John Zube

First Principles




This text might be seen in the future as one of the best expressions of political tolerance and social acceptance of different cultures, ways of life and forms of organization ever written. It is all pervaded by an attitude of wisdom and deep sensibility that can be found only in some philosophical/ethical documents. And while the author is not a religious person, what he writes can be seen by somebody as containing also the best views and teachings present in all religions.
That is because Panarchy, the personal belief of the author, transcends any political or religious barrier set up (with malice or ignorance) by clerical and secular priests of all denominations and offers a truly universal message and platform for all human beings towards living in peace and harmony even in the presence, side by side, of an incredible variety of political faiths and practices.



Premise by John Zube

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 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?

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.
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.

Panarchy, as my father [Kurt H. Zube, 1905-1991] said, at least tries to offer to each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams.
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.
The 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.

I do hold that working for a peaceful, free, just & 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 by adding or subtracting merely 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 - the work of only one man - and it needs and expects input from all kind 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

Panarchy In Our Time or: To Each the Government or Non-Governmental Society of His or Her Dreams!




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.

Not only in our external appearances, skin colour, 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.



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. And 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.



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. [see]

One of his most significant ideas was thus expressed very shortly: “Release all creative energies!”

Territorial governments are more likely to release mass murderous & destructive energies.

Imagine the consequences if creative potential of 6 billion people becoming 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 & utilized most of our presently remaining problems could, probably, be solved very rapidly, rightfully and efficiently.



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.



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.

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.



Work towards a comprehensive and clear code of individual rights and liberties.

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 Kabbala. - If liberty lovers took their declarations of rights and liberties as serious ...



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.

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.

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 panarchy 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.

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.



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 & 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 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 endeavour and if so, what his commands and requirements are, is still 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 been abolished as yet. They have been institutionalized by “national governments”. 

Therefore, 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 only voluntary subordination, just like any private club or organization.

Moreover, they must be limited to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, not modern versions of territorial “absolutism”, formerly impersonated in absolute monarchs - who had less powers, manpowers 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 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 offer of their services among to their potential customers - are obvious basic requirements for such competing communities, “governments”, panarchies or polyarchies.

Self-supporting and self-promoting 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.



Freedom of Association. Resort to self-help, voluntary cooperation, mutual aid or business or community contracts - in every sphere.

Everyone has the right to form, join or dissociate from - any organization of his/her 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.

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.

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” actions.

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 freedom to resist wrongful actions and freedom to organize, train and arm oneself for successful resistance against wrongful actions. Their failures will not 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.

But 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. How many dictatorships have they supported with funds, arms and training for their armed forces and by their foreign policies?

The same self-help freedom by which economic crises could be overcome applies 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 will be the major step to achieve solutions as fast as possible.



Recognize and respect the humanity in all others, who act peacefully, regardless of their colour, 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.

“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.



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.



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. 

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 “principles” of “collective guilt” and “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 & military science and practices.

Thus there are still, possibly, more innocents condemned, persecuted and murdered than really guilty persons are punished or killed.

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”.



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 they 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 by individual rights and liberties and are, correspondingly, armed, trained, organized, motivated and led.



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.

But 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”, that are only exterritorially autonomous (panarchies, in a general panarchist framework), 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 & collectivists territorial decision-making & 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, practise and institutionalization among its believers, including their voluntary victims, but do not tolerate the imposition of any of them upon any 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 collective responsibility targets for terrorists only as members of a territorial State, with whose internal and external policies they may thoroughly disagree.



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.

The latter three are 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” laws is a history of endlessly repeated failures, from which the legislators refuse to learn.



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.

Which 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.



Determine your own friends and secret allies and interact freely with them, distinguishing your real enemies from those whom only your own government declares to be your enemies.

Even make your own separate and just peace treaties with them, over the heads of “your” territorial 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 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, could make the subjects and victims of territorial governments much more just, safe, honorable, liberating and prosperous offers than the 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.



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.



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 & 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”.

However, panarchy offers also the opportunity for all forms of voluntary socialism and communism or “mutual plunderbunds” as Frederic Bastiat called them, all kinds of “utopias” - for their corresponding utopists or experimenters.

Do not obstruct the human “propensity to truck, barter and exchange”. (Adam Smith). Panarchists would add: Allow this obstruction 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” that is the root of all evil but monetary despotism is. Monetary and clearing freedom, to complete freedom of exchange and a free market, is the root of much good and could prevent most economic crises. 

Other monetary reformers will, under panarchy, 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.

But if you want to live like an ant, a bee or a sheep - there are xyz “shepherds” ready to lead your voluntary flocks.

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.



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-coloured 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?”, 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 to hire it out at a higher rate.

The long term view is as far as possible removed from that of the 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.



Try to universalize your maxims and judge only then, whether they would still make sense or lead to contradictions. (Categorical Imperative).

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.



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 & 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.



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.

Obviously, trade and production of mass murder devices and the profession of assassin for hire are excluded.

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.



Monetary and Financial Freedom.

Free enterprise, free trade, freedom of contract, freedom of action and experimentation, freedom of association and the general liberty of panarchy 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 accounts 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 & 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.



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 itself, 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 Panarchy, you can continue them - but only at your own risk and expense, among your volunteers.

Let “panarchy” “reign”, which 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 & institutionalized, finally, and this in our time.



Non-initiation of force. Non-Aggression, Voluntarism, Exterritorial Autonomy.

Panarchy that 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

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.



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 Weapons of Mass Destruction, 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 you have 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, 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.



Hold No Ism Above Panarchy.

For Panarchy 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 panarchy 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? Panarchy 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.



Panarchy 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.



International Laws & Federations. Various law codes and federations may be adopted by groups of panarchies, different 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 world-wide federations of a political, economic and social kind, in the same way as it has room e.g. for several world-wide 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 5657 paragraphs, with the provision that any deviations from it should only be allowed if they are publicly and sufficiently defended.

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!



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.



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 up 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.

Panarchy 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.



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.

You, too, went through stages of foolishness & 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. 

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.


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 & value.



Personal communication by John Zube (^)

AIR  stands for ALLIANCE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, a small group of Sydney Libertarians, in the early 70's, before the libertarian WORKERS PARTY. We had a large meeting room near central railway station in Sydney - but never managed to fill it. A number of keyholders paid for the rent between them. We had also intended to build it up into a documentation centre. "We" meant in practice only Patrick Brookes, a young architect, and myself.
One offshoot, for a while, was a magazine called "free enterprise". But there was so little demand for it that some pretty girls, making the round of the pubs, had almost to force its sale on some of the drunks in the pubs! A distribution effort that disgusted me. It amounted to begging and certainly did not produce any extra libertarians.


[Home] [Top]