would remain - but only as long as individuals found it tolerable for themselves. - - Each member of the remaining and only exterritorially autonomous States, intentional communities and free societies could engage in a "one man revolution" regarding his own affairs via individual secessionism. - No one would have any longer a licence to revolutionize or reform the affairs of any others against their will. - - Thus, with each free to live according to the own ideas, opinions, tastes, fashions and prejudices, the total amount of dissatisfaction, anger and frustration would be rapidly and continuously reduced. - - Panarchies would have the best possible safety valve against abuses and the best possible guaranties for the progress or their members. - - - Maybe, in the very far future a complete unanimity on public affairs would be achievable. I doubt it and am not prepared to hold my breath till then or do without full liberty for myself until all subscribe to the same ideal of full liberty for themselves. - - You can find P. E. dePuydt's original article on Panarchy in an English translation in 11pp of PP 16-18. (Now it is in several languages on That Nettlau summed it up approvingly in 1909 and Landauer reprinted this summary in 1920 and that the MACKAY GESELLSCHAFT discussed it in its publications, should be enough recommendation for any serious anarchist. - PIOT (Panarchy In Our Time - largely through extensive use of the micrographic and digital options), John Zube. - Slightly revised & supplemented again, JZ, 25.9.11, 8.2.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Panarchist Quotes from and Notes to TC 92, of 4 Jan. 81, by J. Zube, 4.7.89, 7pp, a belated response to Diogenes of Panarchia & Filthy Pierre 20, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Panarchist Replies to THE CONNECTION No., 135, 82, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - - - Some Panarchist Replies to THE CONNECTION, No. 137, 100, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Panarchistic Notes from and to THE CONNECTION, No. 99 of 2 Nov. 81, 7/89, 4pp, F. P., Foldvary, Taylor-Radford, Pyrrho, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Panarchistic Notions from John Zube, March 1996, 6pp: 161, in PP 1540. - John Zube,  Some Panarchistic Notions (1996) - "Panarchism means ‘laissez faire, laissez passer’ for governmental and non-governmental services and organizations, as many as different people and their groups desire, in any territory and right across all territories and their borders, world-wide."

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Remarks on the Panarchist Road to Peace and Freedom, 3/86, 17, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671, revised, 26, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Responses to THE CONNECTION 147 of Nov. 11,1987, with comments to Bob Black, Filthy Pierre, Lee Bonnifield, Jim Stumm, Brick Pillow, Tundra Wind, Bob Shea, Jackpine Savage, 67, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Short drafts on panarchism: Pan PEACE PLANS 671, extracts & short drafts

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Thoughts on How a Libertarian Society Would Tend to Reduce Crime, plan 241, in PEACE PLANS No. 15. Dec.71, 34, also in pages 71-73 in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507 & in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. (If one's indexing is incomplete & one's memory flawed, then one tends to repeat oneself unnecessarily. - JZ, 3.9.04.) - CRIME REDUCTION

ZUBE, JOHN, Some Thoughts on Panarchism, On anarchy for anarchists and States for statists or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams, revised, 22 points, 3/86, 31, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Suicide bombers are not only immoral but they can't even count! Let's teach them, to reduce terrorism! Letter sent on 3.10.05 to TSMH, but, probably, not published there. I rarely bother to write any letter to any newspaper, because there they do only VERY rarely get published. - But writing one's ideas down does at least clarify the own mind somewhat. - JZ, 7.10.11. - Today's SYDNEY MORNING HERALD reports that three suicide bombers in Bali murdered at least 26 innocent people, including 3 Australians. - Apparently, the suicide bombers are not only quite immoral in collectively blaming innocent people for whatever grudge they have against whole collectives, but they cannot count, or reckon, either. - How many suicide bomber candidates are there, as percentage of the whole population? I doubt that even in countries with many Islamic fanatics they would number more than one in a million. Well, in a few cases they might constitute 1 in 100 000. - Regarding the whole population of the world, their percentage would be even smaller. - Thus, apart from getting headlines and the anti-terrorist police busy, what do they "achieve"? - If, as in this instance, their average murder rate "success" is "only", let us say, 10 victims each, assuming that some of the wounded will still die, then they would each have murdered "only" 10 innocent people, - - while all those, whom they consider to be their enemies, come to 100 000 or even to one million for each of them. - Thus it is much more likely that they will wipe themselves out, with less and less surviving and still volunteering for such murderous and senseless endeavors, without making a significant impact upon the whole population of peoples whom they wrongly consider to be their collective enemies. - If each of them managed to murder a million people, then this would be quite another matter. In that case they would have to utilize ABC weapons of mass extermination. - Then their victims would not be quite so innocent, either, in most cases, - for how many of them had worked, sufficiently hard and long, for the abolition of all mass murder devices or even seriously cared about them, more than e.g. about a tune, a piece of clothing, a bit of chocolate or their dog or cat? How many of them would even have given a mere "…" (fuck) to abolish this threat??? - Thus, unless these suicide bombers become more "efficient" mass murderers, their whole activity is not only suicidal and murderous, i.e., quite immoral, but also quite senseless. They are being vastly out-bred by better people, not so murderously inclined. - In their way they would even contribute to improve the general gene pool of mankind, making themselves more and more scarce there, although, alas, only gradually. - If they want to make a suicidal but not murderous protest, they should rather starve or burn themselves to death in public, like some of the more decent suicide protestors have done. - All their murders, between them, do not even equal e.g. the deaths from traffic accidents or fires, from numerous diseases or the murders committed by criminal governments, or those accidental or negligent killings that happen in hospitals or that are due to the delayed licensing of life-saving medicines, etc., etc. - - Now, if they started to think, instead of killing themselves just to murder a few other and essentially and mostly quite innocent people, often even including children, they would have to examine: 1.) Is there really a case for collective responsibility? - There is only one rational and moral answer to that question for anybody who seriously examines it. - Do I have to state it? Each is only responsible for his own actions - or omissions. 2.) What can we rightfully demand from those, whom we consider to be our opponents? - Which rights and liberties should we demand and they concede to use? - There is only one rational and moral answer to that question, too, but most people have not yet seen and recognized it: All people do have the right to live their own lives in their own ways, at their own risk and expense. For all this can only be done on the bases of individual choice, exterritorial autonomy, voluntary organization and free experimentation for all kinds of minorities as well as for all majorities. - Once this liberty is achieved for all, what justified and rational complaints could remain for anyone? - None that I can see or think of. Can you? Then, pleased, do name them! - - - Two practical example, of all too many that could be quoted: 1.) If women or children are still systematically abused in one or the other country, as a result of one or the other religion, culture, ideology, hypothesis, custom or tradition, let them declare their independence, individually and in groups, and, to facilitate this, let them have the right to asylum in every other country. There, in their temporary or lasting refuges, they should be welcomed and helped by voluntary actions. - Moreover, then and there they should also become quite free to help themselves. As quite free human beings they could soon become very productive - and as such they would also be credit-worthy. - - Then the outside world, not only its governments, should also fully recognize their basic rights and their rights to exterritorial and personal law independence from systems that treat them as badly as they do, and from the systems of their host country, that they are unfamiliar with, and their right to make other system arrangements and conclude other contracts, covenants and institutions for themselves. Especially institutions to supply themselves with work and accommodation without depriving other people of such options. Also to establish all kinds of other self-help and protective institutions. - - 2.) I consider all conscripts and other victims of dictatorships to be abused people, too. We should welcome them with open arms, grant them asylum, even if they are illegal immigrants, and concede to them any rights and liberties they want for themselves in their own volunteer communities. - We, not only our "democratic" governments, should recognize their governments-in-exile and grant them full exterritorial autonomy, rather than continuing to recognize their victimizers as if they were rightful and representative governments. This recognition, as essential part of our rightful peace and war aims, would make us even militarily much more secure. - - Full monetary and financial freedom and other economic liberties, if adopted by these victims and conceded to them, could rapidly turn them from "problems" into welcome "assets", i.e., productive people and free traders, who would help us to increase our standard of living and be it only through greater division of labor. - Imagine xyz Hong Kong's in Australia! - Enough has already been published, even online, on the freedom and justice alternatives - but our "secret services" are so inefficient, ignorant and prejudiced, that they have not yet found these writings or understood them and helped to apply them - although this could greatly increase our military and economic strength and make international clashes much less likely, i.e., they have not even seen that an important national security aspect is involved and that our national security could thus be greatly strengthened. - PIOT, JZ, 3. 10. 05. - (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice.) See e.g. & ) - John Zube, P.O. Box 7052, Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia, Tel.: (02) 48 771 436. - - Reprint free and desired, in any medium. - ASYLUM, REFUGEES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, DESERTION, CONSCRIPTS, OPEN ARMS POLICY, RIGHTFUL WAR- & PEACE AIMS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, IMMIGRATION, SECRET SERVICES

ZUBE, JOHN, Summary of JZ's Peace Program in PEACE PLANS 61-63, page 104, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. See also a number of short versions in PP 16-18.

ZUBE, JOHN, TEN COMMANDMENTS. Notes in an attempt to supply a substitute for them, one with the panarchistic point of view. A mere flawed and all too long draft only, open for inspection, recasting and replacement by something much better. A first draft of 25.3.05, never finished. - Slightly revised: 7. & 9.10.11. Typically for me, it arrived at 33 points rather than 10. - (Compare my digitized anthology of over 130 PRIVATE human rights drafts, originally published in a smaller number, in my PEACE PLANS issues Nos. 589/590. – Online as part of a disc reproduced by C. B. at  - I would welcome attempts by anyone to supply better rules for our lives than the ancient Judaic and Christian "holy" ones. - By all means, turn this still very incomplete and flawed declaration draft into an as complete and perfect one as you can manage to achieve, or start from scratch, with your own and send your draft also to me. - I would like to put together a digitized anthology of all such drafts. Unless somebody else does it before me, probably better than I could. Quite a few other such drafts are already online. I have not searched there, for more of them, during the last few years. - JZ, 7.10.11. - Anyhow, what follows is my old draft, somewhat revised. - - - - - Pan Ten Com without anti-religious intolerance. - - - 26 3.05 version: - By John Zube, - - - Some points towards the tolerance, peace, freedom, justice and progress of panarchism. - Towards a panarchistic, alternative and new declaration of first principles, rights, duties and liberties and individual independence, individual choice, individual sovereignty individual secessionism and voluntary associationism. A declaration that might one day become as important for the future of all human beings as the “Ten Commandments” have been, for Jewish and Christian people or the Declaration of Independence for the American people. - - Not confined to 10 points only, nor to commands, either, but rather, to self-recognized personality traits and requirements, social interrelationship facts and self-chosen rights, liberties and duties. - - All these points, and others that might be added later, are interrelated aspects of individuals that are also exterritorially autonomous. - - If man is ever to develop from a beast over a primitive, a barbarian, a somewhat civilized being - to something somewhat close to divine, then in all these respects at least and, probably, in many others, he ought to become free to develop to his full potential. - - Merely a work in progress file, inviting and needing input from others. - - Let’s have a world-wide electronic discussion on this, an “Olympic games competition” with such ideas, struggling for the “gold medal” of wide to general recognition. - - This draft is only a preliminary exercise, still very far from a gold medal standard. - - I am not satisfied with it and, on my own, I can carry it only so far. - It needs YOUR input or competition! - Moreover, I get bored when talking or writing only to myself. - - “Let a 100 flowers bloom.”. - Display your thoughts on the subject. -  PIOT, John Zube, 26.3.05. - - - Contents: 1.) A confession. - 2.) Introduction - 3.) Main Part. - - - 1.) A confession: It took a recent reminder by Richard C.B. Johnsson (See the following note.) to induce me to try to eliminate my anti-religious bias, in my original draft, a bias, which is especially out of place here, precisely because tolerance was largely practised at first only in the sphere of religion. The task is here not to score points for atheism but for mutual tolerance, in words, ideas and actions. - Those religious people who are quite tolerant are likely to be among the pioneers for the introduction of panarchism. At least one should try not to get their heckles up against panarchism in other spheres by stepping on their sensitive toes, as I did, unthinkingly, in my first draft. - Probably one should not even try to panarchistically compete with their kinds of “Ten Commandments” at all, thereby exploiting the significance they have for Jewish and Christian religious people and, instead, give the alternative draft a quite different title. - - RCBJ: Is it really necessary to make all the atheist arguments? I believe not. Perhaps you could utilize all the panarchist historical religious cases in convincing religious people of the merits of panarchism. I'm afraid some of your references might turn them off. I suppose an atheist argument potentially turns more religious people off than an argument from a competing religion. - Your new panarchist Ten Commandments need not become more popular by comparing them to the old ones, or even by being connected to critique of those oldies. Perhaps there is no need to mention the existing Ten Commandments etc. at all. I believe it isn't necessary for you to rely on atheism to make your very strong case. In the name of tolerance, not only all isms would be accepted, but also all religious beliefs and other faiths. Surely this must have the potential of attracting more panarchist followers.” - I had to agree with him on that. – JZ, 21.3.05. - - - 2.) Introduction - - Really comprehensive moral or ethical consciousness seems to me to have been largely dead or asleep for many centuries. At least I haven’t found any or many such statements. Have you? A few conventional dogmas or a few pragmatic rules of proverbial wisdom are simply not enough as guidelines for all the disagreements arising between human beings. Millions still hark back to e.g. the ancient “Ten Commandments” and others to one or the other of the still flawed and incomplete “Bill of Rights” of a governments or an association of governments like the UN with its “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” of the UN of December 1948. Tolerance is still largely confined to religion and private opinions and actions. - A more comprehensive declaration of first moral principles, one including the extremely tolerant panarchist ideas and practices is long overdue. Or so I do believe. - Especially a restatement of tolerance - not only for different ideas and wording but also for tolerance actions, in every sphere – even in free competition with present governments. - Also one that indicates the framework that would make such a tolerance, experimental freedom or full minority autonomy possible. Full freedom of action & experimentation would require exterritorial autonomy. - - One could engage in almost endless philosophical arguments about the premises of such statements. Shelves of books and magazines are full of them. Alas, they haven’t even achieved sufficient agreement on basic terms like “rights” and “duties”. - I would rather like to see such a declaration expressed as concisely and convincingly as possible, leaving all doubts and arguments aside for the time being, or for comments to be added later. - “Thou shalt recognize them by their fruits!” - Is it possible to state the panarchist premises, aims and demands dogmatically, almost a-priori and yet sufficiently convincing? - They must also support each other rather than contradict each other, i.e., they must be consistent and correspond to human nature. - Could such a declaration become as significant as the American Declaration of Independence or the first Human Rights Declaration of the French Revolution? - - Confronted with governmental and private terrorism we need to come to an agreement on what to do about them, how to deprive them of their power and influence, how to prevent them from re-occurring. That requires realization what makes them grow and powerful in the first place. - Required is also a program on how to get from here to there. Merely shouting, in chorus, “water, water!” - when a house is burning, will not extinguish its flames. - - Mankind’s survival still is threatened by ABC mass murder devices in the hands of governments and terrorists. Neither of them is likely to provide us with a solution to the threats and risks they constitute. - - The points here advanced are, obviously, not “dictates” or commandments by a recognized expert but merely suggestions by an obscure individual, who does beg for better formulations by others – until he and most other somewhat rational people are so satisfied with them that they do come to subscribe to them, and act upon them, one by one. - - No attempt made here to state an as complete and privately drafted code of individual rights and liberties as could and should be offered now and has been attempted in numerous private drafts of this kind. (Compare the over 130 such drafts in PEACE PLANS issues 589/590. – They are online as part of a CD reproduced at - Many more are still sought, until this collection is complete, including improvement suggestions to all of them.) - - Here the attempt is directed mainly towards “first principles”, fundamental premises, freedom dogmas and declarations of faith and tolerance of individualists and libertarians but directed not only to such people but even to their enemies, as a kind of unilateral peace declaration towards them. From these premises and a sound definition of “rights”, all the other individual rights and liberties could be deducted. - - Panarchism, as my father said, at least tries to offer to each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams. - (The latest improved version of this, that I know of, comes to: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice! - JZ, 9.10.11.) However, expressing that idea in one sentence, when so much is involved and so many contrary views do exist still, is simply not enough. Nor is it enough to point out historical precedents or similar other short statements. - - The roots of territorial intolerance are long and deep and are connected with numerous popular errors, myths and prejudices – which ought to become systematically rooted out. I believe an alphabetized and encyclopaedic approach is needed for this – but also a long and sufficiently appealing statement or declaration of the premises, facts, principles and aims involved. This latter is here attempted, all too imperfectly still, crying out for improvements by others. - - I assume and believe to have demonstrated in my two peace books ( ) 1. that the main - although still very insufficiently recognized enemies of our times - have been and are secular territorial governments, all without sufficient ethics, self-control or moral external restraints and with all too large and ever increasing powers over their subjects and also movements that strive by any means towards such powers over dissenters - and 2. how panarchism would provide a sound foundation for the establishment of a lasting peace based upon freedom and justice. However, who reads long books on the subject, especially when they very much disagree with public opinion on the subject and were written by an obscure author? - - I do hold that working for a peaceful, free, just and tolerant society, perhaps made up of thousands of independent societies of volunteers, is not only a right but a duty. - You could partly discharge that duty already merely by adding or subtracting some words or ideas or arranging them differently, best, naturally, by providing your own and further advanced draft of such a declaration. - Please do always remember, when browsing through my flawed draft, that this is only a work in progress – however slow my progress is, in this and other projects - the work of only one man - and as such needs and expects corrections and input from all kinds of thoughtful and interested people. - I do intend to revise it from time to time, all the more frequently, the more input I get from others. - PIOT, John Zube, 23.3.05. (Panarchy In Our Time, or: To Each the Government or Non-Governmental Society of His or Her Dreams!) - - - 3.) The 33 draft points without comments, followed by these points with comments added. - - 1. All people are different and equal only with regard to their basic rights and liberties, to the extent that they are willing to claim them. All human beings are conceived and born - as well as develop - unequally – except with regard to their individual rights and liberties, which are, however, fully applicable only to beings rational enough to know and appreciate their individual rights and liberties. - 2. Be proud of your unique inequality. There is no one else quite like you on Earth or even in the whole universe. - 3. Since you are unique, your creative potential is also important, not only for yourself but for all other individuals. - 4. As a unique person and developing unique personality, learn all about your individual rights and liberties and your own potential – and about the opportunities they provide you with, if they are realized and respected, by you and enough other individuals. - 5. Learn also how these rights can be realized and protected and which basic rights tend to become self-realizing and helpful in the realization of the other rights, if only they are fully recognized and at least partly but rationally used. - 6. Work towards a comprehensive and clear code of individual rights and liberties. - 7. Give your own creative potential and that of all others as well, their maximum chance - by helping to establish an archive of and market for all ideas as well as a register of all large and minor special talents - in order to finally and fully bring demand and supply in these spheres together. - 8. Take up the responsibility for your own life and let others assume the responsibilities for their lives. - 9. Freedom of Association. Resort to self-help, voluntary cooperation, mutual aid or business or community contracts - in every sphere. - 10. Recognize and respect the humanity in all others, who act peacefully, regardless of their color, religion, convictions and diverse non-aggressive actions. - 11. You need not love your neighbor or you enemy but you do owe him justice. - 12. Hold people only individually responsible for their own aggressive actions, never collectively for the wrongful actions of others, even if they do share one or the other common trait with the others. - 13. Do not initiate violence. Commit no aggression against any individual rights and liberties. Use force only defensively – to uphold individual rights and liberties. - 14. Tolerate freedom of action when it is tolerantly and peacefully practised, i.e. exterritorially and among volunteers only. - Do not tolerate arbitrary actions, intolerantly practised by anyone, contrary to the rights and liberties of others. - Tolerance only for the tolerant. Intolerance towards the intolerant. - 15. Allow the “invisible hand” (Adam Smith) to operate and the natural law, order and harmony (Bastiat), the “spontaneous order” (Hayek) to develop and act, relying on natural laws rather than upon human and territorial constitutions, legislation and jurisdiction. - 16. Practise “Laissez-faire, laissez passer” with the meaning: Let people produce and exchange, to the fullest, even concerning what others consider to be “governmental services”, via alternative or parallel institutions, societies and communities formed by volunteers, even by those volunteers, who are ideological opponents of a laissez faire economy. - 17. Determine your own friends and secret allies and interact freely with them, distinguishing your real enemies from those, which only your own government says that they are your enemies. - Even make your own separate and just peace treaties with them, over the heads of your territorial governments, who may declare them, collectively, to be your enemies. - 18. Do not commit any murder, least of all prepare for and commit any mass murders. But, precisely because of this rule you should try to execute any tyrant, given the chance to do so. - Others you may kill only in self-defence. - 19. Expect good results from self-interest rather than from benevolence, in most cases. Which also means: from voluntary rather than compulsory actions. - 20. Take the long-term view, rather than being only short-term opportunistic. – 21. Try to universalize your maxims and judge only then, whether they would still make sense or lead to contradictions. (Categorical Imperative) - 22. Freedom of Contract in all spheres. - 23. Freedom of Trade. - 24. Full Monetary and Financial Freedom. - 25. Become not only a responsible individual but a panarchist, too: i.e., let other practise their individuality, together with like-minded people. - 26. Non-initiation of force. Non-Aggression, Non-intervention, Voluntarism, Exterritorial Autonomy. - 27. Sovereignty is never to be placed into the hands of a few, deciding the fate of all others, without these members or subjects remaining free to secede and to join or establish other societies and communities for themselves, that are only exterritorially autonomous. (Panarchies or polyarchies.) Least of all is the power over the survival of mankind, via decision-making on WMDs, to be placed into a few hands. Such power does not belong into anyone’s hands. - 28. Hold no other ism above panarchism. - 29. Panarchism means: You may choose or reject, subscribe to, advocate and practise any ism, and follow any God, leader, prophet or guru as your own and supposedly ideal guide and respect his or her foremost writings – as long as you do so tolerantly, i.e., only at your own risk and expense and of those, who think or feel like you do. - Consequently, all power is in future to be limited to voluntary subjects and their non-territorial associations, communities or corporations. - 30. International Laws and Federations. Different international law codes and federations may be adopted, by groups of panarchies, from those, which territorial governments have agreed upon between themselves. - 31. Freedom of Movement Across all Territorial Borders. - 32. Property, Private and Property in Private or Cooperative Real Estate Versus Collective Property Claims to whole Territories. - 33. Families: Regarding the smallest and quite natural voluntary associations: Honor and respect your father and mother, at least as well as other people – to the extent that they deserve this, as most of them do. Respect the rights of your children and your grandchildren, also those of your siblings, no matter how foolish they may still be. - - P.S.: Each of these rights and duties is claimed only for those, who subscribe to them. Individuals may refuse to claim and practise them, as far as their own affairs are concerned. But they may come to claim them at any time once they do realize their rightfulness and value. For some explanations and details see the comments added to these points below. - - - 1. All people are different and equal only with regard to their basic rights and liberties, to the extent that they are willing to claim them. - All human beings are conceived and born - as well as develop - unequally – except with regard to their individual rights and liberties, which are, however, fully applicable only to beings rational enough to know and appreciate their individual rights and liberties. - All men are different!” – Heinrich Nienkamp, “Fuersten ohne Krone”, 1916, 393 S., micro-fiched in PEACE PLANS No. 1043. - Not only in our external appearances, skin color, faces, eyes, voices and fingerprints do we differ greatly but, according to H. J. Eysenck, “The Inequality of Man”, 1973 ff, we do so even more in our internal organs. - Add to this the mental and character traits: The psychologist Gordon Allport compiled a list of 17,953 characteristics from Webster’s Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary may contain even more. - Freedom of press and speech make no sense for a baby. - But a right not to be murdered is already being claimed, at least by some people, for the unborn. - Seeing that this question is still so controversial, it is obviously wrong to force the antagonists to live in the same community under the same laws, which at least one side will strongly oppose. Thus the “pro-choice” and the “pro-life” people should form their own communities, with full exterritorial autonomy and so should all those, who would leave such decisions to the parents. We are still very far from the same degree of consensus on this that has been achieved regarding the killing of born babies. - - - 2. Be proud of your unique inequality. - There is no one else quite like you on Earth or even in the whole universe. - Our individual uniqueness should teach us self-respect or pride. From self-respect and pride follows, logically, for rational beings, respect at least for the equal rights and liberties of the other unique individuals, to the extent that they do claim them, as they are entitled to, by their very nature. - - - 3. Since you are unique, your creative potential is also very important, not only for yourself but for all other individuals. - The upper limits of our creative potential has been much less explored than the upper limits of our physical potential e.g. by sports records. In the limited sphere of sensible suggestion box schemes in factories and business enterprises already an average of over 350 improvement suggestions per annum have been achieved per employee. That was years ago and the aim was to double this achievement. About 90 % of the suggestions were useful enough to be accepted and rewarded. In the social sciences about 99 % of all positive suggestions are likely to be rejected today – because territorial governments are sitting in judgment over them – if they bother to read them at all and do not simply throw them away. Often they do not even have the courtesy to reply. One might as well suggest to the Pope to become a Protestant, an Atheist or to join the Mafia. - Any car or house is the embodiment of many thousands of creative ideas of thousands of people, over many years. - As Leonard E. Read has demonstrated, in two of his essays, even a mere pencil and a can of beans do involve the creative contributions of millions of people, from all over the world, over many generations. - One of his most significant ideas was thus expressed very shortly: “Release all creative energies!” - Territorial governments are more likely to release mass murderous and destructive energies. - Imagine the consequences if creative potential of 6 billion people became released one day, not only e.g. in the arts, in cooking and in fashions. - An upper limit must exist for it, because we cannot, in most cases, sit down for several hours every day, at work or after work, pondering and writing down improvement suggestions. We do have to cope with the ordinary jobs of the day and the activities of ordinary living. - With this potential fully released and utilized most of our presently remaining problems could, probably, be solved very rapidly, rightfully and efficiently. - - - 4. As a unique person and developing unique personality, learn all about your individual rights and liberties and your own potential and about the opportunities they provide you with, if they are realized and respected, by you and enough other individuals. - - From the knowledge of and recognition of individual rights and liberties follows sufficient respect for them to lead to tolerance for all actions that do respect individual rights and liberties, however much one may disagree with actions committed within their framework. - - - 5. Learn also how these rights can be realized and protected and which basic rights tend to become self-realizing & helpful in the realization of the other rights, if only they are fully recognized and at least partly but rationally used. - - For instance, the right to experiment at the own risk and expense, and to engage in different contracts and to join – or leave associations and the right to armed self-defence are involved here and the right to form or participate in rightful policing and defence organizations to uphold these rights. - Likewise, the right of an exclusive vote on the own affairs and the right to voluntary membership only, which includes the right to disassociate oneself from others, even from public affairs associations, communities and societies that one had once chosen for oneself. No wrongful or doubtful system is to become imposed upon any dissenters. - - - 6. Work towards a comprehensive and clear code of individual rights and liberties. Recognition of the basic rights of others, to the extent that they are claimed by them, constitutes a close enough tie between all free communities and societies of volunteers, all doing their own things for or to themselves only. - - Already a single word or clause inserted or crossed out by you could make much of a difference. - Compare the difference that was made in human rights declarations when the formula: do not do harm to other people was replaced by: do not do wrong to other people. - I do admire how many Jewish scholars worked over centuries to develop and perfect their Talmud as much as they could. They took their beliefs and convictions serious – even if they did not always arrive at what all others would consider to be rational conclusions, e.g. with their Kabala. – If liberty lovers took their declarations of rights and liberties as serious … - - From the recognition of individual rights and liberties follows sufficient respect for them to lead to tolerance for all actions that do respect individual rights and liberties, however much one does disagree with the actions of others, which were taken within this framework. - - - 7. Give your own creative potential and that of all others as well, their maximum chance – by helping to establish an archive of and market for all ideas, as well as a register of all great and minor special talents – in order to finally and fully bring demand and supply in these spheres together. - - Their frequent neglect has so far been mankind’s greatest waste, to the disadvantage not only of their creators and these talents but of everyone on Earth. In this sphere centralization can be very productive rather than counter-productive. (By now, on large discs, such an archive could become duplicated many times, and very cheaply for preservation purposes and for sales.) - This aspect of freedom of expression and information and of a free market has been all too much neglected so far. People speak glibly of “the free market of ideas and talents” as it if were already fully realized. No single idea or talent, that might become important, should remain unknown and neglected any longer. - This is a necessary counter-part required to the freedom of action that panarchism introduces in the political, economic and social spheres. Mass media and special periodicals do promote only some ideas and talents, occasionally, not all of them, continuously and world-wide. That applies also to the universities. Not even the Internet does, so far. Neither does so systematically, as systematically as the patent and copyrights laws, in their spheres, try to do, vainly, through their legalized monopolies. I offer two German and two English books on this subject, in my Peace Plans series, on microfiche or digitized. Apart from goods and services needed for mere survival, such markets are the most important free markets – and yet they remain still neglected by most people considering themselves to be free marketeers. - - - 8. Take up the responsibility for your own life and let others assume the responsibilities for their lives. - - Accept responsibility for your own life – in all its spheres. Do not delegate fundamental responsibilities to majorities of others or to politicians, bureaucrats or other presumed experts. If you do hold, that you must delegate, then make sure that you do so individually and quite freely, i.e., make sure that your collectives, leaders and experts are and remain those of your own individual choice, not the preferences of other people, their majorities or special interest groups, with whom you disagree to a large extent. - There exists, obviously, no sufficiently liberating, just and peace-promoting territorial government. It has probably never existed in the past and is unlikely to come ever come into existence. All the wrongs and disadvantages of territorial rule see to that. Even Switzerland denies exterritorial autonomy and experimental freedom to its dissenting minorities. On the contrary, most territorial governments tend to be great war machines, for international and civil wars and their nature assures that wrongful wars and civil wars will occur, will last all too long, and cost much in blood and destruction - and this only rarely for any rightful and sensible purpose. Or can you quote any quite rightful war and peace aims policy by any territorial government? Even neutrality is not a quite rightful position to take towards totalitarian regimes. Most territorial governments do also promote violent revolutions and terrorism – through their inherent despotism over dissenters, who are at most allowed to protest but not left free to act upon their convictions in any sphere that a territorial government has monopolized. - With no such government being available and none of the planned, constitutional and supposedly sufficiently limited and ideal - but still territorial governments - having been established as yet, or being acceptable to all people on Earth, seeing their present convictions, opinions and faiths, we ourselves are responsible for our own actions in this sphere, including the establishment and maintenance of genuinely liberating, just and peaceful communities. Only communities of volunteers can be such communities. Even they will need a prolonged competition before most to all of them will be sufficiently improved. Such a competition can only be achieved on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for all of them. - - Whether a God is on our side in such an endeavor and if so, what his commands and requirements are, is still a hotly contested between those who are religiously inclined and those who are not. I will not attempt to speculate on this subject here. Neither the faithful nor the unfaithful do fully agree with each other. To leave all of them to their faiths or to their lack of faith is, obviously, one of the basic requirements for peace, freedom and justice on Earth and it is to be regretted that full religious liberty or religious tolerance has not yet been firmly established everywhere. Wherever it was – at least this motive for war, revolution, civil war and terrorism was abolished. - - It should by now have become obvious that territorial governments, in their “public affairs” do wrongly and extensively infringe upon our private lives and that politicians only rarely make rightful decisions on our behalf, in the political, economic and social spheres, fully in agreement with our convictions and the convictions of all of our fellow citizens, i.e., that they are not secular and benevolent Gods. Politicians represent primarily only themselves and only secondarily their own followers. All the rest are “represented” only via deceptions and delusions and in reality more or less exploited and oppressed, if not even killed in the pursuit of territorial, coercive, centralized and wrongful governmental “policies”. Human sacrifices are far from having being abolished as yet. They have been institutionalized by “national governments”. - Therefore, as free, just and therefore peaceful societies as we envision and desire for ourselves, must not leave any important decision-making and choices to anyone else but the individuals involved. Their most important “vote” is that on their membership in one or the other of peacefully competing and tolerant societies and communities. - No politician or bureaucrat should be allowed to hold our fate in his hand – unless we have, individually, authorized him to do this and even then only as long only as we do so. - In every sphere where individuals have been free quite outstanding results have been achieved or at least they got by, to their own satisfaction. Only in the sphere of territorial politics are massive under-achievements - up to man-made catastrophes - the rule rather than the exception. - - Our communities must be genuine not false pretence communities. Thus they must have voluntary members and subordination only, just like any private club or organization. Moreover, they must be limited to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, and not be merely modern versions of territorial “absolutism”, formerly impersonated by absolute monarchs – who had less powers, manpower and revenues at their disposal than many parliaments, prime ministers and ministers have now. - All of these communities of volunteers must be freely and competitively established and maintained. Individuals must become free to chose among all of them, and also remain free to disassociate themselves from the any of their former choice, whenever they become dissatisfied with it, like they do now with any business, club or sect. - Consumer sovereignty towards all communities, free enterprise for them as well as a free market for the offers of their services to their potential customers - are obvious basic requirements for such competing communities, “governments”, panarchies or polyarchies. - - Self-supporting and selfish actions, within one’s individual rights, are not only rightful but obligatory, for the others are not our slaves. - Altruistic actions are rightful but not obligatory, as a rule, except towards one’s own dependents and within an altruistic community that one has chosen for oneself. - Only upholding the individual rights and liberties of others can be a general duty, a complementary one to the primary duty of upholding one’s own. - Among the rightful, rational and efficient alternatives to altruistic and charitable arrangements are e.g. competitive insurance and credit institutions, which should not be confined to their presently government-licensed and regulated activities. - Each must come to think and act, as far as possible, for himself and take responsibility for his actions and his diverse choices. (Free after Margaret Thatcher in “Statecraft”, page 468.) - Individual choices should be maximized rather than minimized. Self-ownership is the primary property. Self-determination and genuine self-government follow from it. You own yourself and are to be the master of your own life and fate, as far as this is humanly possible. - Nobody is good enough to govern your peaceful and productive activities without your consent. - “… no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." - Abraham Lincoln. - (Thus, why did he conduct the fight for unification, rather than for secession of all white and of all black dissenters?) - - "Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent." - Locke, Treatise on Civil Government, ii, par. 95. - Then why taxation and imposed laws?) - -  “Abstain from beans!” (Proverb among the ancient Greeks, referring to their voting practice.) - Do not vote on the affairs of others, who are not members of your own voluntary community. In the own volunteer community vote only if any such voting is still traditional or customary there. - Collective decision-making (voting and representation, if still continued) is to be confined to correspondingly organized communities of volunteers only. - - Make a moral and rational use of all your talents, resources and opportunities in order to mentally, physically, economically and socially advance yourself to the limits of your potential, always growing in knowledge, wisdom and skills, towards the realization of your own ideals. - - “Take full responsibility for your actions.” – If you set off a mass extermination device then your own death or life-long slavery cannot possibly make up for your thousands to millions of victims. - - The primary duty is: Do not engage in irresponsible actions in the first place. - E.g.: All those with their fingers on nuclear buttons are not to be trusted. They are of such a low moral standard that almost anything can be expected from them except quite rightful actions. – I believe that they should fall under the tyrannicide duty, for they do hold the “Sword of Damocles” over all of us - under the false pretence of protecting us. - - Various doubtful suggestions on individual responsibility and duties have been made. For instance the following: a) “Thou shalt create!” - This might be confined to the duty to become as non-parasitic and self-supporting via free production and exchange as one can be and to the duty to help establish free, peaceful, just and progressive societies. Rather adopt the following advice: “Release all creative energies.” (Leonard E. Read) - b) “Thou shall seek knowledge!” - Can that obligation go beyond the knowledge sufficient to become self-supporting and self-responsible and the knowledge and appreciation of the basic rights and liberties of every peaceful human being? - c) “Thou shalt know thyself!” - There is hardly a duty to forever study human nature, e.g. either through psychology or psychiatry or medicine. - But at least you should come to know the basic rights and liberties of yourself and, thereby, of other individuals: “Thou shalt” explore the limits of human liberty, rights and tolerance at least to the extent of exploring the limits of tolerance for tolerant actions, instead of leaving such a job merely to “scriptures”, “the law”, a God, Big Brother, a Supreme Court, philosophy, preachers, proverbial wisdom, public opinion or “political scientists”. - d) “You gotta Believe. Have hope, passion and confidence that valuable change can and does happen because individuals take bold initiative!” – Individuals, if they really try and do make use of all their options, including e.g. all or some alternative media options, can make a difference. Sometimes, they can even make all the difference. - Act on the assumption that your actions might, especially if well pondered and chosen, among hundreds to thousands of conventional paths and “actions”, which were, perhaps, never sufficiently publicized, examined, discussed and compared with each other for their effectiveness. – JZ, 12.1.05. - e) “Look after the well-being of your mind and body!” –  But do not make this a full-time occupation! - f) “Challenge Authority. Don't be afraid to question authority. Authority should be earned, not appointed. The ‘experts’ are often proven wrong. (They used to believe that the earth was flat!) You don't have to be an expert to have a valuable opinion or to speak out on an issue.” - Rather: Become an authority yourself – or select your own authority for your own affairs. Some wrongly believe that attacking policemen and soldiers would be rightful, forgetting that these, too, are, mostly, more victims than victimizers of the territorialist system. – Become only ethically, rationally and responsibly disobedient. - g) “Know the System. The system perpetuates itself. … “ - ? - Most people are still unaware that most of “the system” or “the establishment” is largely characterized by its territorial nature, principles, practices and institutions. (Territorial monopolies, constitutions, laws, jurisdictions, police and defence forces, territorial economic and social systems, with compulsory membership or subjugation and exploitation.) There are exterritorial alternatives to them, with an even longer history and tradition, which have, so far, been largely ignored. - - - 9. Freedom of Association. - Resort to self-help and voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, insurance, business or community contracts - in every sphere. - Compare 30. - Everyone has the right to form, join or dissociate from - any organization of his choice. He may initiate or participate in tolerant experiments in the economic or social spheres, provided that these experiments are undertaken only by volunteers and at their own expense and risk. The right to dissociate applies to all organizations, including trade unions, armed forces and governments. (Free after the AIR Declaration.) - Establishing free, just and peaceful societies and communities, too, is a self-help job for individuals and their voluntary groups and is also, probably, the highest duty for any moral and rational being. (Free after Immanuel Kant.) - Public affairs are individual responsibilities, too, and ought to be subject to individual choices, and voluntary collaboration, as far as this can be realized and this freedom goes much further than most people did so far realize. - The exterritorial alternative to territorialism was so far quite insufficiently considered even by what passes now as “political science”, “economics”, “history” and “sociology”, although it is as close an alternative to territorialism as are both sides of a coin. - The rightfulness, liberty and practicability of this approach goes much further than most people have realized so far – but only within the panarchistic framework for genuine communities, those of volunteers, without any territorial monopoly or within a complete free market system, one that covers all spheres. - All interactions to be only voluntary, consensual, tolerant, contractual, i.e., peaceful and just. - In the terms of Don Werkheiser, they are to be “mutual convenience” rather than “single convenience” relationships. - Any form of progress, conservation, conservatism or reaction is to become tolerated – provided only that is supported by volunteers - among themselves only, and only at their own risk and expense. - If someone wants to test nuclear weapons in your vicinity or merely store them there or build a nuclear reactor next door to you, or so close that its failure could still greatly harm you, then, obvious limits for tolerance are indicated. - Even the choice of governments, communities and societies is to become up to individuals, not to any territorial collective. In the latter case all too often the least informed, most prejudiced and most misled people win out – and their “great leaders”. - The powers of territorial governments can be expanded beyond any moral and rational limits and have been. From their already inherently totalitarian territorial feature they tend to go towards totalitarianism in all other spheres. - The powers of exterritorial governments or administrations ones are naturally self-limiting, via voluntary membership, individual disassociations, exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, as well as by the right and freedom to resist wrongful actions and to organize, train and arm oneself for successful resistance against wrongful actions. Their failures will then tend not to be continued for years to decades but, instead, lead to rapid losses of members, supporters and investors, just like with any failed business enterprise. - Most competing governments are bound to fail, fast, due to their all too flawed programs and measures. On the other hand, the better and good ones are bound to thrive and drive out the bad and inferior ones – helped greatly by unlimited publicity. Panarchies and Polyarchies etc. would be daily, even hourly rated in the mass media, like e.g. sports teams, share companies and artistic performances are now. - The victims of mass unemployment, deflations, inflations, stagflations and general economic crises would have the right and the opportunity to undertake any kind of economic self-help steps, and to form any kind of organization to abolish these conditions among themselves, regardless of the enactments of present territorial governments, the decisions of their courts and the opinions of the predominant experts, simply as part of their freedom of action and freedom to experiment. They would no longer be obliged to wait for further decades until government and presumed experts finally discover the real solutions in this sphere or can be persuaded to adopt them. - So far all territorial governments have managed to ignore the already existing and published solutions to these social problems - for many decades. Instead, they are busy creating new problems, e.g. they are promoting extensive drug production and distribution by their very methods of trying to interdict the use of drugs. Thus they turned drug production and distribution into a very profitable business. - Ask also: How many dictatorships have they supported with funds arms and training for their armed forces and by their foreign policies? - The same self-help rights and liberties by which economic crises could be overcome apply to the victims of any form of territorially imposed despotism, war, civil war, revolutions or terrorism. - That territorial governments do not know how to effectively avoid or defeat them they have demonstrated for all too long. The adoption of the tolerant and voluntaristic institutions of diverse panarchies, polyarchies or multiple governance or societal systems will be the major step to achieve solutions as fast as possible, just like experimental freedom does in the natural sciences and in technology, as well as in sports and in the arts. - Imposed territorial States and societies prevent or delay more solutions than they provide. Moreover, their “solutions” tend to create more problems than they do solve. - - - 10. Recognize and respect the humanity in all others, who act peacefully, regardless of their color, religion, convictions and diverse non-aggressive actions. - - While all human beings are not literally brothers and sisters, all are, biologically, closely related to each other and are, thus, not at all born enemies of each other, however different they and their peaceful individual preferences may be. - All their inherited differences are largely determined only by a small fraction of their numerous genes. Most genes they have still in common, even with other mammals, especially the large apes. - Value and support your own rights and liberties and those of others. - As far as possible, rightful and dutiful, treat others as you wish to be treated. - Replace all single-convenience relationships by mutual convenience relationships. (Don Werkheiser.) - “Be honest and truthful at all times”, except when you have to lie in order to uphold the genuine rights, liberties or the well-being of someone. - Don’t be honest and truthful towards robbers and tribute collectors! They are not entitled to honesty from you. - “Do what you believe to be right.” – But always only at your own risk and expense. Mere belief, faith or conviction are not sufficient when it comes to basic rights. These should be studied, sufficiently, not ignored like e.g. my compilation of about 130 private human rights drafts, in PEACE PLANS 589/590, was, so far, for many years, even by the libertarian and anarchist movements. - - - 11. You need not love your neighbor or you enemy but you do owe them justice. - Justice in the meaning of: ”To each his own!” Loving one’s real enemy goes against human nature. But being fair and just - i.e., respecting the individual rights even of all those peaceful people, whom only the own territorial government and demagogic mass media declare to be “enemies” - is obligatory and should lead to corresponding disobedience towards the “own” aggressive government and to individual and group secessions from it - if it does not rapidly enough change its tune. - - - 12. Hold people only individually responsible for their own aggressive actions, never collectively for the wrongful actions of others, even if they do share one or the other common trait with these others. - All other red-heads are not responsible for the actions of the one red-head who injured you. - Alas, not only the enemy regime but also the “own” government still proceeds largely on the “principle” of “collective guilt” or “collective responsibility”. - This “principle” and practice was never completely rejected but rather upheld in the conventional Judaic and Christian Ten Commandments and, probably, in other “holy writings”. - Nor was “collective responsibility” clearly and consistently enough rejected, in “political science”, “moral philosophy”, jurisdiction, police and military science and practices. Thus there are still, possibly, more innocents condemned, persecuted and murdered than really guilty persons are punished or killed. By the governmental stockpiling of WMDs (ABC mass murder devices) all of us are under the threat of mass murder or mass extermination - only the date of it is still not determined. - Thereby, and quite artificially and unnecessarily, many enemies are created, who are outraged by this injustice. You do not have to love your enemies – but you still owe them justice. Even more so do you owe justice to innocent people. - Blockading a whole country – leads to deaths of innocents by starvation and disease. - Withholding milk from insurrectionist villages, as happened even in Israel, murders babies. It does not hit the leaders and their faithful followers but, rather, their victims and innocents. - Bombing innocent civilians does not execute the guilty decision-makers. Indiscriminate air raids harm the victims of the “great” leaders more than these leaders. - Do not hold any people collectively responsible - unless they really are, morally, equally guilty. - Territorialist notions and compulsory membership practices are usually closely interlinked with notions and practices of “collective responsibility”. - - - 13. Do not initiate violence. Commit no aggression against any individual rights and liberties. - Use force only defensively – to uphold individual rights and liberties. - - From the recognition of individual rights and liberties follows sufficient respect for them to lead to tolerance for all actions that do respect individual rights and liberties, however much one does disagree with actions committed within their framework. - Only criminals and aggressors with victims may be compelled, e.g., to abstain from victimizing actions and to do the right thing instead, even if these people have to be injured or killed in the process, when necessary, while they persist and resist. Obviously, a boy, only stealing e.g. some apples, is not to be shot at. - - The optimal protection of individual rights and liberties could, probably, be provided by local militias of volunteers who are sworn-in to defend nothing but genuine individual rights and liberties and are, correspondingly, armed, trained, organized, motivated and led. - - -14. Tolerate freedom of action when it is tolerantly and peacefully practised, i.e. exterritorially and among volunteers only. - Do not tolerate arbitrary actions, intolerantly practised by anyone, contrary to the rights and liberties of others. - Tolerance only for the tolerant. Intolerance towards the intolerant. - - Be tolerant, not only towards competing points of view but also towards different actions that you may not favor yourself but which are peacefully and tolerantly practised only among those believing in them. - Ignore how different they are and act, in their own voluntary associations, within their own systems. Leave them to their own devices, methods and games of living. Live and let live. - Do not obstruct any rightful and voluntary alternatives, i.e., those, which do not restrict the voluntary actions of others in their own affairs. - However, there is no obligation to be tolerant towards intolerant people. On the contrary: They may be forcefully resisted, restrained and forced to indemnify their victims. - All are to enjoy the benefits of tolerance for tolerant actions, not only in the religious and private matters but also in the political, economic and social spheres as well. This is, largely, made possible only by voluntary communities and societies or “competing governments”, which are only exterritorially autonomous (panarchies, in a general panarchist framework, called “panarchism”), i.e., they are not impositions upon dissenters, like all territorial States are. - This freedom of action includes freedom to experiment, among volunteers, in the political, economic and social spheres, under personal laws, in exterritorially autonomous communities, societies and “States”. They may be formally organized like any of the present territorial States are - but will possess neither a territorial monopoly nor involuntary members and subjects (criminals and aggressors excepted). Thus they will not be States or governments in the currently common meaning. - Mere freedom of information, freedom of expression and collectivists territorial decision-making and representation are not enough to safeguard individual rights and liberties. Freedom of action is required, too, for anyone, who is peaceful, creative, productive and involved only with his own affairs, i.e., who is not an active meddler with the affairs of others, legally or otherwise, and thus a real criminal or aggressor with victims. Respect, or at least tolerate, any faith, worship conviction, ism, ideal, publication, practice and institutionalization among its believers, including their voluntary victims, but do not tolerate the imposition of any of them upon any peaceful dissenters, least of all any territorial imposition. - Always uphold individual and group secessionism, as opposed to territorial and collective secessionism that tries to set up merely new, although smaller, territorial monopolies. “Thou shalt not oppress!”- Only in the meaning: Thou shalt not interfere with the free and responsible actions of others or those actions of others undertaken only at their own risk and expense. - - Any imposed rather than chosen unity is a weakness rather than a strength. It is destructive rather than creative. It is wrong, rather than rightful. - Uniforms turn you into targets for the supposed enemies, who might be your secret allies. Americans are now collective responsibility targets for terrorists only as members of a territorial State, with whose internal and external policies they may thoroughly disagree. - Any form of progress, conservation or reaction that is supported by volunteers - among themselves. - - - 15. Allow theinvisible hand” (Adam Smith) to operate and the natural law, order and harmony (Frederic Bastiat), thespontaneous order” (F. A. Hayek) to develop, and act, relying on natural laws rather than upon human and territorial constitutions, legislation and jurisdiction. - - The latter three are to applicable only within genuine communities, i.e. those with voluntary members only and not claiming any territorial monopoly. - Legislators attempt to turn humans into angels and play at being gods, without the capacity to do so. - The history of “positive” legislation is a history of endlessly repeated failures, from which the legislators refuse to learn. - - - 16. Practise “Laissez-faire, laissez passer” with the meaning: Let people produce and exchange, to the fullest, even concerning what others consider to be “governmental services”, via alternative or parallel institutions, societies and communities formed by volunteers, even by those volunteers, who are ideological opponents of a laissez faire economy. - - In other words: Let a genuinely free market, consumer sovereignty, free enterprise and competition as well as voluntary cooperation prevail even in this “public services” sphere. - This means, among many other things: Capitalistic as well as socialistic acts - but only among consenting adults. Any degree of statism – but for statists only and any kind of anarchy or libertarianism – but for their voluntary adherents only. - “Private vices are no crimes.” – Lysander Spooner. - However, production of and trade in mass murder devices is quite another matter. They are threats to all peaceful lives, communities, enterprises, and free exchanges. - - - 17. Determine your own friends and secret allies and interact freely with them, distinguish your real enemies from those whom only your own government declares to be your enemies. - Make separate and just peace treaties with them, over the heads of “your” present government. - Why are even elected presidents like Bush so widely hated? Because they dared to make e.g. war and peace decisions for others, who strongly disagreed with him. - War- and peace-decision making for all people in a country should not be a monopoly for top government officials. Usurpation of this function and attempts to maintain such a monopoly should automatically disqualify them. - International treaty making is, likewise, not a rightful monopoly for politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats. - Disarmament with regard to quite wrongful mass murder devices is a job not for a few government inspectors but for all adult people. Only they can carry it out effectively – and they ought to sufficiently prepare themselves for this job. - Turn, as far as possible, all those, who are, collectively, supposed to be or declared to be your enemies - into allies or neutrals, by obviously respecting their individual rights and liberties and by trying to liberate them rather than capture, imprison or even kill them indiscriminately, just because their territorial regime has no better use for them than to uniform, arm, train, mislead and send them to fight against you. - If the involuntary subjects of foreign and aggressive regimes are not already, as captive nations, minorities or individuals, your secret allies, then, by timely just actions and public declarations of your rightful war and peace aims, you could and should turn many to most of them, including the conscripts and many of the volunteers, into rightful insurrectionists against their aggressive government or into defectors from their territorially imposed governments, either becoming your allies or neutrals, under a separate peace treaty between you and them. An enemy regime conscripting its subjects, arming, training and sending them against you does not automatically turn all of them into your real enemies but, rather, into your secret allies. - Being quite free, just and optional societies, individually chosen and maintained, perhaps initially only as competing governments in exile, they could make the subjects and victims of territorial governments much more just, safe, honorable, liberating and prosperous offers than their present and more or less despotic territorial regimes could. Most foreign subjects of dictators are still, at least potentially, our secret allies, or at least neutrals and ought to be treated as such. They, too, like us, do mostly prefer free societies, corresponding to their own ideals, to their territorially imposed totalitarian regimes or dictatorships. - By declaring all inhabitants of foreign territories to be your enemies and treating them as such, territorial government have led us into total wars and even towards nuclear wars. - Panarchists are natural cosmopolites and, as such, have friends and allies everywhere. - - - 18. Do not commit any murder, least of all prepare for and commit any mass murders. But, precisely because of this, you should try to execute any tyrant, given the chance to do so. Others you may kill only in self-defence. - - Whatever you dislike or hate - you should not outlaw or destroy but, rather, try to ignore, criticize and compete out of existence, to the fullest extent that this is possible, while respecting the free enterprise and consumer sovereignty of those, who made other choices than you would, in their public affairs and voluntary communities. - Tyrannicide and the destruction of all mass murder devices belong to the exceptions to this rule. Since tyranny does not give you and others free choice, the execution of tyrants is warranted by their very nature. However, not every crackpot should be at liberty to declare someone else to be a tyrant and then commit or promote an assassination, i.e., a murder. - Let there be public hearings and judgments upon anyone so accused, at least somewhere underground or in already somewhat free societies. - Mass murder devices in anyone’s hands do threaten the survival of everybody and could be declared as indicating a tyrant, at least by intention and preparations. The necessity of forceful self-defence actions is, as a rule, to be judged by the victims of criminal attacks, and not, much later, with abstract legal or juridical definitions, by a judge under calm and secure court conditions, i.e., when the judge is not threatened himself. - On Abortion. Only the case against: This is so far only a minority point of view and thus it should not be legally imposed upon all dissenters. This means, in practice, that all the diverse views in this sphere should be realized only within communities of volunteers. - A human being does not suddenly jump into existence at his or her birth. Nor are all his mental and physical later characteristics largely and genetically predetermined only during a later stage of pregnancy. Via his genes any fetus is not merely weeks or months but millions of years old. The development of an individual human being, from conception to death is a continuous and natural process for all human beings and its human nature cannot be rightfully and rationally denied at any stage of that process. - Biologically and in extreme miniaturization he comes already into individual existence upon conception and as such he has the right to life, i.e. to exposure only to the natural hazards of any human beings, not to any arbitrary death sentence and execution. - It is obvious that even after birth babies are not yet mature and rational persons with full rights and liberties and, nevertheless, the right to life is already granted to them at this stage, not only to immature and irrational adults. The out-of-sight and out-of-mind unborn have the same basic rights as the born babies, i.e., the right not to be mistreated or even willfully killed. They do have or ought to have natural guardians of their rights, primarily in their parents. Each human being is at least potentially a treasure chest not only for his own life, via self-ownership, individual sovereignty, and self-determination - but for mankind as well, especially when he gets every right, liberty and opportunity for self-development that is not a burden upon anyone else but his parents or other voluntary helpers. - The individual is the ultimate resource, primarily for himself, and secondarily, in free collaboration, communication and exchange with others, for all others. - Those, who do not want children do have by now numerous options to prevent conception. Moreover, at least in somewhat developed countries there are more people willing to adopt children than children offered for adoption. - - - 19. Expect good results from self-interest rather than from benevolence, in most cases. Which also means: from voluntary rather than compulsory actions. - - Let everyone gain the free market value of his own labor or other productive contributions. - Do not envy others but see to it that you get the same rights and liberties to develop and exploit your own talents and industry to advance yourself, as far as you can or want to. - Do respect all genuine property rights – but not any legally and artificial created and upheld monopolies, unless they are part of the civil laws in your own and self-chosen community of volunteers. - Do not steal the property of others, except in case of emergency (and then only if you attempt to replace or pay for it later). “Theft is immoral, whether private or public.” – Llewellyn H. Rockwell, in “Why Government Grows”. - Do not obstruct the human “propensity to truck, barter and exchange”. (Adam Smith). Panarchists would add: Allow this only among those still insufficiently aware of this aspect of human nature, i.e. at their own expense and risk. Any form of socialism among consenting adults as well as any form of capitalism. - It is not “money”, which is the root of all evil, but monetary despotism is. Monetary and clearing freedom, i.e. complete freedom of exchange and a free market, are the roots of much good and could prevent most economic crises. - Other monetary reformers will, under panarchism, also get the chance to practise their reforms among themselves. - MYOB: Mind your own business! Really mind it, rather than leave it to “representatives” and “lawyers” etc. - However, panarchism offers also the opportunity for all forms of voluntary socialism and communism or “mutual plunder-bunds” as Frederic Bastiat called them, for all kinds of “utopias” – for their corresponding utopists or experimenters. - If you want to live like an ant, a bee or a sheep – there are xyz “shepherds” ready to lead your flocks of volunteers. - “Work together to benefit all humanity.” - ? - Moral and rational selfishness before altruism. Society is exchange. Take the egoism of all others into considerations. You do not live for them. They do not live for you. Respect their rights and liberties. Just communicate, collaborate, associate with or disassociate from them. Essentially: exchange with them. “Society is exchange!” said Bastiat. - But if you want to be “anti-social”, in your “socialist” way, then, under panarchism you are immediately free to do so, as long as you are satisfied with this lifestyle. Produce and exchange, speak and act only upon permission from your leaders as already Plato recommended. Old delusions die hard. They have to be experienced to be recognized and discarded. - The most fruitful kind of working together happens on a quite free market. But seeing it has still so many enemies, even it should, initially and consistently only be applied among its voluntary supporters, with all others only under a standing invitation to join it as soon as they are ready for it. - If you think you must, become an anti-globalization activist, to the extent of boycotting the goods and services of the free marketeers. But do not force anyone else to join your boycotts. - - - 20. Take the long-term view, rather than being only short-term opportunistic. - - The long term view includes all kinds of interactions, causes and effects, not only those seen with limited and short term vision or rose-colored glasses. It takes the actions, reactions and preferences of others into consideration. - “Consider the impact on the next six generations when making decisions.” – We cannot, usually, think that far ahead. But at least we should try, as far as we can, to take the long-term view rather than merely the short-term view. We should not act like e.g. a bank-robber who, when asked by a judge: “Why did you rob the bank?” He replied: “Don’t you know, your Honor, that is where all the money is!” – He even got the banking business wrong. Savings banks do not hire your money in order to keep it - but do lend it out at a higher rate. - The long-term view is as far as possible removed from that of those people, whose horizon has a radius of zero and this they call their point of view. - Such limited points of view should be tolerated, too, but only at the expense and risk of those subscribing to them. - These people, too, can serve all other communities – but only as deterrent examples. - - - 21. Try to universalize your maxims and judge only then, whether they would still make sense or lead to contradictions. - (Categorical Imperative. - Kant) - - Always ponder: What would happen if everybody would act as I am now inclined to do? - Treat all people not merely as means but also as ends, purposes in themselves. - Kant - Respect all genuine individual rights and liberties but none of the merely faked and asserted ones, that are unjust claims and are really infringing the genuine rights and liberties of others. - Begin with self-respect, i.e., learn to know and appreciate your own individual rights and liberties. Only then will you come to appreciate and respect the same rights in others. - Let individual rights rule over the law rather than letting the law restrict individual rights. - - - 22. Freedom of Contract in all spheres. - Freedom of contract in all spheres – except e.g. for the production, storage and use of “weapons” that cannot be used without offending individual rights and liberties of innocents. - For instance: Respect the sexual contracts of others and abide by your own, while they are still valid. -  “Any individual or group may form or legally dissolve any kind of contract with any other individual or group. Such contracts need have no geographical limits, but are binding only on those who voluntarily subscribe to them. They may be drawn up with reference to any kind of political, social activity or organization, including protective associations or services, education, arbitration and the supply of public utilities.” - AIR, Individual Rights: 4. Freedom of Contracts. - All the statists and slave-minded people, however, should be free to bind themselves as much as they like and as long as they can stand this, by their kind of restrictive contracts, covenants, constitutions and personal laws. - - - 23. Freedom of Trade. - Everyone has the right to unlimited freedom of trade. No monopolies of goods, securities, services or exchange media may be established by law; nor may trade be restricted by tariffs, licences, quotas, etc. - Everyone may engage in any type of production, or in any job, occupation or profession, and may exchange his goods or services on a free market at whatever rate he desires.” – From the AIR declaration. (Alliance for Individual Rights, Sydney, in the 1970's.) - Obviously, trade and production of mass murder devices and the profession of assassin for hire are excluded. What he desires to get on a free market and what he can get on it should be distinguished. - Opponents of Free Trade or of “globalism” are at liberty to restrict their own enterprises and trades as much as they like but not those of the Free Traders. - - - 24. Monetary and Financial Freedom. - Free enterprise, free trade, freedom of contract, freedom of action and experimentation, freedom of association and the general liberty of panarchism demand also full monetary and financial freedom, freedom to clear one’s debt in any convenient way and to make any kind of honest credit arrangements. - They include the right to issue und accept, discount or refuse to accept exchange media, clearing certificates and account credits and the right to refuse to accept any governmental monies at par or at all, which presently have been granted an exclusive status and legal tender power, i.e., compulsory acceptance and compulsory value. - These rights and liberties and private property rights do also include the right to refuse to pay any taxes one has not individually subscribed to and to refuse to accept “government securities” as genuine securities, moreover, the right to refuse to pay anything towards the redemption of government securities. - To full monetary and financial freedom belongs also the free choice of value standards for one’s contracts and payment communities and a free market and unlimited publicity for all exchange media, clearing certificates, accounts and value standards. Likewise the right to settle any of one’s debts as far as possible and acceptable via a clearing arrangement. - All exceptions from this rule bind only those who individually subscribed to any form of monetary or financial despotism for themselves and as long as they do. - - - 25. Become not only a responsible individual but a panarchist, too: i.e., let other practise their individuality, together with like-minded people. - Do not bow down before territorial governments nor serve them, as if they were Gods or benevolent “Big Brothers”. - Just look at the long history of their crimes, much more wrong and harmful than all the crimes committed by private criminals. E.g., even democratic Australia has established concentration camps for refugees, whose only “crime” consisted in illegally entering or staying in Australia, a mere section of spaceship Earth. Australia was established via forced deportations, and its federal government has, in our times, resorted to them also, against victims of persecution in other countries. - No government has the right to deny entry or stay to any refugees or to “economic migrants”, who seek to improve their economic conditions and that of their dependents. At most tax-based welfare handouts may be rightfully denied to them. - Immigrants, refugees and deserters may establish their own and preferred kinds of panarchies – anywhere on Earth, as long as they do respect the property and other rights of other people. - No large territory belongs rightfully and exclusively to any government, religion, race, movement or ideology. - If you do, instead, uphold territorial monopolies, constitutions, laws, jurisdictions, other powers, organizations, systems and “measures” or “policies”, then you will continue to be subjected to all the disasters natural to territorialism, to endless wars, oppressions and abuses. - If you still do like any or all of the institutions of existing or past territorial States then, under panarchism, you can continue them - but only at your own risk and expense, among your kind of volunteers. - Let “panarchism” “reign” means freedom for all kinds of experiments, communities, societies and governments to do their own things for or to their voluntary members, but only exterritorially and never at the risk and expense of others. All the various schemes that do find supporters are only to be practised by and among their voluntary members associated in various and new alternative or parallel institutions, called “panarchies” or “polyarchies” etc. Or, in still other words, since this idea is, alas, still new to most: A diversity of independent and competing communities of volunteers only, all fully autonomous but not tied to any particular territory (apart from the private or cooperative land holdings of their members) – as the precondition for peace, justice, freedom and maximum progress. Only in this way can the mere prayer or wish: “Peace and good will towards all men!” become realized and institutionalized, finally, and this in our time. - - - 26. No Initiation of Force. No Aggression, No Intervention. - Voluntarism under Exterritorial Autonomy and Personal Law. - Panarchism, which is universal and consistent in principle, does not specify any particular agency but requires voluntarism, including individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy and the utmost for freedom of action, experimentation and mutual tolerance for all voluntary bodies and communities, which implies the absence of any aggressive interference. - “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. - The same freedom is to apply even to those, who for their own societies and communities desire something else than full liberty, e.g., communism for communists only, fascism for fascists only, racism for racist only, centralism for centralists only. - - - 27. Sovereignty is never to be placed into the hands of a few, deciding the fate of all others, without these members or subjects remaining free to secede and to join or establish other societies and communities for themselves, that are only exterritorially autonomous. (Panarchies or polyarchies.) - Least of all is the power over the survival of mankind, via decision-making on WMDs, to be placed into a few hands. Such power does not belong into anyone’s hands. - - Territorial governments, by means of their “scientific” super-“weapons” do no longer threaten “merely” the survival of some individuals or of large groups, but whole cities, countries and peoples, even that of all of mankind. They are thus no longer legitimate defenders but the worst kinds of aggressors. - This applies also to territorial governments which are merely allies of nuclear armed governments. - Such alliances can help to bring about a general holocaust at any time. - It could even be brought about merely by an accident or the misreading of a radar image. - One does not owe any obedience to those, who merely claim to be one’s protectors while, in reality, they exploit one’s life, earnings and property and even threaten one’s very existence, in pursuit of their own aims and purposes. - By such mass murder preparations, whether they or their victims are aware of it or not, they have unilaterally dissolved all protection contracts, constitutions and oaths between them and their members and subjects and other victims and placed themselves in the positions of outlaws, by any moral internal and international standards. - Their abdication, surrender and help in the destruction of at least one WMD are required to achieve amnesty for them and protection in anonymity. (That would cost much less than the use of any WMD.) - The proliferation of mass murder devices has to be reversed towards zero stocks for all present nuclear powers. - Be obedient only to the governments or societies or communities that thou hast chosen for yourself – as long as they do respect the genuine individual rights and liberties that you do claim for yourself. Otherwise disobey, resist or secede, i.e., become responsibly disobedient, especially towards nuclear powers. - The very existence of WMD’s, i.e., mass murder devices or anti-people “weapons” in the hands of territorial governments has turned them into our main enemies. - We, all of us, have become the main targets for these “weapons” of theirs and should not put up any longer with this situation, with this Damocles Sword hanging over every head. - Seeing that territorial governments are, obviously, unable or unwilling to disarm in this respect, every adult should become a disarmament informer, inspector and controller, armed with rightful weapons, that can be used discriminately against guilty persons only. - At present, wrongful governments, armed with wrongful weapons and militarily wrongfully organized, try to deprive their subjects of rightful weapons, and to prevent organizations with which they could uphold their rights against wrongful governments. - - - 28. Hold no other ism above panarchism. - For it provides already the most just, liberating, peace-promoting, tolerant and tolerable framework for all individuals, for all their voluntary societies and communities, for any kind of other isms, however diverse or even antagonistic their secondary beliefs, principles, practices and institutions may be – among their own volunteers. When their practices are confined to their own and quite voluntary supporters, then they are still tolerable for consistent panarchists, who do not wish to impose their beliefs and convictions upon dissenters. - In the far future some faithful people might even come to claim that panarchism was divinely inspired - since panarchies, by their very nature, are so much more moral and rational – at least by the standards of their voluntary supporters - than the territorial governments can ever hope to be, even when inspired or sanctioned by certain dogmas, constitutions and bill of rights drafts produced or maintained by territorial governments or statists movements. However, if this were the case, then should we have patiently waited, for bloody centuries, for the realization of this inspiration from its first ancient and all too incomplete beginnings? Panarchism was certainly not part of the “perfect” world that we found ourselves in, apart from the animal and plant kingdom and even there aggression, domination, exploitation and parasitism predominate, in great diversity, rather than mutual tolerance and self-supporting actions, which are possible only for sufficiently moral and rational beings. - - - 29. Panarchism means: You may choose or reject, subscribe to, advocate and practise any ism, and follow any God, leader, prophet or guru as your own and supposedly ideal guide and respect his or her foremost writings – as long as you do so tolerantly, i.e., only at your own risk and expense and of those, who think or feel like you do. Consequently, all power is in future to be limited to voluntary subjects and their non-territorial associations, communities or corporations. - That requires for all organizations: voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy, provided only that they do aspire to this kind of community independence, i.e., they are not merely bushwalking or chess clubs. - In other words: Do your own things only for and to yourself and like-minded people and leave all others alone to do their things for and to themselves. - The shortest and oldest versions of this may be the popular saying: Live and let live! Or: To each his own! - The right to join or form panarchies is associated with the right to secede from them, in the same way as one is authorized, by natural law, to secede, individually, from any coercive association, especially from despotic territorial States, but also from majority- or minority-dominated democracies or republics. - Territorialism offers no solutions to the problems inherent in territorialism, with its compulsory membership and subordination and its centralization of wrongful powers and numerous monopolies. - “Everyone has the right to form, join or dissociate from any organization of his choice. He may initiate or participate in tolerant experiments in the economic or social sphere, provided that these experiments are undertaken only by volunteers and at their own expense and risk. The right to dissociate applies to all organizations, including trade unions, armed forces and governments.” - AIR, Individual Rights declaration: 1. Freedom of Association. - - - 30. International Laws and Federations. - Different international law codes and federations may be adopted, by groups of panarchies, from those, which territorial governments have agreed upon between themselves.  - These covenants and federations will also peacefully compete with each other as most of the world religions do already in much of the world. - This world has room for xyz worldwide federations of a political, economic and social kind, in the same way as it has room e.g. for several worldwide churches. - In the transition period, before various panarchies have developed different international law or alliance or federation codes for their combinations and interrelationships, they might simply agree (as Ulrich von Beckerath suggested), to adopt the “New Code of International Law”, in English, French and Italian, that was drafted and published in 1910 by Jerome INTERNOSCIA, in a tome of 1053 pages, in 5,657 paragraphs, but with the provision that any deviations from it should only be allowed if they are publicly and sufficiently defended. - I have reproduced this draft by Internoscia in PEACE PLANS 85-95, on 11 microfiche and have as yet neither got around to reproduce them on less microfiche nor to scan the text in. - Essentially, the international law arrangements will have to respect the fundamental individual rights and liberties of members of panarchies – to the extent that these rights and liberties are claimed by their members – much more so than territorial governments were so far prepared to respect. Much of their international law is made up of their rules for warfare! - - - 31. Freedom of Movement Across all Territorial Borders. - Everyone has the right to unrestricted freedom of movement and residence, at his own expense and risk, via corresponding contracts, obviously only as long as he does not encroach upon the life, rights, liberties, property, health and contracts of others. - Natives or current residents may not outlaw or coercively restrict this freedom of movement and settlement beyond their own property rights and signed covenants. - “Peoples”, “nations” or “States” have no exclusive property rights in any large parts of the surface of this planet. They are largely merely convenient fictions for the raising of territorial monopoly claims. - In the long-term view we are all immigrants and do not even know for sure where our ancestors came from. - Each attractive territory has changed hands numerous times. Even longer occupation by one ethnic group or State than by others does not create exclusive collective territorial rights for them. - - - 32. Property, Private and Property in Private or Cooperative Real Estate Versus Collective Property Claims to whole Territories. - Nobody may be deprived of his goods or earnings by invasion of his privacy, pollution of his property, compulsory taxation of his income, or by any other coercive means.” - AIR, Individual Rights draft, point 2: Freedom to Own Property. - The internal property arrangements within any Panarchy are those decisions which their voluntary members make for themselves. Whatever they decide in this respect applies only to them, not to the members of other panarchies. - Whole territories, occupied by many different people with different ideals, or merely also desired by them, may not be exclusively claimed for any group of them, no matter how large its majority may be. - Territorial property claims by “peoples”, “nations” and “ States” are delusional. - However, in spite of this, they do not warrant their military abolition by outsiders. - Panarchism offers many peaceful avenues to gradually abolish them – with the consent of the vast majority of those, who presently uphold such claims. - Different panarchies will adopt different kinds of land tenure and land reform systems that apply only to their own members. - - - 33. Families: Regarding the smallest and quite natural voluntary associations: Honor and respect your father and mother, at least as well as other people – to the extent that they deserve this, as most of them do. - Respect the rights of your children and your grandchildren, also those of your siblings, no matter how foolish they may still be. - Give your offspring, as far as possible, at least the same chances and opportunities you had yourself. - You, too, went through stages of foolishness and should keep them in mind when you blame other family members. - Full freedom of contract even in this sphere, with no externally set limit upon the number of members, and the kind of family association, unless they are set within a voluntary community. - - (An improved code for the rights and duties of children and parents goes beyond the intentions of this draft. But such a draft is long overdue, especially since most of the drafts provided are full of State welfare sentiments and amount merely to wrongful claims against others rather than genuine rights and liberties.  Some attempts of this kind are reproduced in PEACE PLANS 589/590. - Now offered also digitized on a disc reproduced at  - Better ones are needed.) - There exists not only a natural and biological family relationship and mutual obligation but also an implied family contract. Only extreme breaches of this contract by family members can end it. The forms and rituals etc. of families, as well as the number of members, including adopted ones, are up to the family members. - No family or group of families can rightfully lay down family laws for other families that go beyond protecting the individual rights and liberties of the own family members. - However, diverse families may renounce, only for themselves, particular individual rights and liberties of their members. - Different bodies of family laws may be adopted by the voluntary members of different exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. - Rational enough members of families may secede from their families and the family law of their communities by individual and unilateral secession or divorce declarations, within the terms of an original contract or immediately upon any case of severe abuse. - - - Some general comment to the above points. - Flawed teachings in this sphere are abundant and, probably, could fill many volumes, together with the best refutations so far found. Thus I make no attempt towards a complete enumeration and refutation here. It is a job for at least thousands of interested people. - Why are there collectors for almost everything else but good ideas and good refutations of bad ideas? - - Smuggling and other free trade examples, like black markets, can be found everywhere even under protectionism – but they have not yet led to quite free trade everywhere. The same applies to the monies of monetary freedom. Also to the numerous attempts to achieve some decentralization via geographical secessionism. They are still part of territorialism and have not yet led to its abolition. Panarchist ideas and practices must become sufficiently wide-spread, known and appreciated to lead to the rapid realization of panarchism in every sphere. Otherwise it remains the faith a small sect. - - - Many other alternatives drafts of Ten Commandments are online and can be found when searching for ”Ten Commandments” + alternative>. On my own I haven’t got the time, patience and energy to compare the above draft with all others that might already be online, somewhere: A 2005 search for Ten Commandment entries with: <”Ten Commandments” + alternative>revealed over 34 000 references! - A search today, 9.10.11, brought me 74,000 results! - JZ, 9.10.11, 29.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, The closet panarchist, Oct. 25, 1987, with some whispers on TC 146, with comments to Filthy Pierre, David Owens, Le Grand E. Day, 59, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, The Gospel of Panarchy, according to sinner John, 1986, 7KBs, John Zube, The Gospel of Panarchy

ZUBE, JOHN, The Road to Voluntarism. - John Zube, The Road to Voluntarism (1986) July 2009

ZUBE, JOHN, Thoughts for Freedom. - John Zube,  Thoughts for freedom - (1972-2002) [That seems to be the same file as the following.] Thoughts for Liberty, (1972 - 2002), 34KBs, - John Zube,  Thoughts for Liberty – Extracts from my SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY.

ZUBE, JOHN, Thoughts on Panarchy. - John Zube, Thoughts on Panarchy (1965-2009) - July 2009.

ZUBE, JOHN, Through Panarchism to Peace and Freedom, 3/86, 16, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - Condensed, ibid, p.24.

ZUBE, JOHN, to "P": 15/9/1985, 114, 31.10.85, 119, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585.

ZUBE, JOHN, to ARENDT, HANNA: 17.8.65, 4pp, on her book "On Revolution" and on panarchism, 154, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051. - HANNAH?

ZUBE, JOHN, to AUSTRALIAN, THE: n.d., 3pp: 142 – 144, in PP 1540. On the article in THE AUSTRALIAN, 27.4.1993, from THE ECONOMIST: Mad Dogs and Middlemen, on Bosnia and Intervention.


ZUBE, JOHN, to BARTH, WERNER, 2 Feb. 2,000, 2pp - in German! 339, in PP 1689-1693.

ZUBE, JOHN, to BELLIS, GIAN PIERO de & FLANAGAN, GREG, 9.4.01, 3pp: 266; B-Z, 29.3.01, 1p: 266, in PP 1689-1693.

ZUBE, JOHN, to BELLIS, GIAN PIERO de: 20.4.01 & B-Z, 18.4.01, 3p: 270, 21.6.01, 1p: 274, in PP 1689-1693.

ZUBE, JOHN, to CASLEY, LEN, 13.5.71, page 9 - to Mr. L. G. Casley, Administrator, H.R.P., 28.8.1972, page 24, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510. - 3.6.1984, page 123, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.

ZUBE, JOHN, to CATHY L. Z. & L. NEIL SMITH: Sept. 8, 1986, 56, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY: 3 May 89, 3pp, 1-3, 15 June 89, 17pp, 40-56, 25 Aug. 89, 6 pp, 75-80, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879.

ZUBE, JOHN, to CHRISTIAN IDENTITY: 2 Oct. 84, 2pp, 123, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, to COLLINS, MARIANNE, ed. THE NEW RIGHT REPORT: 19 April 89, 2pp, 120-121, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PP 832.

ZUBE, JOHN, to CONNECTION, THE: 5.5.82, with: Some Notes on recent Discussions in TC on Panarchy, Proprietary Communities & the State, discussing Jim Stumm in TC 103, 65, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, to CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, THE: 11 Jan. 87 & 15 Feb. 87, 6pp, 91, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to DAY, LE GRAND E.: Jan. 9th, 1986, 30, Jan. 23rd., 1986, 39, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672. - & to him as editor, PANARCHIST DIALECTIC: 20.9.88, 22-25, 31 March 89, 36- 46, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833. (I do not even know whether L.G.E.D. is still alive and active. - JZ, 3.9.04.)

ZUBE, JOHN, to DIOGENES OF PANARCHIA, June 19, 1985, page 64, - 4 November 85, page 74, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - - Jan. 23rd., 1986, 39, - July 17th, 1986, 51, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to Erwin Strauss, 8, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - - July 15th, 1986, 90, & 28.8.1984, 72, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - - 8 Aug. 80, reproduced in TC 89 of 7 Sep. 1980, 1p, 19, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, to EWBANK, JOHN R.: 26 Aug. 87, 77, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, to FERRUA, PIETRO: 24 June 89, 8pp, 109-116, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879.

ZUBE, JOHN, to FLANAGAN, GREG: 1p : 265, in PP 1689-1693, 25.12.00, 1p,  340, in PP 1689-1693. - -  30.12.00  2pp: 343, in PP 1689-1693.- 3.1.01, F-Z, 3.1.01, 2p:  345, in PP 1689-1693.

ZUBE, JOHN, to FOLDVARY, FRED: 5/12/85, page 86, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - - Jan. 26th, 1986, 32, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to FREE NATION FOUNDATION: 18 March 1996, 1p: 203, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, to GAMBONE, LARRY: 9.12.1997, 16pp, 124-139, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, to GETTING TOGETHER NEWSLETTER, Letter of 11/10/85, 102, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to GIESEKAM, MERILYN: 28.8.1972, on CASLEY'S secession, page 23, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.

ZUBE, JOHN, to GORHAM, MELVIN: Valorian Society, Letter of 12 April 1992, 3pp: 173, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to GRECO, THOMAS H., Jr.: 12 April 1988, page I only, on panarchism, 119, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PP 832.

ZUBE, JOHN, to HARDY, GEORGE (deceased by now):  25 Dec. 85, 5pp, 105, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to HART, JOE: 11-3.86, on introductions to panarchy, drafts, 15, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, to HAWKINS, ROBERT: 4 July 84, lp, 122, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.

ZUBE, JOHN, to HOLST, INGAR: Republic of 1984, Letter of 15 August 1988, 1p: 172 & 185, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to HOPMAN, CONRAD: June 11, 1986, 113, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to INTERNATIONAL MICROPATROLOGICAL SOCIETY: 16.3.1996, 2pp: 181, in PP 1540. - (It seems that in France it was continued. - JZ, 25.10.11.)

ZUBE, JOHN, to JOHNSSON, RICHARD C. B. et al, On Hitler regime, other tyrannies, territorialism, antisemitism, collective responsibility, intolerance, statism, repression, mass murders and their causes or motives and the change panarchism would make. 12.5.05. - - I leave it to the others to add their responses, edited as they like. - - Dear Richard, What made a Hitler, a Lenin, a Stalin, a Mao etc. possible? - Regarding Hitler there are particular factors that I consider to be important. Not all of them are mentioned in the previous discussion here compiled. - 1.) The war guilt lie by the victors of WW I. Germany's government was certainly not the only or main culprit. Generally speaking, the territorialist regimes, with their decision-making monopolies, taxation, conscription and economic prejudices were. England, for instance, was economically not Germany's enemy but its biggest trading partner. Naturally, the Protectionists would not subscribe to such a fact. - - 2.) Under the previous emperor Germany had neither suffered as much of an inflation or a depression as under the Weimar Republic. Both events did economically cost Germany as much as WW I - apart from the bloodshed. Guess who and what was blamed: Central banking and Protectionism? No, the accused culprits were the Weimar Republic and the scapegoats for those without knowledge of free market economics were "Jews", believed to be masters of money and finance and have caused both events. The fact that they repeated all the usual monetary and financial mistakes in Israel should have destroyed that fiction - but hasn't as yet. The legal tender and money issue monopoly of monetary despotism, which make inflation and deflation possible - have still not been abolished even in a single territorial State, no matter how "free" it pretends to be. - - 3.) The territorial State is a handy instrument for any or the more or less power-mad power-seekers, even if they are democratically elected leaders. Even these leaders can manage to involve their subjects in nationalistic war, nowadays largely by arranging events, like the sinking of the Louistania for the US involvement in WW I, the arrangement for the attack on Pearl Harbour to be firstly tried and then to assure that it would succeed. Lastly, according to some, the terrorist attack on N.Y.C. and the Pentagon. Hitler's pretence of having been attacked by Poland and that he would merely have ordered his soldiers to shoot back. (A few German soldier provocateurs, in Polish uniforms, sent over for this purpose, may actually have fired a few shots.) - But you did already point out the territorialist factor very well in this discussion. - - 4.) The myth of overpopulation, expressed by the Nazi slogan of "Volk ohne Raum" (People without space), which motivated Hitler's Eastern expansion attempt. - The fact that - with a higher population density in post WW II West Germany - the best economic conditions of Germany before, ca. 1928/29, were exceeded, even by the still very limited "economic wonder" and very restricted "free market" economy, or still very mixed and statist post WW II West-German economy, has still not been sufficiently taken into consideration by the Malthusians, nor has the already wide-spread current collapse of population growth into negative population "growth" (significant in the already somewhat developed countries and beginning in the developing and still very underdeveloped countries) been taken sufficiently into consideration, with the exception of writers like e.g. Jim Peron. - Even now e.g. the knowledge contained in books like Julian L. Simon: "The Ultimate Resource", that human beings, if only they are free, are the greatest wealth-promoting, rather than wealth reducing factor, has not yet led to the breaking down of all immigration barriers. - Other irrational fears of immigrants could be overcome - by removing e.g. the fear that the immigrants, via majority voting, might outnumber and outvote the natives, as the whites have done towards the Aborigines in Australia, and towards the Red Indians in North America, Anglo-Saxons and others in Hawaii, Indians in some South Pacific islands etc., the fear of "the yellow peril", etc., could be overcome. E.g. by NOT automatically embracing immigrants territorially but by leaving them to their own and only exterritorially autonomous institutions. What would follow then would be a process of voluntary integration and of voluntary separatism, a gradualist one, as a result of voluntary actions of individuals and of volunteer communities, mostly without such a bias. However, there would also be some freely competing societies of volunteers, as exclusive as they want to be. Notions of race-deterioration via blood mixing, as existed among e.g. the Boers, leading to their decades of Apartheid, could and should be systematically attacked by pointing out the usually experienced superiority of people of mixed races. Actually, according to my old 1959 Encyclopedia Britannica, article on race, the few people on the Andaman Islands were the only "pure" race left - before WW II and these few people have by now been largely mixed with other kinds of human beings. Here the natural human instincts, not misled by customs, laws, economic pressures and wrong ideas, are much better and also individual decision-makers, than any "experts" and government policy makers. Genuinely "free" love produces better people than "population policies" of governments. Germans, Jews, Greeks, Italians, Frenchmen, Spaniards and Englishmen are among the most racially mixed people in the world. - - 5.) The myth of collective responsibility of victimized and taxed subjects and conscripts for the criminal decisions of their rulers. Such notions lead to genocide - Armenia 1915, carpet bombing, extermination camps, ABC mass murder devices and total wars, internment camps, immigration barriers. - - 6.) The "Myth of the Chosen People" is still upheld by many different kinds of ethnic people and religions and ideologies. Hitler's "Herrenrasse" was just an extreme case of it. - Statisticians did not sufficiently publicize the fact that e.g. Scotsmen, Japanese and Jews have a higher percentage of highly intelligent people among them than Germans have. That was one of the reasons why they were so hated by the inferior "intelligent" professionals etc. in Germany. They were so often outdone by Jewish intellectuals as were many of the "Christian" businessmen outdone by Jewish businessmen. Ulrich von Beckerath pointed out that Armenian and Russian businessmen were often even better businessmen than Jews. - - 7.) That poor Jewish immigrants, given their chance, often went from rags to riches in a single generation, largely because they did use their education and business options, also lead to much envy. (That rapid progress was largely culturally conditioned. Given the chance, Jewish parents placed a very high value on the best education they could get for their children, more so than most other ethnic groups.) "Antisemitism is the socialism of the stupid ones" was once not a bad definition. One should also considers how much envy is a part of e.g. State socialism and of the anti-capitalist mentality and how much stupidity or lack of interest in the own affairs is involved in it, if one thinks of the better kinds of socialism, like e.g. the cooperative and voluntary socialism and of the xyz forms of co-ownership, partnership, employee-shareholding, incentive and self-management schemes that could be very profitably used by all concerned – but that are still only partly realized and all too widely neglected. - - 8.) Generally speaking, with the heads of most people filled largely with popular errors, myths and prejudices, on most political, economic and social subjects, any loudmouth repeating these often enough and skillfully (demagogically) enough, can gain a large following easily, especially in crisis times. - That can happen even in countries like England and the US, as has been shown in a whole series of novels since WW II. - - All existing territorial governments, even the democratic ones, do lastly derive their power from popular errors, myths and prejudices. They are their practical realization. - Just consider the masses of prejudices which make nuclear war a possibility. In my ABC Against Nuclear War I listed about 500 points which lead us marching towards a general Nuclear Holocaust rather than away from it. - - 9.) The rightfulness of tyrannicide against genuine tyrants and the best techniques for it are even now not freely discussed everywhere, as they should be. - - 10.) Still quite insufficient interest is shown everywhere for much better individual rights declarations than those provided by most governments and the UN. (That's why I combined over 130 PRIVATE drafts of this kind in my anthology in PEACE PLANS 589/590. Since then I digitizes them. They are now online at, as part of a CD. Maybe even thousands of better drafts than the governmental ones do exist - and are still not sufficiently discussed, compared and improved or extracted towards a single one, one widely enough agreed upon one. - - Imagine the condition of the world today, if Hitler had been the first to have a few dozen to a few hundred nuclear "weapons" at his disposal. Criminal as many of the following rulers have been - and too many of them still are - none of them has so far abused this power as much as Hitler would have done, almost certainly. - - What makes the Hitlers and minor "Hitlers" possible? This topic is certainly important and should be covered as completely as possible, not only by incomplete listings like the above and the usual ones. - The correct answers should become one part of sound primary and secondary education, so that e.g. Neo-Nazi groups, "fundamentalists" and other fanatics and terrorists would hardly have a chance to grow beyond a few ignorant and prejudiced crackpots. - Their numbers would furthermore be greatly diminished through the panarchistic option: The first followers would already demand from their "Fuehrer" positive self-help actions rather than scapegoatism and a continuing struggle for years to decades, until they can manage to dominate all other groups. - People free to "opt out" from under mis-leaders, exploiters and conspirators will tend to examine the self-help options which freedom offers them and make use of them. The actions of their leaders make among their followers will be only a poor and disappointing substitute. They would rapidly lead to numerous flops, as happened with most of the ill conceived and conducted utopian colonies. - PIOT, John. - From file Pan JZ on Hitler & Immigration. Input of others, like RCBJ, JDM & CB left out here, but would be gladly included with their consent and revisions. - Anyhow, they are free to provide their own editions of this compilation or extracts from it. - JZ, 30.9.11, 30.8.12. - LEADERSHIP, TYRANNY, HITLER REGIME, DIS., COLLECTIVE RESPONSIVILITY, RACISM, INTOLERANCE

ZUBE, JOHN, to JOHNSSON, RICHARD C. B., on PEACE & PANARCHISM: - Richard C. B. Johnsson [Ph.D. in Economics] et al, [RCBJ in italic] 24/12/2004, you wrote: … Dear John, I have two quick thoughts after having read your “peace pan” text. - - It is still very much unfinished. It still is, but has been somewhat edited since. Much more work needs to be done on it. – Help! – The following replies have now been somewhat edited by me! - JZ, 26.12.04. - - 1 We all know about wars and violence under personal law in medieval times. - - Do we know enough about them? - I read, e.g. 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 interesting reading from a libertarian point of view. However: 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 often, from our point of view, quite senseless infighting among Negro tribes, 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 already wide-spread solution among themselves? - Some Christians still fight each other - in Ireland. Why weren't panarchist practices 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, not all that long ago. (Admittedly, there 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 quite 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 (1) 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 who subdued e.g. aristocratic and, likewise, authoritarian competitors for power, together with e.g. (2) 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 (3) the establishment of armed free citizens and their federations and leagues and (4) the invention of guns and canons and, before that, also the improvements in the bow and arrow technology, against armored knights or robber barons and their castles. They all gave peace and civilization some chance. - - How many were killed in these almost constant small clashes? Who knows? Possibly more than in the infrequent large and very large wars, that would have been better recorded and reported. - Those, who wiped out e.g. the Aborigines in Tasmania and all too many in Australia, did also not keep official records for inspection by today’s or even contemporary 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, at least in Tasmania, 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 such 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 practioners 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 led to some slaughters, wars and civil war actions. - - Perhaps nowhere did the part-realization of personal law and a-territorial autonomy assure peace and security sufficiently, as yet. - - 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. - - 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. - - We should also consider that those believed to have lived under and been liberated and pacified by ancient personal law practices were, in all too many instances, cannibals still or made ritual human sacrifices of even their own members and practised slavery. - - Why didn't panarchy 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 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, from the often unreliable reports of historians.) 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 his successors, as subjects of “independent nations”. - A personal law split-up and decentralization was not considered by him, or them, 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 aterritorialism and personal law recognition and individual choice there, except his own, for himself only. - 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 has WW II had. Alas, I do not have such statistics on hand. Have you? - 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. A Negro libertarian lectures told that and I also read some articles on this. Naturally, these mass murders do not justify the official SA killings, either. But they somehow explain their motivations and the fears 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 "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! Certainly not by choice of the aborted victims, whose natural or other guardians did not, sufficiently, defend their basic right to life and their chance to develop into a rational being. 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 never tend to be recorded only misery - just have a look in any newspaper. If there is none, make it up or at least exaggerate. Why should it have been any different in the past? - - - Would there have been no or few such records if panarchistic institutions, principles and practices had, quite obviously, either prevented wars or rapidly ended them? - 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 way. - (By the way, this church has hundreds of records on levitation happenings.) Alas, its peace promotion ideas and actions were and are, all too often, very limited, sometimes even confined to mere prayers and preachings. There is still too little criticism for the Christian slogan: “Peace and good will towards all men!” and to the other ones, like: “All you need is love!” and “All you need is faith!” - Intellectually they are on the level of: “Buy Australian!” - Why did the ideas and practices of governments-in-exile remain confined to those which also claimed a territorial monopoly? - Why were mostly only puppet regimes and satellite governments set up instead of quite rightful and voluntaristic alternatives only? - Why did diplomats not explore sufficiently the negotiation and separate peace treaty options with dissenting minorities? - Why did a unilateral declaration of peace occur only once and why wasn’t it thoroughly discussed ever since? - Why were so few attempts made to compile and declare quite rightful war aims in time? – Why were all the governmental declarations of human rights coming so late and remained so incomplete and full of flawed or wrongful statements? Sometimes the wrongful 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 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. - Such possibilities are not even fully recognized, discussed and developed by most libertarians and anarchists now. - Humane treatments of POWs, better still, their liberation and choice of governments for them, could have turned the course of many a war and could have led to liberation and short wars with little bloodshed. Alas! See the short essay of U. v. 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! - (B. also wrote a very interesting and panarchistic draft of peace conditions for the next war with Russia. He worded it so cleverly, in accordance with the official prejudices of the time, that he did get away with it, even under the Nazi regime! I am presently not sure whether I have already digitized it. My file keeping is still all too disorderly.) - - It is not only peaceful activities that are not sufficiently recorded. This applies to criminal activities, likewise. Even the police is involved in forging some 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 have little reason to expect help, recovery or 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 the dark corners? Did they prevent e.g. pogroms? Or crusades? - - 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. (I got some interesting details on this in the book of an English journalist, who wanted to write a biography of one world-wide reported post WW II Sicilian and nationalist bandit, possibly named somewhat like Guiliano. Presently, I am unwilling to look for that book.) - But, obviously, this "aid" and “self-help” or competitive “professional” and private “protection” 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. Presently, in many countries, it feeds upon illegal immigrants and refugees.) - - The private night-watch, patrol and security forces have not yet competitively replaced the official police protection services, although they have already had, for a long time, 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 only than make a common cause against the remaining official police monopoly? Why did they remain merely niche services? What prevented their sufficiently effective competition? - Sometimes, the main cause may simply be the subsidies involved, like those for "free" public library services and "free" public schooling, combined with compulsory attendance to the latter. (As a result of this more schools are burnt down than libraries.) - 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 sufficiently discussed as a single step that 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 significant 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. Such secessionism and determination cannot be fully effectively outlawed and suppressed. Thus it leads to the question: Why was it not more effectively applied against obviously criminal governments, real human monsters? - Bad as the present US government is, 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 Hitler and his regime, all too well and all too long, in spite of his scruples. He had not clearly decided and early enough, when a soldier ought to disobey a government that is as 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 prohibited by the English government! - 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, instead, as rightful, even as obligatory executions, after these criminals, by their actions, had outlawed themselves. The secret but popular Vehmgerichte against tyrants first organized some underground case against them, leading to their underground “outlawry” and then to the killing of the outlawed. - 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 desertion, 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 led only to new territorial despotism or at least authoritarianism. - - - Instead, after the fall of Rome, under personal law in Muslim countries and later European, science made progress. Commerce flourished in several Mediterranean cities, something even Kropotkin noticed and approved of in one of his text at, and these often are called things like the cradle 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, considerable progress did happen. 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? For instance, even now, in the US, e.g., through the FDA. - Also through the outlawry of DDT? - Even when millions of deaths occur, as a result of such government institutions and measures, they are still not rapidly ended. - 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? - - - 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? - - - 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. They are only effective if 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 as yet, e.g. these two types each on a CD, containing 3000 such books? - - What obstacles are there for the proper publication, 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 had been recognized 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 and permanently succeed before. - PIOT, John - Please, do note that this is not my original reply. I managed now to eliminate at least some of my previous mistakes and added some words. – JZ, 26.12.04. If that is, in any way, unfair to RCBJ, then his revisions could be inserted as well. The subject is to be explored, not our way of writing it up. - JZ, 25.10.11.) – Revised again: The ignorance, stupidity, apathy and popular errors and prejudices of our times prevented even the recognition and realization of as relatively simple ideas as free trade, free migration, free choice of trades and professions, financial freedom, free marriage contracts, freedom for open air meetings and the rightful practice of tyrannicide and keeps territorial and legalized despotism alive. – My replies were again revised, today: JZ, 30.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, to KAPLAN, JERRY, AA Project (Anarchist Archives): 4.5.89, 1p, 11, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to KEDYS, J.P. of NDI: October 2, 1984, 99, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to KNESE, FRITZ: 2. 1. 1984, 1p: 20 & 56, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, to KODY, RYAN, 17.10.1993, 14pp: 183-196, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, to KOONTZ, ALAN P.: 17 Oct. 85, 2pp, 112, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to LEFEVRE, ROBERT: 8 Oct. 1967, 7pp:  709, in PP 1689-1693. - This letter deals with panarchism only in the last part and at first only with property, land and Proudhon. - JZ

ZUBE, JOHN, to LEFFERT, RICHARD: 11 Dec. 1984, 2pp, 89, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to LOVKOVIC, CHRISTINA: 16 September 1991, 1p: 139 & 148, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to MARTIN, BRIAN, 16.10. 1983, in reply to a draft of sections of his book: "Uprooting War", London, Freedom Press, 1984, p.100ff, in ON PANARCHY V, in PP 554. - This is one of the few good peace books that I have come across and I do not say this merely because he reviews about half of my peace program. He does approach the problem rather scientifically and with a minimum of the errors, false assumptions and conclusions and also popular prejudices so common among peace lovers. – JZ, n.d. - - 19 September 89, 5pp, 105-109, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901. - - 3 September 1993, 4pp: 204, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, to MARTIN, CHRISTOPHER: Micropatrological Soc., 56, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PP 689.

ZUBE, JOHN, to MCSHANE, OWEN & OLSEN, RAMON, 3 12 04. - Dear Ramon & Owen, - it is not a rightful and necessary part of the classic liberal tradition of self-government that there should be only one constitution, and a territorial at that, for all people in a large territory, rather than different constitutions for different people, all only volunteers, all living in the same territory. - The territorial State, even when somewhat limited, is, on a quite fundamental level, no better than having only one State socialist enterprise in a large country. To that extent State socialism is not yet dead but all too much alive - and remaining largely unquestioned, even by most libertarians and anarchists. - - In which territorial democracy are the rights of all peaceful minorities, to do their own things to and for themselves, fully recognized? - They are not even fully recognized for dissenting students towards the compulsory unionism of student unions. - Why should not e.g. diverse Maori communities, all only made up of volunteers, be free to rule themselves, wherever their members live in N.Z. - or in the rest of the world? - - The classical and most well-known precedent for voluntary communities was the introduction of religious liberty or tolerance - even for atheists, humanists, rationalists, agnostics and deists. It was widely introduced when religion still mattered much more to most people than it does now. We consider those countries and their populations to be rather backwards where not even this liberty is fully recognized. - Well, regarding political, economic and social system communities we are ourselves still at their backward stage, too. - - Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in his 1793 book on the French Revolution and Herbert Spencer, in his 1850 Social Statics, defended the right of individuals to secede from the State. P. E. de Puydt, in his July 1860 essay, Panarchie, "REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE", Brussels, went further and described the laissez-faire, laissez-passer political framework that would result, with room not only for monarchists and republicans but even for anarchists. (De Puydt's essay, in German, English, French, Italian, Spanish, is on - It starts, in an interesting dialogue, from laissez-faire economic principles. - Territorial, monopolistic and centralized or federalist constitutionalism is not a sacred cow, either, except for those, who still believe in it. Under panarchism or polyarchism etc. nothing would prevent e.g. the N.Z. or Australian nationalists to unite as much - among themselves - as they would like to, under their uniform constitution for all their voluntary members. They could even appeal to their overseas sympathizers to become full members, voluntarily. - - For some historical precedents consult e.g. Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", chapter 38, or the tradition of "personal law", 'capitulations", the "millet system", 'consular jurisdiction' and of the foreign concessions in China. - - Even the best democracies and republics have still retained the old feudalistic and absolutistic tradition of the king, prince, lord or territorial government deciding monopolistically on war, peace, armament, disarmament and international treaties and are, at least to this extent, still Warfare States in all too many cases. [Kant considered this kind of decision-making monopoly as indicating a despotic regime. Was he wrong? - JZ, 30.9.11.] - By now that amounts to deciding about the survival of mankind - with subjects at best only consulted through their supposed "representatives". Are all subjects fully content with the war, peace and foreign policy decisions made by their territorial rulers? They are merely all too much conditioned, by State-influenced schooling, to sufficiently question that dangerous monopoly and to ponder alternatives to it, no matter how much they hate the current ruling practitioner of it. - - Such "democracies" are also, all too often, stepping stones to dictatorships and tyrannies. - One should not only be free to dissociate oneself from tyrannies and all States holding WMDs in readiness or trying to acquire them, but even from the best of democracies. - - Why shouldn't e.g. the monarchists in Australia get the kind of monarchism which they desire - for themselves, any degrees of it, indefinitely, while the Republicans, and Democrats, of whatever shade, get their versions of governance for themselves and the libertarians and anarchists, of whatever kind, also their own, often also a questionable "ideal", but all of them always only for themselves and this at their own risk and expense. - - Classical liberal, libertarian and anarchist students and academics should ponder why government-run and financed online university efforts have so far turned out more expensive than conventional universities - and examine how they could organize this form of university service in a way that is much cheaper to students and much more profitable for the best academics in the world. - - I remember an "anarchist" conference in East Minto, many years ago, in which the "Sydney Libertarians" (the permanent protestors, protesting against any reform action, too), held that there would always have to be governmental universities and examination services and they participated in the struggle for tax-payer funded grants with the worst of the "grantsmanship" academics. Fully free universities were held to be quite impractical among them. No wonder: They subscribed much more to the communist or anti-capitalist mentality than the free-market one. The location of that conference somewhat characterized its mentality. On one side of them was a communist military training camp and on the other side a nudist camp. Their middle position was just as thoughtless as those of their neighbors. Those attending were more libertines than libertarians. - - You haven't thought your 51:49 analogy to its logical conclusion, as yet. I was obviously right in this assumption. But then your preference for territorialism, without having considered the rightful alternative to it, is being shared by more than 99 % of all people, without giving the polyarchistic/panarchistic alternatives a first and second thought. Only insofar are you excused in this. Everybody is more or less a child of his or her times. - - Majority despotism, however constitutional and "limited", is not the ultimate ideal. - Even the best of the territorial constitutions, in practice, lose much of their original best intentions all too soon. Furthermore, their all too incomplete and flawed governmental "Bill of Rights" should be distinguished from the many private and better bills of genuine individual rights and liberties that have so far been proposed. (I assembled over 130 of them back in PEACE PLANS 589/590, at least in the later and enlarged digitized edition. Not that any of them are as complete and perfect as yet as they could and should be, with sufficient collaborative efforts. Alas, they and their aim, found no interest among statist-minded libertarians, who still believe that territorial governments can be sufficiently limited, although they have all too unlimited powers over the dissenters living in the territories these "limited" governments claim to be exclusively and rightfully their own, just like kings once claimed whole countries and all their people as their personal property. To do it only constitutionally is not getting us sufficiently away from that. Even Hitler acted, initially, somewhat and sometimes constitutionally and legally. - A right to disassociate oneself exists - not only towards such tyrants.) - - As practical instance: Which clause of the official US Bill of Rights has not yet been greatly infringed by legislation, jurisdiction and executive practices? Which individual human right is not under threat in Australia, Canada, NZ or the UK? - - Any mobocracy, which would be applied only personally, and not territorially, to all dissenters, but, instead, only to its own voluntarily members, and this only at their own risk and expense, would be its own cure, pretty soon. After a while it would, most likely, not have many voluntary members left. - PIOT, John Zube. [Somewhat edited now. - JZ, 1.10.11, 30.8.12.] - - - At 02:02 PM 3/12/2004, Owen McShane had written: In the classic liberal tradition democracy MUST be accompanied by constitutionalism in which a constitution protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. - Democracy on its own is mobocracy. - On 2/12/2004, Ramon Olsen wrote: It's a problem we see with our current form of democracy where 51% of people can force/coerce/prohibit the actions of the other 49%. - I really do not like our legislative system - too many, if not all, politicians work for themselves. It's plainly evident: sacrificing the correct or common sense decision in favour of a decision that will please 60% of people making the politician popular and in a job for another three years. Hence all the laws favouring Christianity or Maori. Of all the party's, ACT's liberal approach seems to put such politicking aside the most. - - - I had replied to Ramon: Dear Ramon, - I hold that the best decision is that the 51 should rule the 51 and the 49 should rule the 49. - There are many precedents for the "personal law" tradition and voluntary communities. - When my three boys were still very young, many years ago, one of them, at about 9, at the outcome of another Australian election said to me: Why should the 51 rule the 49 or the 49 rule the 51 rather than the 51 rule the 51 and the 49 rule the 49? - Out of the mouths of babes! - - I have been in favor of a-territorially autonomous communities of volunteers for decades, matter of fact for over half a century, wrote two peace books on them (they are online), am still working towards an encyclopedia (So far a materials collection is out, of 24 volumes, 210 pages, each alas only on microfiche, and my first CD dealt with this and monetary freedom), of this panarchistic or polyarchistic alternative and a few other books of my micro-fiched PEACE PLANS series deal with it. - - There are at least three websites exploring this issue. - - I hold that you should explore such fundamental alternatives rather than engage with the entry level debates on secondary or tertiary issues that have been all too common in the freestudentsnetwork so far. - Abortion and gay marriages questions will be solved quite by the way, once communities are made up only by volunteers. Some will have them, others will not. By mere persuasion neither side will convince the other and uniform legislation of one kind or the other is not very persuasive, either. - - Habitually avoiding the main or quite fundamental issues should be left to politicians, not libertarians. - Lasting liberation on minor points should not be expected from the territorial system. - PIOT, John Zube - (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams.) [Also slightly edited. - JZ, 1.10.11.]

ZUBE, JOHN, to MEEK, NIGEL: 30.8.1993, 1p: 202, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, to NEWS DIGEST INTERNATIONAL: 25.2.1981, on "renunciation of citizenship", the Soviet regime and the war in Afghanistan, 4pp, in PP 482. Also on page 194 in PEACE PLANS 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to OWENS, TOM: 17 May 1992, 5pp: 105, 3 September 1992, 6pp: 114, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to P., 15/9/1985, 114, 31.10.85, 119, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585.

ZUBE, JOHN, to PLATT, GREG, undated, 23, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to RUNAR, SHELDON L.: 15 July 1987, 72, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

ZUBE, JOHN, to RYAN, KODY: 17.10.1993, 14pp: 183 – 196, in PP 1540.

ZUBE, JOHN, to SAGEHORN, ROBERT: 3 Oct. 85, 2pp segment, 110, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to SAKHAROV, ANDREI (or, rather, his censors): 7.7.80, on panarchy even for communists, 125, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - Academician Andrei Sakharov, Oblast GORKIJ, Shcherbinka 2, Ullba Gagarin 214, Kvartira 3, USSR. - (Probably, he never received that letter or may have burned it as incriminating him. - JZ, 5.10.11.) - Dear Andrei, - I consider anyone who opposes any kind of totalitarianism as something like a friend. - Your address was mentioned by Nadia Weiner in a little libertarian Australian newsletter: “ON LIBERTY”, July 80, with an appeal to write you a letter to show international support. - I have read most of your communications, which have reached the Western Press and am largely in agreement with them. - Naturally, you should have full freedom of expression and I wish you all other freedoms also, probably more than you have so far dreamed of. - - My objection to most dissidents and non-conformists is, that they are often still saddled with old religious or nationalistic or world statist sentiments and, what is much worse, that their own ideal society of the future embodies still too many symptoms of a totalitarian society, i.e. does not leave sufficient freedom of action for dissenters against their kind of society. - - Thus I would like you to change your dissent and to become, at least in principle, more tolerant even towards the bureaucrats, communists and socialists, who are at present plaguing you. - - This sounds absurd to a victim - until you seriously consider how their freedom could coexist at the same time and in the same country with your own, with no one attacking any freedom or restriction a member of the other group has imposed upon himself by joining it and remaining voluntarily in it. - - In principle, I insist, you should not merely oppose the present regime and aim at replacing it with something better, not only with something more closely representing at least the majority of Russians and other nationalities etc. in the USSR, but, rather, work towards the preservation of the existing regime - to the extent that it is still voluntarily supported by some or many! (After its downfall there was evidence that about 30% of the population were, at least for a while, still in favor of the old regime. - JZ, 5.10.11.) You should, I believe, also work for genuine freedom for those who restrict you now! - - Think of the precedent of religious liberty. The atheists, agnostics, rationalists and humanists, who were rational enough to be tolerant, did not want to destroy the existing churches, legislate or use other force against them, but merely obtain the freedom to opt out and enjoy their own way of life - while leaving those, whom they might have considered as mere religious nuts, to their religion, churches and priests. - - Thus, one of your stated aim should be: Freedom for all communists etc. to do their own thing - but at their own risk and expense, not at the risk and expense of dissenters and nonconformists. They should, in all future, be free to practice their kind of Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotzky-ist etc. religions - among their voluntary followers, on an exterritorial and autonomous basis, under their own personal laws, wherever they happen to live, nationally or all over the world. – The only condition would have to be that they are to let individuals secede from them while your groups would let individuals secede to them and that neither would obstruct the establishment of new groups. - - Arbitration to settle disagreements between the different groups! - - There are numerous historical precedents of which diplomatic immunity and consular jurisdiction are remnants. - Once this option is understood and realized, then it would take the wind out of the sails of any totalitarian propaganda, right, left and centre. - It would unite all resistance and revolutionary forces of whatever kind upon this common platform and reduce any further violent clashes to a minimum. - For this kind of autonomy for all, who desire it, on a voluntary and self-responsible basis, would allow either freedom or non-freedom (and any degree of either) or any government or non-government of one's dreams to anyone, according to individual preferences and beliefs. - - Would it be against the present ruler's self-interest, in East or West? Not, if this is rationally perceived. It would offer them security and perpetuity of office, remove all threats of coming up elections, public opinion changes and opposition, resistance, revolution and assassination, even of war against them. For there will always be some, and presently they form the vast majority, who like their lives to be managed by others. - - The moment you, others like you, and myself, are autonomous, we are then neither a threat nor even a nuisance to the voluntary establishment of others. On the contrary, we would be their additional guarantors. It being in our own interest to see to it that their exterritorial autonomy is also not interfered with. - - This reorganization would assure them that they could remain in office, nation-wide, and come into office, worldwide, over all those who approve of their program and their actions. - - Upon this platform all minorities and majorities in the world could unite, confederate in their defence. - Even majorities consist of fluctuating minorities. Together they would vastly outnumber all others, and could truly liberate themselves and their present opposition or rulers. - - Perhaps most important now is the fact that this personal law reorganization of society would eliminate the motives, means and targets for nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons as well as the motives for any civil or liberation war of a conventional type, thus satisfying the justified peace aspirations of people everywhere. - - Think about it, in detail, what universal voluntarism or panarchism, or true self-government or individual sovereignty would imply for everyone. - - Presently, even the better of the representative democratic governments still share all too many of the totalitarian traits of dictatorships. - - Compare, for instance how they outlawed even geographical secession and have centralized decision-making on war and peace and confiscate much if not most of the earnings of their subjects. - - They do not allow exterritorial autonomy to communists, socialists, anarchists, libertarians, individualists or any other grouping within "their" countries. - - "Territorial integrity", which destroys individual integrity, is their dream also. They do not allow everyone the government of his choice, of his dreams. - - Although many of the top people might really fancy ruling others, even dissenters, they cannot afford to state this quite openly but must make all kinds of democratic pretences. Here is their Achilles Heel, propaganda-wise. - This new tolerant society, here envisioned, with experimental freedom or freedom of action for all, can offer them an era of undisturbed rule, free from all dissenters, military conspiracies, terrorists, assassins, revolutionaries, competitors for power, even from foreign enemies, a future where they can forever attempt to realize whatever ideals they might still hold, under most favorable conditions i.e. among volunteers (and at their expense and risk and for sufficient and just "feedback"). - - For the first time they would have no cause at all to complain about obstructionism, passive resistance, sabotage etc. All their helpers would unanimously agree with them and give their best for the success of their experiments. Thus, if their ideas can be successfully realized at all, then these would be the conditions required for their success. - - I know that, ideally, the West should make such proposals and practise them within its sphere of influence. But it is also too territorial and, as such, totalitarian for that and hindered in thinking consistently about freedom - as a result of the illusions provided by the remaining freedoms in the West. Moreover, even in the West, where there is formal freedom of expression, there are not many opportunities to discuss and spread such ideas, either. Thus there is not much discussion of them and far less are they practised. And yet, as already Josiah Warren realized in his work “True Civilization”, in 1863, individual sovereignty is "an immediate necessity and the last ground of hope for mankind." - - But even among the libertarians, individualists, anarchists, limited government and free market advocates in the West - only few have so far fully understood all the implications of individual secessionism. - - Perhaps the lack of most conventional freedoms (whatever the names of the remaining superstructure) will let people over there appreciate this radical freedom more than the people do over here? - - Lenin is supposed to have punished the advocacy of individual secession (or renunciation of membership in the republic) with death and the current Soviet citizenship law is, according to what I have read, rather strict and very restrictive in this respect. (At least it shows that the legislators have not altogether forgotten this idea.) - - The rulers know the true sources of their excess powers often better than their victims but, like their victims, they do not as yet appreciate the advantages which individual secessionism and personal law associations would offer them – this in spice of the fact that each of them is in danger of his life from assassins or due to new schisms and splits - every day of his life, under the present system. - - As said before, whether you agree with the above or not, you have the right to freedom of expression of your opinion and to have access to the information provided by others. - - It is just that I hold that freedom of expression and information is not enough. They must be supplemented by freedom for tolerant actions for all people, even your opponents in the establishment over there. - - Only when this aim is clearly stated and pursued can one win easily, with a minimum of sacrifices, and only then does defeat no longer taste bitter but is actually preferable to remaining on one of the present saddles for the time being. - - Let those, who prefer a condition of voluntary slavery for themselves, have it, under the rulers, prophets, leaders, despots, teachers etc. of their dreams and choice. - - Ponder the old saying that the best way to defeat an enemy is to make a friend out of him. - - This system (or rather non-system, a “meta-utopia” as Nozick calls it) would allow this. - - Let each live in his own self-chosen Zoo - and let the others learn from their examples. - - For Freedom In our Time, for you, me, for everyone, even the censors, Signed: John Zube. - Slightly edited, while proofreading this scan: JZ, 9.12.04, 8.2.12, 30.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, to SCHAUB, LAIRD, Directory of Intentional Communities: 6 June 89, lp, 125, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to SCHWARZ, DR. GUENTHER, on a suggestion by Anatole Rapoport: File: Pan Rapoport Schwarz JZ premises. - While browsing through my file on “First Principles” when working to improve my draft for a panarchistic “Ten Commandments” or first principles, I came across 2 old letters from 1970, which still belong into a collection of attempts to popularize panarchist ideas. - I do not know whether the planned book did ever appear. - Here I have slightly revised my letter while proofreading the scan of it. - PIOT, John Zube, 21.3.05, 5.10.11. - - 1.) From DAILY TELEGRAPH, Sydney, September 23, 1970, Letters to the Editor column: System of values - In is book "Operational Philosophy", Professor Anatol Rapoport makes a scientific comparison of traditional and modern methods of thought. He claims that it should be possible to devise  a common system of values based on the means by which the 5 common needs or desires of man are satisfied. - He lists these as: 1. The will to remain alive. - 2. The desire to belong. - 3. The desire for order. - 4.  The desire for security. - 5.  The desire to develop one's own personality. - If Professor Rapoport's claim is universally valid, it follows that the underlying assumption that the five desires are common to all men is also universally valid. - Is it? - I should very much like to hear from readers in many different countries and of different races how far they consider the above stated five needs to be common to all men, and if so whether they are the only ones, or even the most important. - - Please write if possible in German, English, French or Russian and if translating from another language, please try to keep the words semantically exact, explaining as far as possible what is meant by the concept in the original language. - The best answers shall be compiled in a new book. - Dr.GUENTHER SCHWARZ (Editor, Verlag Darmstaedter Blaetter), D61 Darmstadt, P.O. Box 332, West Germany. I did reply, then, as follows: John Zube, 23.9.70: Dear Mr. Schwarz, - I just read your letter on “System of values" in Daily Telegraph, 23/9/70 and find Prof. Rapport's classification not very attractive. Why not? - 1.) The desire to remain alive: Can one speak of this when it is expressed by suicidal means as, for instance, nuclear deterrents are, in the long run, or by the old-fashioned national defense efforts? - The desire to remain alive is common to all who are at each other's throat in a mutual plunder-bund termed a welfare state or a great society. - One ought to distinguish between this desire of producers and traders and the same desire of various types of parasites and robbers. The former group enhances everybody's chances to remain alive, the latter main alive only at the expense of the substance of life of others. (Instances: tax laws and laws establishing privileges and monopolies.) - Ayn Rand in her novel “Atlas Shrugged” attempted to show to what extent many people are dominated by anti-life feelings and notions, either expressing a secret death wish or leading anyhow to destruction or death. - The will to remain alive - under the conditions of sharp military discipline - drives conscripted soldiers to run against the machine-gun fire of those, who, more than their own leaders, would rather wish to live according to their own values. - Why did 9/10th of the inmates of the Warsaw Ghetto submit to deportation into extermination camps before the remainder resisted? - Think of the numerous people who call overeating “living” and thus kill themselves prematurely. - Think of the numerous people who want to be kept alive by miracles of modern science whilst doing nothing to preserve their health. - Thus let us rather speak of a desire to live a life of one's own choice - and let us discover the social state in which this becomes possible without infringing the same aspiration and rights of others. - - - 2.) The desire to belong: In times of totalitarianism the alternative, the desire and the right not to belong to an association that is desired and prescribed only by others, an ideological State-Church, an army, a union, a nation, is perhaps as important or even more so. - The right to associate is already largely recognized but its close relationship to the right to disassociate oneself, without suicide and without emigration or retreat into a monastery or a beatnik drop-out existence, is not yet widely recognized. - The desire to belong can either be expressed as a desire to belong to a territorial law association or to a personal law community. The former endangers the right to life, as almost every war and revolution shows, and does not express the true nature of the human animal. Contrary to Robert Ardrey's intentions, one could back this up with quotations from his book “The Territorial Imperative”. - 3.) The desire for order: Order is of a different kind and value for everybody. E.g. the Laissez Faire advocate sees order in an unrestricted economy, in full freedom to produce and exchange. - The various statist and centralist planners assert that this condition did exist for some time and led to disorder and chaos. They call their man-made chaos of a planned economy “order” and achievements "according to plan”. - The order in an extermination camp is different from that in a free society. - The order according to the leadership principle is different from that resulting from individual sovereignty. - The order of majority rule leads to repression of minorities or serves as motive for terrorist uprisings, leads thus to chaos, which could easily be avoided by granting all minorities the same autonomy which now, in most countries, only the churches and sects enjoy. - Think of the thousands of "orderly" currency reform proposals in existence, all to be despotically imposed upon dissenters, and compare them with the order one can rationally predict or empirically demonstrate from historical examples, when monetary freedom prevails at least to some extent. - Think of the “order” in international trade achieved by protectionist policies - permanent trade war - and the order resulting from Free Trade relationships. - - 4.) The desire for security: Through the most powerful ABC mass murder “weapons” it has led to the greatest insecurity ever. MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction "policies", at huge expense and risk! - Through the Welfare State and the war on poverty it has led to insecurity for property owners and the “forgotten” (in the sense of Sumner’s forgotten man and woman) wage and salary earners and, moreover, also to an attack on the rights and interests of the poor, with e.g., housing, interest and minimum wage laws worsening instead of improving their position. Through its anti-drug war it has promoted the profits of drug producers and pushers and thus also increased the consumption of drugs and made their "quality" or purity often even worse. – It also made drugs so expensive that the addicted were driven to commit crimes to enable them to maintain their habit. And the high profits to be made with prohibited drugs induced many into the production of and trade with it. - A degree of welfare security achieved as a result of one's own (savings) or cooperative or contractual efforts (insurance) is different in quality and also in quantity from that achieved by sacrificing the rights and interests of others. - - 5.) The desire to develop one's own personality: This is simply not universal. Most people read only in order not to be forced to think - said Lichtenberg. Now they rather watch TV or DVD movies, listen to music and go dancing or surfing etc. - Most people do not want to stand out as personalities but want rather to merge with and conform to the masses, to the average man, satisfied with the many emotional "kicks" they can now get, hardly ever bothering to put their minds into gear. Consider the whole rat race for sensual gratifications and entertainment. They want to make use of their bodies and senses as persons, not as personalities. Most people hold such a low view of the personality development desire of humans that they believe compulsory schooling to be necessary. (Perhaps excusable, since they know no better education than that offered in State controlled schools.) - - “Die Menschen sind verschieden.” (All human beings are different”) as Heinrich Nienkamp said in his delightful novel “Fuersten ohne Krone” (Princes without Crowns). (Vita, Berlin, 1916, 1918, reproduced by me on microfiche in PEACE PLANS No.1043, against egalitarianism, in a celebration of natural inequality, and describing the promotion of talents through prizes, across all frontiers.) They are all different, but in many ways they are also all too much alike, mass-people. - - Thus I would rather speak (without asserting claims to universality and exclusiveness) of desires - 1.) to live according its one’s own choice, - 2.) to belong to a group of one's free choice, based on the right to disassociate from all others, - 3.) to live in an order, under rules and institutions, not commanded by others but freely chosen, with peaceful relations provisions towards other groups and their members (analogous to the order resulting from religious liberty for all religious groups), in a quite different kind of order resulting from majority or governmental sovereignty, confined to its volunteers and exterritorial autonomy and personal law for them - combined with exterritorial minority autonomy, in the same country and world-wide, an order and harmony based upon tolerance for a great diversity of societies etc., all according to the different free choices of individuals. - 4.) for a chance to take all the security precautions and also all the risks one considers necessary, as long as this is done at one's own expense and risk only, that is, without infringing the natural rights of anyone else, - - 5.) to be free from all restrictions imposed by others, to consider oneself as an end, never as a means for others. (Kant), even if they claim to represent the nation or the people, while leaving all others free to similarly pursue their own road to personal happiness or personality development (if they want to). - - - What all people desire or need and are entitled to is their particular brand of freedom, living and society (no matter what name they have for it), even including the freedom to accept a condition of voluntary slavery, as long as they want to. - - - I hold that Prof. R. and yourself would spend your time better if you would help to further develop the existing codifications of natural and human rights, which do not prescribe values for all but leave each the maximum freedom to pursue and realize his own values, at his own expense. - However, that, too, is to be your free choice or self-chosen duty. - (See my anthology of ca. 100 private human rights drafts in PEACE PLANS 589 & 590, which I had vainly hoped to see supplemented by now by hundreds of other such drafts and an intense discussion of all of them. – JZ, 21.3.05. - Later I enlarged it to over 130 such drafts and digitized it. It is now online as part of a CD reproduced at - - - He didn't mention the desire to create, to submit, to dominate, to own, to decide, to experiment, to explore, all more or less present in most humans, especially the young, and hard to classify under his 5 simple categories. - - Furthermore, he seems never to have experienced in himself anything like a moral sense. Apparently, he thinks only in the terms of the modern world of science and technology, which considers moralism and ethics as irrelevant and abstract isms, having nothing to do with human nature. - - - If one attempted to list all attempts to reduce all values to one or a small handful of only 5, would one end up with hundreds or tens of thousands different results? I thought of this when once, during a single week, I came across half a dozen such attempts - all so insignificant that I have forgotten them by now. - - - I think it was Voltaire, who spoke of “Les terrible simplificateurs” (please excuse my bad school French). - - Don’t join them. Or, if you think that you must do so, leave others to their terrible over-simplifications and their consequences – or to whatever truths they have gained and want to apply among themselves. - Faithfully yours, signed: John Zube. - - - - P.S.: Why do so many people have the desire to explain almost everything with a few simple words or ideas? E.g.: All you need is love! - Trust in God and everything will be all right! - Only gold coins are the best means of exchange and value standards. Unemployment is caused by too high wages. There exists an "inflationary spiral"! - Buy Australian! Restrict immigration! Protect us from cheap imports! - Etc. There may be millions of such wrongful statements or only fractional truths and nowhere, it seems, are they systematically recorded and confronted with their best refutations, which could now be done with an ever-growing digitized encyclopedia. I just had a look at the Wikipedia entry on panarchy, downloaded some time ago. There the new and fashionable use of the word by some ecologists, to cover their kind of speculations, has already almost completely driven out the older meaning of the term of panarchy, which could, indeed, be described as an ecology for human societies, as if these were living beings. Alas, these ecologists ignore that aspects almost altogether and fill numerous books and articles with their speculations of quite another kind. Some students used the term for their student club and at least one computer consultant for his consulting service! In this way differently defined words become a barrier rather than a communications tool. This professor attempted to reduce all our motives to a mere 5 points, including xyz unstated and false assumptions. Some people offer only one choice, others only 2 opposites and others confine themselves to 3 or 4 options. Well, this professor offered at least 5. The Ten Commandments offered ten. Every libertarian and anarchist knows how incomplete and insufficient these rules are. Likewise incomplete and partly quite wrong are most official and private human rights declarations. The territorial legislators try to regulate almost everything with millions of laws, which no one has time to read even once, although they never were quite successful with any of them and with the vast majority of them they did much wrong and harm. - As territorialists, they do not allow us, as sovereign individuals and consumers, to enjoy fully free choice of constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and political, economic and social systems and full free enterprise experimental freedom in these spheres. - Many, perhaps even most people have an urge to contradict something, mostly only in relatively trivial matters. Why are there, so far, so few people who do contradict or at least entertain some doubts or advance some questions about territorialism and become ready to seriously consider its opposite: exterritorial autonomy under personal law? Why do they still prefer coercion instead of free choice or voluntarism in this sphere? Is it the result of so many of their ancestors having adapted themselves for all too long to slavery and serfdom, just like they have adapted themselves today to monetary and financial despotism, compulsory State membership or subjugation, compulsory schooling, compulsory security checks, compulsory taxation instead of voluntary contribution schemes and "free voting" systems that deprive them of their most important votes or decision-making? - JZ, 5.10.11. - See also under:  FILTHY PIERRE.

ZUBE, JOHN, to SEILING, NEIL: 16 Aug. 88 to Neil Seiling, CULTURAL DEMOCRACY, attempt to realize minority autonomy. No reply received so far, lp, 118, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PP 832.

ZUBE, JOHN, to SMITH, CATHY L.Z. & L. NEIL: Sept. 8,1986, 56, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to STAMM, ED.: 5.5. 1998, 4pp, 8.5.98 & 2.7.98, in PP 1511, 385ff. -

ZUBE, JOHN, to STEINER, ROBERT A. & TAYLOR-RADFORD, R.S.: 14 April 1992, 3pp: 191, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to STRAUSS, ERWIN, 8 Aug. 80, reproduced in TC 89 of 7 Sep. 1980, 1p, 19, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - - 28.8.1984, 72, - July 15th, 1986, 90, & 28.8.1984, 72, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - On Panarchy: 8, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - See also under: FILTHY PIERRE. - - - 8. FEB. 88, headed: THE INCURABLE PANARCHIST. [First I argued on the costs and limitations of publishing in print on paper. Concluding: The information avalanches of the information revolution cannot, with the best of will and the greatest ability, be sufficiently expressed via letters to the editor or even special letters to the editor magazines like TC, when they confine themselves to the medium of print on paper, even when they do use reduced size.] - - FILTHY PIERRE, TC148p2: PANARCHY AS LIBERTARIAN MINARCHY: We appear to be as far from understanding each other as ever, in spite of a prolonged exchange of opinions. You say, among other things: "The problem is relations among people in disagreement." That problem exists much more so for territorial States than for exterritorial, voluntaristic and autonomous ones. In the first case, one can at best only achieve some compromise - which at the least will still leave some dissatisfied minorities. In the second case one achieves that at least regarding THE OWN AFFAIRS each gets the system he or she prefers. In that second case, like in the first case, only different solutions in OTHER STATES or societies have to be tolerated and these solutions will take place at the expense and risk of the members of these OTHER States or societies only. - - Panarchy merely sees to it that consenters, dissenters and neutrals are sorted out much more neatly and thoroughly, namely individually and by themselves, to do what they please, with what is theirs. - - The territorial and representative system has not led to leaving each other more alone but, rather, to a severe increase in mutual meddling and a build-up of more and more dissatisfactions so that the disadvantaged minorities often fail to see the difference between their supposedly free and democratic societies and those of the totalitarian "peoples' democracies". Indeed, they do have territorialism in common, as a totalitarian feature. E.g., panarchy would allow abortionists and anti-abortionists to do their thing, - with their own unborn, that of their own communities, not that of others. Different laws on abortion have long coexisted - on a territorial basis. This coexistence would merely be expanded, exterritorially, based upon individual choice - of the parents (not the unborn). - - Even the Nazis were looking at first towards territorial separation from rather than extermination of the Jewish population. If the rest of the world had not been under severe immigration restrictions, most of the European Jews would have had the option to save themselves by emigration. The point here is that even the Nazis were prepared to be tolerant to Jews somewhere else, in other communities. They were not very successful with their internal boycotts and segregation attempts, for even Nazi party members, given free choice and not threatened by brute violence, often preferred the better services or prices of Jewish doctors, lawyers, financial advisors or shop-keepers. Moreover, as territorialists, they could not perceive a coexistence with and yet independence from them, with both groups living under personal laws. The "blood and soil" mythology blocked their heads, as it does, today, those of most people. - - Remember, too, that even the Nazis did, largely, respect the exterritorial diplomatic immunity of neutrals and foreigners, to the extent that it was still officially and internationally granted. - - The Nazis were also close to personal law thinking in one other respect: They still considered emigrants from Germany as Germans, after they or rather their descendants had lived outside of Germany for hundreds of years. However, they were so much territorialists at the same time that they rather insisted upon their "return to the Reich" rather than upon their German independence, wherever they resided, if they wished it. - - Perhaps the worst could have been avoided if exterritorialism and personal law would have had an as effective demagogic advocacy as Hitlerism had. The Jewish holocaust of 2-6 millions [Only "revisionists" would argue the number of millions of victims, as if they mattered in ethics or morality. - JZ, 27.9.11], that of WW II, of 30-50 millions and the annual one, now of ca. 52 million unborn, might have been avoided. I am gathering arguments and facts for future positive "demagogues" of this type. - - One odd fact of history is that Jewish exterritorial autonomists in Russia, who opposed emigration to Israel or elsewhere as a step to independence and rather wished for independence under personal laws, within the territory of the old Czarist Russia, called themselves "Territorialists". - - As a matter of fact, for most of human history, most humans were so intolerant of each other that they could not imagine living under the same laws and institutions with strangers, foreigners, barbarians etc., but, rather, insisted, that each live only under his own personal laws, jurisdiction and administration. [Territorial nationalism is a relatively new experience for mankind and covers only a tiny segment of man's development. But then most people are not sufficiently conscious of man's development and history and all too much is not documented in writing, since for most of history people could neither read not write. At least they were spared xyz volumes of supposedly "positive law". - JZ, 27.9.11.] That is not only a sign of extreme tolerance but also of intolerance. Compared with it, a modern representative democracy might be considered tolerant, in the modern liberal sense. - Using the modern interpretation of certain terms, like integration and segregation, for most liberals, panarchism would amount to an intolerable kind of inequality and segregation and separate development, rather than democratic, egalitarian [In the sense of equal rights and liberties, to the extent that people know and appreciate them and wish to practise them among themselves. - JZ, 27.9.11.] and socially integrating, although only gradually and voluntarily. In addition, like most liberals with a small "l", they do not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary segregation and integration but rather want to subject all in a country to their own ideals. - - You say: "There is a large corpus of such things that must be agreed to ..." My major point is that there is a much smaller corpus of things that must be agreed upon than the agreement upon a popular territorial democracy or a libertarian minarchy does require. - - Basically, only nationalism has to be redefined into voluntaristic versions. That is hard to accept even for most libertarians, even while they dream of their own utopian libertarian enclaves, settlements, zones and experiments. They still share the territorial dream that their ideal ought be the ideal for all and not that an exterritorial option for them would already be ideal for them, in spite of the fact that it would mean that initially they would have only a few dozens (at most) libertarian and anarchist personal law communities, while there would be hundreds to tens of thousands of state-socialist personal law communities, for as long as State socialist propaganda remains more effective than anti-State-socialist propaganda. Thus they continue to advocate libertarian minarchy for all, in this way provoking all their numerous enemies, instead of advocating it - and other forms of anarchism or libertarianism - merely as "fools' paradises" for a few, that would provide much entertainment value to the others, the "modern, enlightened, liberal, democratic, sensible, realistic, practical etc." "citizens" of territorial States. - - By openly proclaiming that one wants to libertarianize ALL, one antagonizes most people, as if one were proposing the imposition of "free drug use", "free love" and "capitalism" (in the worst sense of the State Socialists) upon all people in a territory. After all, the statists are, everywhere, still in the majority. [Much revised now. - JZ, 27.9.11.] - As panarchist you would advocate ALSO AND FOR MOST CASES THEIR right to opt out and do their own things among themselves. Libertarians only rarely do that and then usually only as an after-thought and qualified, not very consistently and convincingly. That is not surprising, because when you come right down to brass tacks, they are still antagonistic to that approach, as our discussions in TC have often shown. - - You say: "All forms of libertarianism I know allow people to form voluntary organizations, and to specify that all disputes among members are to be resolved by an arbitration procedure specified in the organization charter." - Even many of the socialists make such claims. Alas, what they really have in mind is a world full of libertarians or full of socialists - with only minor differences of opinion between them remaining, which they would settle by independently organizing their various sectarian associations, cooperatives and communities and federations. But they define their ideal in a way that it would NOT grant full exterritorial and voluntaristic autonomy to their ENEMIES, in spite of the fact that such an aim could largely calm and disarm these enemies, if not immediately, then in the medium or long run. - - "The 'minarchy' part is of course your concept of a militia." The fact that you continue this sentence, as follows, shows that you have not yet grasped my concept of a militia: "Specifically, the need for an overarching decision and command structure." [The most important part of the ideal militia concept is that is upholds all genuine individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they are claimed among communities of volunteers and that it is motivated, organized and operates in accordance with them. It does not claim any power over peaceful dissenters, just doing their own things among themselves. Nor does it claim a territorial monopoly. However, I do consider it, following my mentor, Ulrich von Beckerath, to be the ultimate rightful power, upheld by all rational and moral people, as fully enlightened upon and appreciative of all genuine individual rights and liberties and respecting them in all its actions. No such militia exists as yet, or has ever existed, except in concept. - JZ, 27.9.11.] - I propose a militia in which officers are elected and recalled, in which are all sworn only to uphold the "common law" of individual rights and the autonomy of voluntary actions on an exterritorial basis. Moreover, these soldiers would make peace and war decisions THEMSELVES rather than be commanded into them - subject only to that "common law" and they would be trained to resist and even execute officers, if necessary, in case they give wrongful orders. They would be autonomously organized on a local and voluntary basis and merely internationally federated or confederated for their common purpose. That, to me, appears to be very far from an "overarching decision and command structure". - - "Without such a structure, every honest difference of opinion between militiamen would result in a shootout." - Even when duels were quite legal, the dissenting males did not wipe themselves out but instead, largely, learned to leave each other alone, even verbally. Naturally, at these times natural law and individual rights ideas were still less popular than they are now. - - Given a structure of voluntary separation and cooperation, man turns out to be a rather cooperative animal - but if you organize his antagonism territorially and give him thus the chance to satisfy his antagonistic interests AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, then perpetual open or cold war results, as it does now. In your present ideal, the pro-abortionists have won the day and an annual holocaust, under armed government protection (just like in Nazi Germany) goes on and an admitted or estimated 56 million human beings are being wiped out every year - just because they are considered as "sub-humans" because they are still under the official minimum age of ca. 3 months after conception. - - - "To avoid this dilemma, there must be an established procedure for resolving these differences of opinion." - There exists no such procedure, not even among libertarians, on such topics as abortion, militia or exterritorialism and defence. - [So far they have not even made use of comprehensive and permanent publishing of all libertarian texts on cheap discs. Recently I bought DVDs, 7GB each, in a packet of 10 for only A$ 3, i.e. 30 cents each! - Nor have they produced a comprehensive batch of digitized "argument mapping" on all of the numerous topics that are still controversial among them. - Neither have they produced a digitized and comprehensive libertarian library, Ideas Archive, Definitions Encyclopedia and an Encyclopedia of their best refutations of popular errors, prejudices and myths. - JZ 27.9.11.] - - In the militia they will have to show or learn a minimum of tolerance towards independent dissenters - as a precondition for their acceptance and their continuance within it. - Militiamen would more than others be aware that "aggression" is as yet insufficiently defined and would develop and apply their own definition of it, one that would respect dissent and voluntary choices when arguments fail to reach agreement. Have libertarian pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists only failed to wipe each other out because governmental police prevented them from doing so or would have penalized any survivors that it would have captured? - - In my eyes, a militia's "command and decision structure" is much more like that of an ancient and autonomous jury rather than that of a monopolistic judge in a government court. - - - How much further away from hierarchies can you get than by individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy, voluntary membership, and grass-roots discussion, clarification and action based on these? - - Are you one of those anarchists who condemn all kinds of organizations as "archies"? - - - Apart from all such considerations, the hours and days of all territorial States are numbered - by the existence of devices for mass extermination. Not counter-terror but only the abolition of this terrorist threat can help us and that requires a structural reorganization, on a voluntary basis, which would render such devices obviously wrong and superfluous and subject to grass-root controls and disarmament efforts, should some remain for a while or be constructed again. As you have stated often enough, even your proprietary communities would be likely to be nuclear armed and would thus be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. - - I am sorry, but the space limitations do not permit me to continue this discussion here. The rest of my replies will be found only on microfiche in ON PANARCHY Nos.XIff. – JZ, n.d. & 8.2.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, to STUMM, JIM, Reply to Dialogue with JZ concerning Panarchy and a Volunteer Militia, 4, & Collectivists & Panarchy, 34, & 39 in ON PANARCHY X, in PEACE PLANS 755. - MILITIA, DEFENCE, HUMAN RIGHTS - - - 4 April 89, with: SOME REMARKS TO JIM STUMM'S "FINANCING A PANARCHIST MILITIA", in RANDOM WRITINGS, No. 20, Sep. 88, pp 3 & 4, 6pp, 78-83, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833. - - - ZUBE, JOHN, to STUMM, JIM: in reply to "Panarchy's Progress (Regress)", Oct. 24, 1986, 2, Jan. 4, 1987, 19, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.

ZUBE, JOHN, to TAYLOR, DAVID: 22 Aug. 86, 9pp, 117-125, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879. - - 22 June 1989, 7pp: 131; 24 August 1989, 9pp: 140; - 16 October 1989, 9pp: 157, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to TEMESVARY, A., Dr.: 4 Jan. 87, 5pp, 97, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. - - 29.4.92 – 3.5.92, 5pp: 186, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to THE AUSTRALIAN, n.d., 3pp: 142-144, in PP 1540. On the article in THE AUSTRALIAN, 27.4.1993, from THE ECONOMIST: Mad Dogs and Middlemen, on Bosnia and Intervention. - Dear Sir, - I am writing the contribution BELOW in response to your reprint of an article on Bosnia, in THE ECONOMIST entitled "Mad dogs and Middlemen", with no author given. - It is one of thousands of articles in the mass media on this and others of dozens of hot trouble spots in the world, which is typical by not casting any doubts at all upon proposed territorial solutions. - One should assume that at least one of these numerous writers would be free enough of the dominant views and prejudices, which lead everywhere to oppression and even massacres, to consider, at least as an intellectual game, a simple opposite approach: What would happen if, instead of territorial sovereignty for compulsory State members, as the supposed ideal solution for all people and conditions, full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer groups, under personal laws, were proposed and tried instead? - Could one not at least assume that the same kind of tolerance that is involved in religious freedom, might work as well if tried out in the political, economic and social spheres? Or that coercive unification attempts in the latter spheres are as much condemned to become failures as they were in religion? - So far I have not even found a whisper of this alternative solution being expressed in any of thousands of mass media articles and of the vast majority of books and magazines on political subjects. - I was pointed out this alternative in the early 1950's and have since then tried explore its historical precedents and future possibilities, as much as I could, and to publish or republish them in my PEACE PLANS series, since 1964 (which since 1978 appeared only on microfiche). - My materials collection on this subject comes now to ca. 2 dozen volumes. Hundreds of other PEACE PLANS issues explore side issues or mere particular applications of the same principle of tolerance, e.g. monetary freedom and free trade for monetary freedom and free trade advocates. Alas, on microfilm this issue is also largely buried or out of sight for most people and I know of no computerized publication or network which has taken up this alternative. (This situation has, since then improved, but only very slowly and to a very limited extent. - JZ, 24.8.04.) - I haven't the funds to try conventional publishing or mass-mailings to advocate any of the many ideas I have collected or micrographically recorded. (A a general archive and market for  ideas does, alas, not yet exist.) Thus my conscience forces me to "risk" now and then at least a letter to the editor, however small the chances for its publication are. With a letter I will have at least tried, in a conventional way and one that I can afford, to point out a significant solution and do not longer have to blame myself for having kept silent, by not even trying conventional media - occasionally. Not to have protested at all, at least with a letter, would make me an accessory, too - apart from my micrographic publishing effort, to the crimes committed under the ideology of territorialism. - You are unlikely to publish the following letter but this will be your fault, not mine. I will film it among my upcoming ON PANARCHY issues nos. XVIII ff. - Naturally, I would welcome it if THE AUSTRALIAN would be the first newspaper and mass medium to break this kind of ignorant, prejudiced and voluntary or even unconscious "censorship". - - - NATIONAL LAND HOLDINGS AND GRABS AS THE MAIN PROBLEM, causing oppression, terrorism, civil wars and wars, poverty and hunger. Exterritorialism and voluntarism as the road to peace - and prosperity. - There is no just, sound and lasting territorial solution to territorial problems. Nevertheless, almost all people, writers and politicians assume that oneself and others can be free, fully free, only under territorial institutions and laws, no matter how often such attempts have led and are leading to oppression and massacres of dissenters and different ethnic groups. - This intolerant and despotic approach was, in most countries, discarded in the sphere of religion, after decades of bloody struggles, but it is still and unquestioningly adopted by the vast majority, even of intellectuals, for political, economic and social laws, systems and institutions. - I would like to see it publicly questioned and discussed - in our supposedly free and unprejudiced press and other mass media. - If it were given the same space as the territorial non-solutions are given, the case for exterritorial autonomy for volunteers would, sooner or later and almost inevitably win this discussion against territorial sovereignty imposed upon all dissenters and minorities in a country. - The inviolability of borders means the violability of the borders around free individuals. - If individuals and their volunteer groups are not free to choose their own uniform laws for themselves, then the kind uniformity desired by others is likely to be forced upon them. Thereupon at least some of them will "think" of "resisting" terroristically - with pistols, bombs or even nuclear mass murder devices - in the attempt to try to impose, in their turn, their favorite territorial uniformity upon others. - Why try, in the first place, to establish territorial uniformity and continue to consider it as a solution for all of the many trouble spots in the world? - Why leave territorial uniformity, however widely chosen or imposed and opposed, as the only option? - Since it did not work against religious dissent, why expect it to work among political, economic and social system mongers? - - Did the white Australian land grab, one of the largest in history, satisfy the Aborigines or even the palefaces? Aren't the latter permanently in political strife when experimental freedom is enjoyed, temporarily and under strong opposition, only by the territorially ruling party or coalition? - Why should not the Labor people be confined to ruling only over the labor voters and the Liberals only over the liberal voters? And, naturally, fully exterritorial autonomy also for Aborigines over Aborigines - in their volunteer groups and the same freedom for any other Australian and other minorities, in Australia and in the rest of the world. - - In countries which much less uniform populations (or preferences for public affairs), like most countries of the Balkan, the imposition of uniform territorial rule is even more wrong, destructive and ultimately self-defeating.  - If exclusive national territories were recognized for no group at all, no matter how large and powerful it may now be or might become and if, instead, full exterritorial autonomy were recognized for all communities of volunteer, then what moral and utilitarian motives and resources would remain for any dissenters to plot assassinations or revolutions or to engage in massive civil war actions? - We would become demilitarized in our minds. - This process has to begin somewhere. - I suggest the free and public discussion of historical precedents, remaining traits and future possibilities of exterritorial autonomy for volunteer groups, or the exterritorial imperative, or panarchism, or full freedom of action and tolerance for all tolerant actions, or experimental freedom in the social sciences, for all volunteers, all minority groups. - - Furthermore, the establishment of an international federation with this single aim. Such a federation would have the potential to finally embrace the majority of the world's population, since even most majorities are made up of minority groups, barely and only temporarily held together by territorialist notions. [However, under the principles of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers even several and different world-wide federations might be established, all only for their volunteers. - JZ, 1.10.11.] - - The case for the "exterritorial imperative" is objectively so strong that it must win out - if sufficiently brought to light. - In the Turkish Empire it was partly realized by the millet system, called also the dhimmi system, by the Islamic rulers and scholars. In them different religious communities formed also political communities and membership depended upon faith, not territorial residence. - Some of the new voluntary nations would be formed across present borders and might become even larger than most present compulsory nations. Kurds, Macedonians, Armenians and many others would become exterritorially unified - or free to integrate themselves individually. - Freedom but not any territorial monopoly for any voluntary group in Somalia, the Lebanon and in Israel. - Each of the dozens, nay hundreds of ethnic and other group in the Balkans and in Russia and the rest of the world should gain all the liberties, exterritorially, that it wants for itself. - Several exterritorial world federations could peacefully coexist. - No country or continent could any longer be monopolized by any group. Any country and the world would be open to free individuals and their voluntary associations, with the natives and present populations remaining safe within the framework of their preferred personal laws and institutions, as long as they can stand them, individually. - Each could do his own things - but only to himself and to like-minded people. - - National territories are not rightful war aims but, rather, amount to a permanent war situation towards other such States, at best an armistice, and, internally, more or less a subjugation of all dissenting minority groups. - Exterritorial autonomy for volunteers would not only end oppression, civil wars and national wars but bring about prosperity for most productive people, because then all kinds of political, economic and social experiments could be freely tried by their supporters, among themselves. - What would work would be fast imitated. Progress in that sphere could become as fast as it became in natural sciences and technology, as well as in the arts, under experimental freedom. - The first among the 1 million Australian unemployed would become free to try to supply themselves with paid work, without depriving anybody of it, by undertaking themselves and only among themselves all the monetary, financial and organizational steps required for this purpose. No imposed laws and regulations and union rules could keep them any longer unemployed. - - My father phrased it thus: "To each the government of his dreams." I usually amend this to: "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams." [A friend, GPdB, later suggested replacing "dreams" by "choice". I could only agree with him. - JZ, 1.10.11.] - - With that alternative within reach of each individual, few would be foolish enough to go on fighting and almost all will then be free, able, willing, organized and trained to effectively resist these few remaining fools and fanatics. - - If you think that a short column, slogan or aphorism can sufficiently convey this fundamental change and option, you are welcome to try. - PIOT (Panarchy In Our Time) John Zube. - - Enclosures: Mini-LMP, MN on Pan. - -  P.S.: Since I doubt that you will make room for as long a letter, I do grant permission to publish an extract of it for your "IN BRIEF" segment. If you do neither, I will not be surprised but do rather expect it. - However, it would be nice to start a chain-reaction of enlightening and innovative thinking in this sphere. Under the regime of an ideal Ideas Archive a single postcard outlining a new ideas might be enough. [Somewhat corrected & edited: JZ, 1.10.11 & 30.8.12.]

ZUBE, JOHN, to THE CONNECTION: 5.5.82, with: Some Notes on recent Discussions in TC on Panarchy, Proprietary Communities & the State, discussing Jim Stumm in TC 103, 65, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, to The Other Israel, P.O. Box 2542 Holon, Israel, - 3.2.04 &, later, to Noah Nissani" < - - Dear Sirs, I noted today your address in ANARCHIST AGE WEEKLY REVIEW No. 579 of 1 Feb. 04. In consequence, I am mailing to you today my first CD, on free banking and panarchism, which are both urgently needed, especially in Israel, although hardly any Israelis or Arabs are as yet aware of this. - Exterritorial community autonomy, at least to a considerable degree, is nothing quite new to both Arabs and Jews but is a significant but neglected part of their - largely forgotten and ignored - traditions. Both have become, all too much, territorial nationalists, territorial religious people and territorial racist people. [As the end of the series of letter exchanges demonstrates! - JZ, 1.10.11.] - Both have also, to some extent, applied the wrongful principle of collective responsibility against each other, with the Israeli side, admittedly, being mostly much more restrained in this. [Apart from their "nuclear strength" policy, one by survivors of the Holocaust preparing another Holocaust for other people, most of them quite innocent apart from their self-caused ignorance, prejudices and disinterest in rightful alternatives, which have their equivalent among the Jews and Non-Jews in Israel and in most other countries. - JZ, 11.10.11.] - Both could come to coexist peacefully and tolerantly only once they consistently applied the principle of religious tolerance or religious freedom to the remaining spheres in which territorial governments have preempted our independent actions, i.e., the political, economic and social spheres. Here full experimental freedom or autonomy has to be introduced, on the only basis, which makes this possible: Personal Law under exterritorial autonomy. - The territorial practice of majority democracy does not sufficiently pacify the strongly dissenting groups, neither of which has much chance to become a lasting majority. To that extent even democracy does breed terrorists among its dissenters. - If full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities were introduced in Israel, for all its dissenters, then Israel would soon set an admirable example to the world, one for peace, justice, freedom and, consequently, great and steady progress. Then it could come to invite millions of Arabs to become fully and well employed in Israel, instead of walling them out, and could successfully appeal to Arab people, and others, to apply the same liberties and rights among themselves, for their own advantage. - - Territorial partitioning, apart from private properties, is certainly not the ultimate solution. Every war over borderlines attests to that. - - For outside observers there is actually not much difference between Arabs and Jews. Both were tribal nomads (as were all of us, at one stage), but in this case they seem to have been closely related to each other. Individual members and families seem to have frequently changed their allegiance from one tribe to another. Jews became only somewhat different, apart from the religious differences and developing customs and mores, by having gone through a very prolonged exile, there mixing with many other peoples and their cultures, biologically and otherwise, fertilizing many of them, culturally and also suffering numerous prosecutions as "foreigners" and people of a different faith, which led to a very rough selection process in which only the most skillful and intelligent tended to survive, thus breeding in many respects a superior kind of people, which they were not before, although, like most other ethnic groups, they, too, suffered from the myth of being "the chosen people". - - I think it is high time for both, Jews and Arabs, to remember and consistently extend the best, because tolerant, parts of their ancient traditions for surviving and coexisting, peacefully, side by side with other kinds of people, and their customs and personal laws, in the same country. - In this they could and should set a pilot scheme for the world. - I know so far only of one Israeli, who entertains similar thoughts, largely inherited from his best friend, namely Noah Nissani, - [In this, as the last communication of this exchange indicates, I was, obviously, misinformed. - JZ, 1.10.11.] - Perhaps you could point out more such addresses to me? - Formerly, in Czarist Russia, there was a Jewish movement of this kind. They called themselves the "Territorialists" because they wanted to establish their kind of Israel as an exterritorially autonomous community within the territory of the Czarist Russian Empire. - The Zionists, who claimed instead, a separate territory for all Jews, in "their" ancient land (also wrongfully conquered by them before, as reported in the Old Testament) won over more converts and finally established the modern territorial Israel, which suffered, by now for decades, all the wrongs and disadvantages of territorial Warfare States - and also dished them out, effectively, to others. - Alas, it took such behavior to gain the "respect" of many other territorial nationalists, for whatever much or little such respect is worth. - - Its earlier examples of numerous diverse Kibbutzims or cooperative utopian colonies, provided many interesting precedents for diversity and tolerance, but, it seems that they did not inspire the younger generation enough and later, once they were economically successful, they tended to take in mere employees rather than more cooperative members. - I wish they had adopted, instead, the "open cooperative" policy proposed by the Austrian economist Theodor Hertzka. (Originally proposed by P. Buchez and later developed by Ulrich von Beckerath.) - Nor did they strive, sufficiently, towards exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, for all kinds of communities of volunteers. - I would rather have liked to see Jews setting a cosmopolitan example of tolerance to the world, wherever they lived, exterritorially as independent as they wanted to be. Their long-term exile [the Diaspora] should have well prepared them for this. - Alas, in their literature, what I have so far seen of it, this aspect has been likewise rather neglected, as it has been in the literature of all other nations, races, peoples and faiths. - Alan Koontz has made my all too long e-mailed introduction to this disk  available on - PIOT, John Zube. - (Panarchy In Our Time: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!) - Libertarian Microfiche Publishing, Peace Plans, On Panarchy, etc., since 1964, since 1977 almost exclusively on microfiche: - - (It contains my two libertarian peace books, so does my CD 1), - (It contains also my supplementary literature list), - , (The latter contain much on free banking.) - - REPLY: From: "Noah Nissani" - To: "John Zube" <>; "The Other Israel" - Cc: "Noah Nissani"; "Christian Butterbach" - February 05, 2004 2:05M Subject: Re: 04 02 03 The OtheR Israel, re my first CD on free banking and panarchism as foundations stones for peace in freedom & justice. - - Dear John, - Visiting you will find a lot of different and more or less non-partitionists peace plans between Jews and Arabs. May be {or not} that I have been the first in the last time, and without doubt Ze'ev (Wladimir) Jabotinsky (1880-1940), the most outstanding classical liberal Zionist leader that in a family of fans of him I had the luck to born, the first of all the times. - Best wishes, Noah - - - On 05/02/04 John Zube wrote: Dear Noah, - thanks for the hint "hopeways". I just had a quick browse and downloaded some sites. Alas, I did not find an obvious ideas connection. But then I haven't carefully read all the downloaded sites yet. - I also did a quick search on the site on panarchism, personal law, individual secession, exterritorial, territorialists, etc., all in vain. So it does seem to me that it still needs input of this kind, not only federalist notions, community notions, charitable organizations etc. - It seems that the creative spirit of Jewish people has not yet been active enough in that sphere. But then the territorial environment does not encourage it, in the same way as e.g. the Internet does not really encourage the exploration of alternatives to it, e.g. micro-fiched literature and literature combined on CD-ROMs. But I was recently promised from diversityunited UK, a CD on Cd options, in exchange for mine. - [I believe that I never got it and thus, probably, did not send them my disc. Anyhow, I would have liked more a description of what they mean by "diversityunited". - JZ, 1.10.11. - The best [relevant] book titles that I have so far come across are: S. D. Goitein: A Mediterranean Society, vol. II, the community, S. M. Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland and Mark R. Cohen, Jewish Self-Government in Medieval Egypt. - Alas, according to my experience, such titles are very rare in the Jewish and Israel sections of bookshops that I have seen. - Naturally, the frequent pogroms took the limelight and appealed most to the feelings and thoughts on wrongfully imposed and numerous and frequent remaining injustices. The limited blessings provided by limited autonomy tended to become overlooked because of the very great and repeated other wrongs done to Jews. - Perhaps the final work on the history of the limited and temporary autonomy that Jews enjoyed in some countries, China included, has still to be written. - - An enforced ghetto community should, naturally, not be mixed up with a quite voluntary, exterritorial and exterritorially quite autonomous community. Nor should simultaneous injustices done to Jews be ascribed to the dhimmis (millet system, enclaves, by faith) themselves, as one website does, which considers them as just one of the many tools and methods to oppress and exploit Jews. - - At the height of the Moorish culture in Spain Jews and Arabs seem to have cooperated, largely peacefully and productively. Again, I miss reports on the details. Their common enemy were the very intolerant and hateful Christians, who certainly did not "love their enemies". - Please point out any Jewish book to me, or any book on Jews, that especially studies that aspect. Preferably also without a bias in favor of "modern", "liberal" "democracies" and "federations", which are all too majoritarian and territorial and do not sufficiently recognize individual and minority rights. - - One should distinguish compulsory separatism and partitions and voluntary segregation and non-geographical schisms and partitions and fractions, also voluntary integration attempts from compulsory integration methods. - - Modern cosmopolitan cities provide interesting examples of districts in which one or the other nationality predominates, but without any powers over different ethnic people that also live among them, apart from the majority voting powers gained through local government elections. They are affinity groups that moved geographically together, or rather concentrated their people in certain areas, but without claiming any territorial monopoly and legislative power over that territory. Therefore they are not perceived as threats by non-members, not even by those living in the same area. - Some consider that condition to be already the ideal. I hold that the other exterritorial option should also be open to them, whether on the basis of voluntary segregation or on that of voluntary integration. To each according to his own choice. - - In the very long run, if the human race manages to survive all the self-built traps, I hope that all of us will become cosmopolitans and consider e.g. racial, national, religious and ideological differences between good neighbors, friends and associates to be of no major significance, except for the individuals concerned, in their own and private affairs. - PIOT, John. - - - Noah Nissani, on 7.2.04 in reply: Dear John, I received your CD, thank you. - After 2000 years of suffering in the Galuth, we have finally arrived to our territory. You ask us to leave it and to try panarchism? - - Even classical liberalism does not exist in Israel, out of perhaps a little number of isolated individuals. - Best wishes, Noah. - I did not reply, because I might have become impolite. - JZ, 1.10.11 – ISRAEL, PALESTINE, ZIONISM, JUDAISM, JEWS, ANTISEMITISM, RACISM, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM

ZUBE, JOHN, to TOSCANA, JOE: 22.2.1996, 7pp: 154; - 26.3.1996, 8pp: 173, in PP 1540. -  On exterritorially and micrographically opting out of the print on paper restrictions upon our freedom of expression and information.

ZUBE, JOHN, to WATNER, CARL, 24.3.86. - Box 1275, Gramling, South Carolina 29348. (Page 59, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.) - Dear Carl, thanks for your letter of March 11th., … Since Alan Koontz wanted to produce the interview from a repeated exchange of questions and answers, and since I wanted to reproduce the lot anyhow in microfiche, I did not put any size limit on my replies, assuming that he would see to that for any reproduction in THE VOLUNTARYIST. - On my view of voluntaryism and how it relates to panarchism: As I understand voluntaryism and panarchism, I see no discrepancy between the two at all. - Nor do I see a distinction between either and a comprehensive and consistent libertarianism. - Nor do I draw a distinction between voluntarism and voluntaryism. - (It was, probably, my mistake to assume a consensus between us on this.) - - Panarchism, as I see it, is based on voluntarism and has drawn the conclusions from it in the sphere of actions, which are at the same time tolerant and non-territorial. - - Panarchism, because it puts voluntarism or individual free choice and freedom of action first, rejects all conventional political structures which are based on territorial exclusiveness of and involuntary membership in States and which subject individuals, minorities and even majorities to more or less centralized and uniform governmental decision-making, including legislation, administration and jurisdiction, protection and defence. - It regards as irrelevant whether a government represents a minority or the vast majority. - The essential point for panarchists is that a territorial government represents no one else but its voluntary members. The others are unrepresented and not given freedom of choice and action - and cannot obtain full liberty within its framework. - (That situation becomes rectified only once each present territorial government becomes confined to its own volunteers and exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - - The panarchist vision of a free society, and of the means to achieve it, is voluntaristic: Even State membership is to be quite voluntary, on a personal law basis. - This does not imply any "acceptance" of the State as an organizational form for all people but it opens the way for all kinds of organizational alternatives, provided and maintained e.g. by all kinds of anarchists and libertarians - each group operating only through and upon its own voluntary members, like churches and sects tend to do nowadays. - - What is left of governments of the old type, when each individual can, panarchistically, have "the government of his dreams" (Solneman) or the non-government of his dreams, for himself? - Simply a voluntary organization of statists doing their own thing to themselves only and no longer to any involuntary victims. - - Such a "State" I can live with, although I would not want to live "within" or "under" it. - I would find it even serviceable, as a living demonstration of what harm a State does to its members, i.e. as a deterrent example. - As such a demonstration it might be so valuable, educationally, that if it should one day happen that no one will any longer volunteer for such political and economic sadism and masochism combined, then freedom-minded people will, temporarily and for show-purposes only, reestablish such statist relationships in theatrical performances and exhibitions, as they now do at least occasionally reenact scenes of slavery etc. to keep alive an awareness of historical developments. - (In Australia even the whipping of deported convicts is regularly play-acted out - in historical village exhibits. (The only things I have not heard of as being re-enacted, except on screens, are scenes of torture and hanging.) - - In other words, not by being overthrown but merely by being largely deserted and otherwise left alone, would the old types of States become, likewise, turned into non-territorial and autonomous associations of volunteers, would thus represent voluntarism and associationism pure and simple, although they might retain the old names and practices among their voluntary victims. - - The moral legitimacy of any panarchy would rest on the unanimous consent of all its members, all being volunteers, and the confinement of each panarchy to the own affairs, i.e. those of the own members. - - As for the various political and economic systems and methods applied by various panarchies coexisting peacefully in the same territory - and world-wide - that would be no one else's affair. Whether they apply some despotic or authoritarian system, a representative democratic or direct democratic one or any other one that they preferred, would be irrelevant for any outsiders. Outsiders would only ask: Did they volunteer for this? Are they still volunteers? Then it serves them right if they suffer the consequences of their own choices. - - Even if they instituted, in an extreme case, slavery and mutual assassination and theft, as practised “principles”, this would be quite up to them. - As long as individuals remain free to secede from such bodies, there will be a limit to the number of people joining them and remaining members. And these people may need these lessons because they would not sufficiently respond to any theoretical teachings. - - All panarchies, in the interest of their own security and to achieve the potential of unlimited growth for their own system, would see to it that individual secessionism from all panarchies and old type States remains a reality and, where it is not yet realized, that it is utilized as the main means to overthrow the old coercive systems, largely with the aid of refugees, deserters insurrectionists and their recognized non-territorial governments in exile. Here lies the main potential military and purely defensive and liberating strength of panarchism. - - Panarchism intends to "defeat" and replace the old territorial statist system - a) by propaganda, - b) by individual secessionism and - c) by demonstrating the working of panarchism in examples of panarchy. - In these 3 aspects panarchism is purely voluntaristic. - - - Panarchism considers conscientious objection and tax strikes, however extensively they are realized, as only part-realizations of the withdrawal of consent and cooperation by individuals that is expressed by individual secessionism. - - Voluntary taxation would be automatically realized, in whatever form it might take, through the voluntary membership of panarchies. Even if, internally, all agreed upon high and progressive income taxes, this would be voluntary and fair taxation, as far as their members were concerned. The mandate given for such measures would be 100%. Dissenters would opt out. - - There appears to be, however, an important difference between my and your voluntaristic position. You seem to have applied the voluntaryist principle also to offenders and aggressors. Their choices should not be interfered with. They should not be coerced, not even defensively. Thus, in application, non-violence seems to have become your primary principle. - I do consider this to be an absurd and contradictory over-extension of the voluntaryist principle, one that ignores voluntarism for victims of attacks committed by "free" offenders who want to be "free" to follow their whims in arbitrary actions against others. - I, for one, do not expect a criminal, political or military aggressor or invader to volunteer to do right and abstain from doing wrong. - I rather favor volunteers rightfully and effectively resisting them, even forcefully, with as much and as little physical force as is necessary and justified, when other appeals have failed or are useless at least for the moment of an acute threat against basic rights. - In all such instances, I am mainly concerned about the lack of choice on the side of the victims - rather than about the voluntary but wrong choice of the aggressors. - I want to preserve and extend voluntarism on the side of the victims, however much that is disliked by the aggressors, invaders, monopolists etc. and however much that would restrict the choice of the latter, even forcefully. - Defensive force is for me an expression of voluntarism, not its denial. Aggressive force is for me not an expression of voluntarism but its denial. (John Henry Mackay, in his anarchist writings, has at least made that distinction quite clear but, apparently, not yet to all. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - I find it deplorable that aggressors do remain and that one is thus often forced to resort to defensive force against them. - I do not deplore that in such instances defensive force is used but rather applaud its use. - - I remember a newspaper article on a 3-year old, who successfully repelled a rapist attacking her older sister by bashing him on the head with a heavy glass ashtray. - (Whether such a defense was risky for both victims and whether other means were available, comes secondary to my main consideration: Was her defence within her rights and that of her sister?) -  Thus, if you will, you might class yourself as a non-violent voluntaryist while I might class myself as a rightful voluntaryist. - - At the same time, as a panarchist, I do favor voluntary victims and aggressors doing their chosen thing among themselves, even it this amounts to mutual slaughter, like dueling, playing chicken with their cars, cutting each other's throat in one way or the other, if they prefer that. - Voluntarism comes first for me, not non-violence - although people committed to violent acts against each other would also be very low in my value scale. - (I recommend highly the criticism of absolute pacifism in: Jan Narveson: Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis, in: Moral Problems, edited by James Rachels, 2nd. ed., Harper & Row, 1975, pp 346-360. The preceding article by Douglas Lackay on Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence is also good. - (By the way, a well organized and known printing house like Harper & Row produces only ca. 1200 titles p.a. with 1800 employees, i.e. 0.66 per head and keeps only the output of ca. 10 years in print, i.e. up to 190 years of its 200 year output is out of print! Production-wise, not with regard to distribution, I am much more efficient!) - - Your statement of purpose of “THE VOLUNTARYIST”: “The Voluntaryists are libertarians who have organized to promote non-political strategies (1) to achieve a free society. (2) We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. (3) Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. (4) Voluntarists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the co-operation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends." (5) - - (1) For panarchists political strategies are characterized by involuntary membership and subordination and territorial exclusiveness and powers. To that extent, they would not utilize "political means". But on a voluntary and non-territorial basis, they would  use any political means internally, among their own members. Moreover, they would use precisely their characteristics to defend themselves against remaining despotic and territorial States and to transform them into similar frameworks for voluntary actions. - If that must be called "politics", then so be it. - - (2) Panarchism would even realize the freedom not to be free, in whatever formal way one likes to arrange that for oneself. - - (3) All the voting still occurring in panarchies would tend to be unanimous. Unelected leaders would, mostly, have 100% voluntary consent, for dissenters would always be free and encouraged to opt out. If it could and should happen that within a panarchy several groups would develop, expressing some dissent on some internal constitutional, legal or juridical questions, unanimity would tend to be rapidly restored, for even the losing party would be free to opt out with all its members and voters, i.e. the defeated could be victorious, too, regarding their own affairs, if only they wanted to. - Each vote could then be 100% valid for each individual voter. He would not be dependent upon thousands or millions of other voters agreeing with him. To that extent panarchistic voting would agree, not disagree, with libertarian principles. - - (4) Each aspiration regarding the own affairs would be legitimate and would cease to delegitimize different actions of others in their affairs. - By means of all remaining and new associations enjoying unanimous consent, true legitimacy would be achieved for the first time. Illegitimate regimes would be largely deserted or only precariously upheld by a few crackpots and at their expense only and for these they would be legitimate. - - (5) Panarchists assert that the ultimate "withdrawal of co-operation and consent" consists in individual secessions. - But they go beyond that and assert that man is also an associative animal and can be relied upon to establish numerous diverse alternative institutions, all pursuing, in their own way, one or the other political, economic or social aim for the own members. - - In the light of panarchism, most of the old names for systems, methods and aims lose their meaning or gain a new one. - - Panarchism would radically realize voluntarism, help greatly in its realization, help maintain it and would help to spread libertarians voluntarism by the successes of the examples it would set. - Panarchists, from my point of view, are therefore consistent voluntaryists - who apply voluntarism in all spheres and envision how this would operate among people as they are now and as they will, one day, be. Most voluntaryists, that I have so far encountered, still persist with some of the old notions that apply only coercive and territorial governments and States. They are thus, in my eyes, inconsistent panarchists. - - The first article in THE VOLUNTARYIST No. 17 discusses whether the "button for total freedom for all, now" should be pushed. Under panarchism, each would push the button only for himself and not on behalf of others. - Others would thus have no right or reason to complain. - Even that decision should not be made in a process of collective decision-making. Any attempt to do so does lead to clashes between people, even when all of them consider themselves to be libertarians. - - Summing up LeFevre's approach you say: "Forcing men to be free is an improper way to achieve freedom ..." - That is also the panarchist attitude. - - Ibid: "LeFevre went on record as advocating no substitute for government except the market place." - Panarchism wants to introduce a market for governmental and non-governmental services, one in which not even his private property concept would be an absolute concept for any but LeFevre-type autarchists, since various forms of cooperative and collective property would be practised, voluntarily and among their believes only. - The establishment of socialistic approaches to property would also be based on voluntary means. - - Panarchists do not expect, with LeFevre, a “long and painful re-education of the American peoplebut their rapid persuasion via experiments and demonstrations, once they have been persuaded of only one thing, namely, tolerance for tolerant actions or freedom of action for all dissenters. - - "We cannot use the weapons of tyranny: for freedom and reason are our only tools." - - That general clause would be differently interpreted by panarchists: Panarchists would tend to achieve the defection of the military power of tyrants. Their soldiers and officers, if not sufficiently motivated or able to rise against them, would tend to defect from the tyrants to panarchies of their own choice, bringing their weapons with them. They would be potential allies of all enemies of the tyrant or dictator or at least claim to be neutrals and become recognized as such. - The involuntary and exploited workers of authoritarian regimes would tend to flee and would be welcomed, with open arms and well paid jobs, at least by the members of the economically free panarchies, if these communities are their choice. - - Panarchies would not only use reasoning but free experimentation or attractive job offers and personal freedom choices to persuade, in the same way as natural scientists, technicians and inventors use freedom of action and freedom to experiment for their purposes and businesses do attract customers with the best goods and services they can manage to offer at competitive prices. - - The freedom they offer to opponents would include even the option to adopt a condition of voluntary slavery for themselves, as long as this is their preference. - - In other words, they could "dissolve" tyrannical regimes almost or altogether without a war or fighting. - - However, this would also require that they are not committed, quite exclusively, to non-violence. A dictator’s soldiers and officers would not risk defecting to people who are not prepared to defend their rights and liberties with rightful weapons and methods. That action might be suicidal for them and they cannot be expected to act as foolishly. If they are the only ones willing to risk resistance to a dictatorship then they might as well to do it from where they are – or abide their time for a good opportunity to do so. - - Panarchism allows each to push the button only for himself. - The pro-freedom button is not a pro-freedom button unless it would introduce this disarming alternative, also. - It would not bring love but justice to its enemies, including the freedom to choose to remain unfree. - With the inclusion of this option most scruples about pushing the button would disappear. - - In your article, in the same issue of The Voluntaryist, "The Decision Is Always Yours - Freedom As Self-Control", you speak of "the voluntaryist insight that all human organizations and institutions require the consent and cooperation of their participants to function." - - In the social, economic and political spheres only panarchism turns this insight into a formal and obvious basis of organization. Territorial States try to deviate from this ideal as far as they can, substituting centralized decision-making by usurpers, experts, majorities and minorities. - - As for "self-control", panarchism institutionalizes it as much as individuals want it institutionalized for their own affairs. - - In this article you fail to distinguish between rightful and defensive force and wrongful and aggressive violence and thus come to wrong conclusions like: "Force always inhibits creative energy." (It CAN also be used, purely defensively, to defend free and creative or productive actions or the upkeep of the status quo that individuals desire for themselves, in their own affairs. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - The policing force (it could be privately and competitively organized) that expels those, who by willful noise or assaults would break up a peaceful meeting, does not inhibit the creative energies involved, those of the peaceful speakers, and thoughtful listeners, but only the destructive and preventative energies of the "disturbers of the peace". - - Any true right is associated with the authority to enforce it. (A basic insight, possibly first clearly expressed by Immanuel Kant. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - Wrongdoers have no such rightful authority. No wrong is done to them if they are stopped in their wrongful acts, even when they are stopped forcefully - or permanently. - - To class a force used for the preservation of freedom of speech, press, assembly, association and force, quite discriminately used for their suppression, both as violence, is wrong and absurd. - - Solneman claims that J. H. Mackay made the distinction between aggressive and defensive force clearest among all anarchist writers. Perhaps re-reading his 2 main anarchist works would help you, too, in becoming aware of the difference. I believe that I didn't need that aid to see the difference - but then so many years have passed since I have fully read these books that I may have forgotten that I owe them something in this respect. - (Probably, all three anarchist books by Mackay are now available online. I have not yet digitized my father's book: K. H. Z. Solneman, Der Bahnbrecher John Henry Mackay, 1979, 297 S., but micro-fiched it in PEACE PLANS 187.) - - To deny that coercion and even torture could NOT "control" others, does really cast all people into an extremely heroic mold. While it is quite true that some people have resisted, to their death, even the most extreme degrees of coercion and torture, most people have not been as firm and have, under such pressures or even threats of using them, involuntarily chosen to compromise as much as seemed advisable under the circumstances. To equate a thus enforced consent with consent tends to deprive "consent" of any real meaning. - - Consent and dissent become full and free consent only if their expression becomes fully free and instutionalized. Panarchism offers that. Territorial States cannot offer that choice. - - The coercion at least of enforced or "chosen" emigration remains and of forcefully prevented immigration for many of those who find e.g. the S.A. or U.S.A. degree of coercion still attractive enough for them to want to immigrate there. - (There are now ca.1 million enquiries a year from potential immigrants to Australia, while only ca. 80,000 are accepted at present. But Australia is still very far from being a quite free country. Presently, it even runs concentration camps for illegal immigrants that were caught.) - - "This insight into the nature of human action has many implications. For one thing, it leads directly to the voluntaryist insight, that all States rest on the consent and cooperation of their victims." - I wish it were so. But count me out. - As a panarchist I consider this to be a dangerous fallacy of some voluntaryists, one that does ignore how effective laws are e.g. on taxation, migration, compulsory membership and territorial uniformity, even though they are not 100% effective. - - The fallacy involved is to me comparable to those involved when people declare legal tender laws to be harmless – because, ultimately, at the end of a galloping inflation, they are ignored – and also price controls to be harmless – because a black market exists. Such fallacies are also expressed by various self-liberationists of today, who imagine that they could not only increase their personal liberty today by rational and rightful efforts but achieve total individual liberty, including tax exemption, freedom from the threat of war, immunity towards all effects of mass unemployment and rapid inflations etc. right now, by clever individual actions, legally or underground or even merely by declaring themselves to be “sovereign individuals”. - Such „declarations“ are usually only as “effective” as are more songs, poems and prayers for liberty are. - - (Those few, who did manage to resist successfully from extermination camps, certainly do not disprove the existence of extermination camps. Of Sobibor's victims, 600 resisted and 300 escaped alive - of a total of ca. 250,000 to 350,000 victims. - Harry Brown et al might have got away with not paying all the taxes the current legislation demanded of them - but how many were forced to pay almost all or even all of them? - Smuggling has never introduced fully free trade. - JZ, 25.10.11.) - - "Freedom is self-control", panarchistically interpreted, means, also, non-intervention with the voluntary and non-territorial and autonomous experiments and free actions of others, no matter how repugnant their beliefs and actions are to oneself. - It does not merely mean: "doing one's own thing" oneself, in one's own sphere, but tolerating them, doing their things to themselves. Only in this way do others remain free to control themselves as much or as little as they want to, in their own sphere. - - I could go on in this vein for a long time - but if I have not yet got my meaning across then still more pages will not help me, either. - - - How did I get involved with libertarian ideas? - On the one hand through reading some anarchist writings (probably long before I was 16 and had some discussions with my father on this), from books he had left with my grandmother in Berlin. There may have been other influences. When I was 6, I watched Hitler being driving past, slowly, on a parade and looked around, surprised, that none of the dissenters, who I knew to exist, from my mother and her friends, made an attempt on his life. But I distinctly remember only one case, that of taking the Free Trade side, during the last years of high school and together with some school mates, against the to us absurd protectionist arguments of one of our main teachers. Once one has seen the light in this respect, one can work oneself through to seeing most other aspects of liberty. - Between 1952 and 1959 Ulrich von Beckerath introduced hundreds of reformist and revolutionary libertarian ideas to me. I tried to practise some of them publicly, without success and then tried to combine them in my first book-length manuscript, finished ca. 1961, for which I could not find a publisher. Instead, I began to include particular libertarian proposals in my PEACE PLANS series, since 1964. Later continued only on microfiche, ending with issue 1779 in 2002.) - - How did I get into prison work? By an advertisement, offering comparatively good pay and a chance to practice my school-English. I assumed then and still do that the restraint of wrong-doers does them no wrong and does society and freedom in general a favor, that crimes with victims are offences against basic human rights, that these rights deserve to be defended and that imprisonment for such offenders is preferable to shortening them by one head. That belief is unshaken. - - But I have long seen that competing private and cooperative jails, operating productively with many of the normal incentives and more, quite profitably, would be much better than governmental ones and that competitive penal laws, court systems and prison and other penal systems - in accordance with individual choices, made in advance, are preferable to a single and territorially imposed system for all, even to any supposedly ideal libertarian one. - - From this it follows that I do not consider prison work as necessarily inconsistent with the aim of wanting to abolish the territorial State and to realize and protect genuine individual rights and liberties against those, who, privately, do attack them. - - Really rightful, economic and reformist prisons could do much to reduce crime, together with numerous constitutional, legislative, juridical, police reforms. I have elaborated my view on this in Peace Plans No.13. …. According to the March 1986 issue of "FREEDOM", p.18, not even Proudhon's writings have been fully published as yet, not even in French, partly because they would fill 40 to 50 volumes. - How long will libertarians put up with such non-publishing by the presses and consider such a situation a freedom of press situation? - What percentage of all libertarian writings has been published so far? - What fraction of this published material is still in print? - What fraction of this printed material is available at prices that most libertarians can afford? - How many years will it take to get all libertarian writings printed and kept in print? - Will the indexes, abstracts, bibliographies, reviews, encyclopedias, directories etc., required to make all libertarian writings accessible in all their ideas, opinions and facts contents, ever or in the foreseeable future be produced in print or on computers etc.? - Microfiche and floppies, CDs, DVDs, external HDs and free websites do offers that option now and yet most libertarians stay glued to an outdated technology, that of print on paper. Please do your bit to get us out of that dead end. - Congratulations on using a word processor, now, too. - FIOT, largely via panarchy and microfiche, John. (I have slightly revised the above letter today. - JZ, 29.12.04 & 25.10.11.) - ZUBE, JOHN, to WATNER, CARL: March 24, 1986, 59, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671. - - 16 Dec. 1989, 7pp: 166, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to WILSON, ROBERT ANTON: 13 Oct. 1967, mainly on Robert Ardrey's "The Territorial Imperative”, 85, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833.

ZUBE, JOHN, to WISDORE, AAMI: 27.6.89. (His new address is wanted, if he is still alive! - JZ, 3.9.04.) lp, 23, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

ZUBE, JOHN, to WORLD DEMOCRACY NEWS: 4 January 1990, 10pp: 176, in PP 1539.

ZUBE, JOHN, to YEAGER, WAYNE B. , 19.3.91, on Diplomatic Immunity, 2pp, 180, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051.

ZUBE, JOHN, Towards a comprehensive encyclopedia on free banking (A-D) - Towards a comprehensive encyclopedia on free banking (E-H) - FREE BANKING A-Z., MONETARY FREEDOM HANDBOOK, ATTEMPTED BEGINNING. - See also: - The attempt by K. F. to do this job as a proper digitized databank. – FREE BANKING, MONETARY FREEDOM, CONSIDERED AS PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF PANARCHISM

ZUBE, JOHN, Voting, Panarchism & Exterritoriality comments, edited by Christian Butterbach, 26.3.04. Home page/Page d'accueil/Eingangsseite


ZUBE, JOHN, War over the Falkland Islands? 4.4.82 & 7.4.87, 117, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

ZUBE, JOHN, Was muss an den Staatsverfassungen geaendert werden, damit ein andauernder Friede moeglich wird, und wie koennen diese Reformen durchgesetzt werden? 1962, 403 S., indexiert, in PP 399-401. English translation in PP 63-65. - This German manuscript, slightly revised, is so far only available from me via e-mail or my first CD. - JZ, 3.9.04. – Since it was temporarily put online, by someone, it should still be available on the web archive. – JZ, 30.8.12.

ZUBE, JOHN, What Has to Be Changed in the Constitutions of all States to Make a Lasting Peace Possible and how Can these Reforms Be Realized? 447pp, indexed, 1962, first complete English translation in 1979, in 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? - German original in PP 399-401. - The English translation is on:

ZUBE, JOHN, What is a panarchy? 9, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585.

ZUBE, JOHN, Why Would the Basic, Libertarian and Constitutional Reform advocated by this Publication Prevent Atomic War, Stop the Nuclear Arms Race and Make almost Everyone Interested in One-sided Nuclear Disarmament? Plan 221, pages 30 - 35, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507.

ZUBE, JOHN, Wie koennte Apartheid, die heute fuer die Meisten ganz unakzeptabel ist, so umgewandelt werden, das sie fuer die Meisten attraktiv sein wuerde? 3.11.1986, 120, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672. – APARTHEID, VOLUNTARY VS. COMPULSORY SEGREGATION, VOLUNTARY VS. COMPULSORY INTEGRATION, PANARCHISM

ZUBE, JOHN, Would it Suffice if We Saved Our Constitution from Further Deterioration? Some comments to the invitation to attend a lecture by Jeremy Lee: Our constitution can still be saved, Moss Vale, 26.10.83, 2pp, in PEACE PLANS 482. Also: 198, in PP 1539.

NOTE, THAT SOME OF THESE ENTRIES UNDER JOHN ZUBE MAY ALREADY HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE, UNDER OTHER HEADINGS. BUT AT LEAST HERE MANY TO MOST OF THESE “ZUBISMS” HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TOGETHER. OTHERS & GENERAL ENTRIES OF THAT KIND ARE STILL AMONG MY COLLECTION OF “PAN” FILES. – I may get around to make all of them accessible on a disc, to anyone interested, for further extraction of entries into this AZ scrap book, but I am inclined to leave that job to others. – By now they could, possibly, find many more useful entries through their own searches online - J.Z., 29.8.12.

ZUBE, KURT H., Anarchie als Vollendung der Demokratie, undatiert, 8 S., 113-120, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PEACE PLANS 901.

ZUBE, KURT H., Das Manifest der Freiheit und des Friedens (The Manifesto of Freedom and Peace), Mackay Gesellschaft, Freiburg/Br., 1977, 360 S. (It won the Peace Price of the Alternative Press in Germany and was translated into English and microfiched by LMP. Also articles and notes, published or in letters, in a number of periodicals and pamphlets, especially in his correspondence with Ulrich von Beckerath. Alas, much of Beckerath's pre-1943 correspondence on this and other subjects may be lost forever. - JZ - See also under SOLNEMAN, K.H.Z.  The whole German book or at least a part of it, the short list of his definitions, can be found now on: und ) Otherwise it can be obained via e-mail attachment from me, for placement on any website or CD-ROM.  - JZ, 29.8.04.

ZUBE, KURT H., Der Weltverband der Staatenlosen, 1946, 21 S., 158 KBs, 48 KBs., zipped, so far only via email attachment from me, until it appears online or on a CD. - In German only. This texts has not yet been translated into English. My father was stateless from the thirties to the fifties. So he tried to establish a kind of world-wide panarchy for the millions of stateless persons then existing. We still have them now, in form or almost rightless refugees, herded and kept in refugee camps and denied the right to free migration into almost all countries and to live freely wherever they are now. - He was also, with Ulrich von Beckerath, a co-founder of Werner Ackermann's "Cosmopolitische Union", which was also intended as a kind of world-wide panarchy for freedom lovers and others aspiring to become exterritorially autonomous for the practice of their ideals among themselves. - JZ, 27.8.11. - By K. H. Z. Solneman (pseudonym) - 19pp, with 14pp of notes and clippings, reproduced on microfiche in PEACE PLANS 388. - REFUGEES, DISPLACED PERSONS, STATELESS PERSONS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR THEM.

ZUBE, KURT H., Freedom of the High Seas to Be Extended to Continents, in ON PANARCHY II, in PLANS 506.

ZUBE, KURT H., The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom - By K.H.Z. Solneman (pseudonym) ZUBE, KURT H., The beautiful proposal of Auguste de Molinari and Paul Emile de Puydt, enthusiastically endorsed by Max Nettlau, might have perhaps remained a forgotten gem if it were not for the work of Kurt Zube and especially of his son John Zube. - In 1977 Kurt Zube, under the pseudonym of K. H. Z. Solneman, published “The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom” where the idea of Panarchy is presented and commented upon in very positive terms (see especially Chapter V). - K. H. Z. Solneman, The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom - - Gian Piero de Bellis, in: On Panarchy. - [Others, e.g. Dr. David Hart, have remembered and extensively written about Molinari, and put his work and their translations online.] The Molinari Institute's website is one of the best that is online. - JZ, 13.9.11.] - Actually, both, my father, born 1905, and I, born 1933, encountered Ulrich von Beckerath, 1982-1969, as young men, of about 19. I did so upon recommendation by my father, which he later regretted, since B. influenced me much more that my father did. For a few years I saw B. weekly, while there were altogether only a few times in which I ever visited my father. - [My total personal contacts with my father, apart from correspondence, reading some of his articles and books and books from one of his libraries, stored in the cellar of his sister, and all too few visits and discussions with him (he had a severe hearing problem), amounted only to a few months.] Anyhow's, B.'s ideas influenced me more than those of my father. Both were individualist anarchists but that term hides many and wide disagreements. (B. was interested in panarchism since he found a hint to this essay in the works of Wilhelm Roscher, alas burnt with his B's library in 1943. I did not find it in those Roscher titles in my library or, just now, in an online search.) - B., finally, got the de Puydt essay through me, after I had emigrated to Australia. B. and I often discussed "exterritorial autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften" (exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers) and related ideas with him and I finally expressed them in combination in my two peace books, largely based upon B.'s ideas, and later put online on - The German original of my father's Manifesto, "Das Manifest der Freiheit und des Friedens", Mackay Gesellschaft, Freiburg/Br., 1977, 354 S., has presently no website location but should still be accessible on the Web Archive. - JZ, 27.8.11 - K. H. Z. Solneman, An Anarchist Manifesto (1977) [English] (PDF) - ZUBE, KURT: On Panarchism. Extract from his Manifesto.

ZUCKERMANN, WILLIAM: They Found Friends, a chapter in "Deadline Delayed", a symposium by members of the Overseas Press Club, 1947, Dutton, N.Y., extracted in READERS DIGEST, April 1947, pp. 87-89. A report how Swedish "protective passports" were issued and houses bought in Budapest and converted into "consulates" and filled with Jews, thus giving them the extraterritorial rights of a neutral country and saving 15,000 Hungarian Jews in 1944, largely due to the efforts of a special representative of the Swedish Government, Roul Wallenberg, who became another of millions of victims of the Soviet regime. Did it target also and especially those who tried to help prosecuted Jewish people? From my family's oral history I know of an S.A. man, working in the Berlin centre, where all records on Jewish families were stored. For a long time he did take some home, every day, in his briefcase and destroyed them, starting with the files of those he knew. Afterwards the Soviets put him into one of their concentration camps, which he did not survive. My mother in law may have survived the Holocaust as a result of his heroic actions. A man's formal membership and uniform matter much less than his real convictions and actions. Jewish people knew of this house of records but there is no record of them ever having tried to burn it down. The Western Allies were not prepared to negotiate with the German opposition or even to make air strikes against extermination camp facilities and their pre-war immigration restrictions against Jewish and other victims of the Nazis were abominable. Alas, most modern Jewish people have no other than another territorial ideal in mind, like Israel, although most of them were wise enough not to migrate and settle there, exposed to mass murder devices. They should have made better use of their tradition of degrees of community autonomy they attained for periods in many countries. But then few people ever know very important features of their own history, be it e.g. their incomplete monetary history or the history of their past degrees of exterritorial liberties. -  Note also, that the Allies made no efforts to declare all those victimized by the Nazis and all those who followed them only under threats and coercion, to be protégée citizens of the Allies, or subjects only of governments in exile representing them and recognized by the Allies and allied with them, as alternative governments for the future, in the countries to be liberated.  - The policies and warfare of the former English chancellor Thomas Moore, famous author of the Utopia, were mere rightful and sensible. But then, who among the politicians reads books at all, far less such ancient ones, and is able to comprehend and apply their ideas? - JZ, 17.1.99.

ZURI, Y.: The Rule of the Exilarch and the Yeshivot, Tel Aviv, 1939, in Hebrew.

ZZZ: NOTE that all the 24 ON PANARCHY issues of the PEACE PLANS series, are offered by me digitized, until they appear online or on a CD. - JZ, 26.10.11. Most of these references appear listed at least as hints in the A to Z compilation. – JZ, 28.8.12.



[Home] [Top]