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 - K

(1973 - 2012)



K., RICK, Social, Religious and Cultural Acceptance – Check. But What about Political Tolerance? - Posted on March 18th, 2011 by Rick K. - - - Is our world really what we make it ... yet? - - Amazing strides have been made in just the past 150 years towards progressive social acceptance and the embracing of multiple religions in civilized societies together.  From the colonial imperialism of the British Empire, slavery of human beings, segregation by race in public settings, and lack of rights for women; the world has no doubt seen great advancement in such a short span of history.   Despite these moves toward progressive thinking, we have not pushed forth onto a different forefront; which is one of accepting a type of political or civic diversity based on one’s desires or beliefs.  Specifically, this relates to the areas of how a person or groups of people wish for their government to serve them.  And more specifically, how these citizens will contribute to the assigned role they have given their governing powers as well.  Panarchy, or Polyarchy of jurisdictions – without territorial boundaries – would be an ideal habitat for the fluctuating needs and desires of the intellectual progression of mankind; and therefore, would allow for the last battleground of innovation versus dogma to be fairly set once and for all. - - Though the concept of people choosing the best governing style for them sounds somewhat like representative democracy or a even a constitutional republic, these ideas have not been implemented the more intimate level of individual liberty in choosing aterritorial jurisdictions.  As the role of government and our ideas about tax reform, foreign policy, healthcare, and social programs continue to divide us, it is apparent that the last frontier of tolerance is political and intellectual.  This frontier of progressive thinking and how we can go about coexisting with such a variety of ideas on how things “should” be is the ultimate call of mankind to evolve or continue a world of perpetual insanity and stagnation. - - The basic elements of a Personarchy or Panarchy (as it has varying focuses and names) offers big-picture and detail-oriented individuals alike an environment to freely associate or disassociate with groups and systems that are beneficial to their beliefs, customs and political philosophies.  After all, what is good for rural Texans is not always good for urban New Yorkers.  Like letting states decide, perhaps we should let people decide what policies to enact in their lives and be held accountable for supporting… - - The ideas found in Panarchy allow for any intellectual or political jurisdictions to exist without the dogmas of the past dictating what is considered possible.  This would only be possible, though, as long as each system lets the other exist simultaneously because of its identical right to do so. Tolerance of tolerance, but no tolerance for intolerance may be another route to take.  Consequently, each system would be accountable only to the citizens who choose to participate within it.  With that, you are essentially bringing the concepts of free market capitalism to varying jurisdictions.  People would vote for the system that they prefer by contributing their time, material contribution, and activism in order to keep the system that they admire in existence. - - What is so frustrating is trying to get the idea of multi-governmental and non-territorial systems existing within the same place and time across to people that have been indoctrinated to think that jurisdiction must consist of a rigid place or come from an exclusive history.  Perhaps it is my own pessimism, but it is amazing and sad at the same time that history keeps repeating itself once a new intellectual frontier is presented.  From the earth being round, man creating flying machines, multicultural and racial coexistence, and a government by the people and for the people – why can we not yet jump these hurdles so readily from dogma to radical thinking for the purpose critical problem solving?  Why is it that technological advancements over the last 20 years have excelled exponentially and continue to do so everyday; yet we cannot make a fraction of these leaps in the areas of intellect and creative solutions? - - With the continuous influence of the internet in turning our society into a more hands off, paperless, and information-based existence, the ideas presented in Panarchy would logically (it would seem) become more attractive as an alternative to divisive and centralized governments that are inefficient and corrupt.  What greater personal liberty can one offer than to allow another to choose the socio-political habitat they wish to live under, or perhaps not live under?  Why must we even choose to associate ourselves with a jurisdiction because of the arbitrary territorial connection it presently has?  Perhaps a better way to understand Panarchy and its many synonyms is to examine the mantra:  “Thoughts are actually things.” - Tags: dogma, panarchy, tolerance | Category Quote of the Week, The Big Picture - - PANARCHY, TOLERANCE

K., RICK, What is Panarchy and Could it Ever Work? Posted on December 20th, 2010 by Rick K. - As a non-partisan panarchist, I have found that debating with the typical voter, non-voter, or the self-proclaimed, non-political is often the most frustrating when the topic of freedom is unleashed.  People who find themselves often times on the Republican or Right tend to (without trying to paint a broad brush over such a large group) think freedom lies solely in free market economic enterprise and to hold their religious and family traditions without government intervention.  On the Left or Democratic, I have noticed that freedom for others means equality of opportunity and that the supposed oppression of the majority’s traditional values are not pushed on the minority’s.  Again, I am casting a wide generalization of America’s major socio-political groups to prove a point only. - - So here’s what doesn’t make sense … - - As a Panarchist, the one thing that stands above everyone’s else’s perceived freedoms is a matter of choice.  Choice is what is somewhat lacking in both of these major ideologies concerning religion, politics, and social issues in general.  Each large mass wants to have their “freedom”, but does not realize how those freedoms may come at the expense of someone else’s, therefore diminishing the elusive Choice.  So basically, lets say a staunch Latino Democrat over the age of 70 demands that their social security check remain at its current dollar amount each month despite the current economy; and that demand is satisfied by the government.  Then, that 25-year-old stubborn Caucasian Republican, who have their taxes increased to make that demand happen will likely feel as if their choice to do what they want with their money has been violated.  Freedom for one does not necessarily mean freedom for all, and this argument (like most other social-political-religious hot topics) goes both ways.   So let’s not kid ourselves…you partisans. - - But I am not going to be so coy either, and pretend that I am playing the mythical, common-sense moderate who naively intellectualizes the idea of bringing both sides together.  No matter what your political leaning is, in the end you will do what is best for yourself and your family. - - Ok, so what dog does a Panarchist have in this fight? - - If those of you don’t know what Panarchy is, or have even heard of it before, let me give you a brief introduction.  Panarchy is not like its similar sounding violent cousin Anarchy – so please do not get them confused with one another.  Panarchy is the idea that each individual should have the choice of how they are governed, in so far that their individual decisions influence how that one person will be governed.  In addition, this person also has the right to move from one governing body to another.  Whichever governing style suits you best is the one you will be ruled under – much like people choosing an insurance policy based on their needs. - - So in an overall Panarchist society, liberal, conservative, Libertarian, Communist and others can hypothetically coexist.  Also, this system would hold individuals – regardless of their political leanings – solely accountable for their choices.  Therefore, a Republican who is against social programs such as general welfare or the recent healthcare law, would likely choose not to pay into that system if he did not have to.  As a consequence of that choice, that same Republican would not be able to receive those benefits if he/she needed them.  Those who believed in those government-funded programs and paid for them via higher taxes would then reap the benefits.  Of course situations would inevitably occur where people who paid only so much into the system, left that program and/or came back, or have even paid into several other programs in other governing bodies would certainly make for some interesting universalized legislation amongst various political circles.  - - This overall encouragement of free choice and consequence is what is so appealing about a theoretical Panarchist-type system.  All people within it would be able to see what governance would work best for them and then be able to reside in whichever they wished, without having to debate so heatedly about petty social issues that only divide and conquer.  Communism, Capitalism, or even Anarchy itself could coexist in the all-encompassing umbrella that Panarchy provides.  No longer would large nations that are so divided politically and socially as the United States with its gridlock path of Republican-Democrat oscillation of power and frustration.  The cure for America: an ultimatum.  Choose what programs you will fund and receive the consequences of those choices without revolt.  The same decision process goes into how you establish what benefits (such as 401k, health insurance, or flex spending) will be taken out of your paycheck at your job…if you still have one.  I know, not funny… - - Panarchy is an idea that has been along for quite some time.  In an 1860 article by author Paul Emile de Puydt, puts Panarchy so eloquently by stating: “The truth is that there is not enough of the right kind of freedom, the fundamental freedom to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one’s preference….Thus I demand, for each and every member of human society, freedom of association according to inclination and of activity according to aptitude. In other words, the absolute right to choose the political surroundings in which to live, and to ask for nothing else.” - - These words fly in the face of the so called conservative Republican and liberal Democrat versions of freedom.  These takes on freedom are only ego-centric perversions of the word that has been raped of its true essence:  Choice. - - Even our current constitutional republic – however strictly adhered to – is only a small piece of the freedom puzzle.  Ponder this.  The constitution only offers one way to govern in the sea of ways and choices to be governed.  It protects the freedom of religious and the pursuit of happiness, but what about how you wish to be ruled or not ruled?  Perhaps this is why this tortured nation has been divided for so long.  It promises freedom but goes back on that promise for or against certain citizens depending on which ideology is in charge. - - So you must be thinking to yourself: “You said you were a non-partisan in the first sentence of this entry.  You seem very staunch in your support of a Panarchist system.” - - You are correct that I am fixed on Panarchy, but will hold that it is an entirely non-partisan view because it does not fall anywhere on the political spectrum.  The political spectrum hold (4) basic ideologies:  Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian and Authoritarian.  A Panarchist believes in all of them and that they should all exist under the umbrella of something greater.  Something which gives the citizens who find themselves within each of these ideologies would be the choice to be in either or neither.  A practicing Panarchist is beyond the spectrum as it is currently defined. - - Freedom of/from religion and size of government – this is the final frontier of politics for an ever changing and turbulent world of conflicting cultures and ideas… - - Tags: 2012, american culture, anarchy, centrism, globefront, government, independant, panarchy, partisan, politics | Category The Big Picture - - One Response to "What is Panarchy and Could it Ever Work?" - - Comment By: Dwight Johnson
December 28th, 2010 at 9:42 am
 - - Your article presents the basics of panarchy very nicely. I too have been a panarchist for some time. I like to put the idea forth in terms of freedom of religion, since Americans take that freedom for granted today. So, in those terms, panarchy means the freedom to choose your government as you choose your religion. In the US today we have, for the first time in history, a real free market in religion. Here you may choose any religion as your own, or none at all. Each house of worship generally serves a particular territory, but no church claims to serve everyone in that territory, nor do they claim the right to tax all the people of that territory. Governments, on the other hand, do claim to represent everyone in a particular territory, and claim the right to tax everyone in that territory. This arrangement of government has worked fairly well up to now, with the people generally homogeneous. But society over that last one hundred years has become more divided along moral lines (culture wars), so that the “one size fits all” nature of politics tends to create much more friction. As this friction has increased, people become more and more angry with the way their taxes are being spent by politicians, and are even questioning the basis of government: the right to tax.
Panarchy seems to provide the solution to this divisiveness, by giving each person the right to choose. In fact, this right to choose seems to be what the author of the Declaration of Independence meant when he said that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and acknowledging that the source of this right is nature and nature’s God, not government. Thus, panarchy is not a political philosophy but a moral one, which claims that the right to choose one’s government is a human right. Following from this principle, no government has just powers without the explicit consent of the governed. But the problem with the current forms of government is that none of them has any provision for a person withholding their consent, since consent is, de facto, always assumed and implicit rather than explicit.
Thus, panarchy questions the legitimacy of governments that purport to govern with only implicit consent of the governed, insisting that each person must be able to make explicit consent to be governed by any particular government. This is how we read the Declaration.
Then the problem becomes, how could governments provide “necessary” services within their territory in such an environment where every person has a veto? This is surely a difficult question to answer, but I truly believe human ingenuity is up to the challenge, and reject any quick rejection of the possibility. To this end I have created a website,, where I propose a possible implementation of panarchy in the form of a government consisting of a confederation of non-territorial units called “cantons”. [“virtual cantons” has been proposed as a better term, since cantons, at least in Switzerland, still indicate territories. – J.Z.]
The forms of government we now know I refer to as government by coercion, since, if you live in a territory, you are forced to pay taxes to the local government, with or without your consent. This is contrary to the form of government proposed by the Declaration of Independence. Government by contract, instead, might also be referred to as government by cooperation, since contracts, by which we convey our consent, must be entered into without coercion. So, is there no role for coercion within government? Yes, there is, but a greatly constrained one, based on the natural law principle called the non-aggression principle. In a government by contract, coercion is reserved solely to restrain those who use force against another’s person or property, or to enforce contracts. Any coercion beyond this goes beyond our rights as human beings.
- Leave a Reply. – Name - Mail (will not be published) – Website - - I for one prefer the email and attachment option for contacts with people like Rick K. Otherwise one has to abide by all the limitations and restrictions of sites like those provided by GLOBEFRON. – I would rather like to communicate without that kind of censorship. - J.Z., 24.12.11.


KANDELAFTE, J. S.: L'avenir reserve au regime de capitulations en Turqui, Paris, E. Larose, 1911, 212pp. (Capitulations, consular jurisdiction.) (Ann Arbor)

KANT, IMMANUEL, Right is the restriction of arbitrary actions of each so that they can agree with the arbitrary actions of others according to a general law of freedom. - Free after Kant, Populaere Schriften, 63.

KANT, IMMANUEL: 17, 47, 48, 59, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505.

KANT, IMMANUEL: originally no one had a greater right to any region of the earth than anyone else." - "... the right to the earth's surface ... belongs in common to the totality of human beings." (Immanuel Kant, To Perpetual Peace, 1795) - TERRITORIALISM, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, NATIONALISM, STATISM, LAND MONOPOLY, PATRIOTISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, FREE MIGRATION, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

KANTIAN CONSENT: Now though Kant is prepared to allow a very wide range of governments to count as republican or representative, such governments must all be based (in some rather special sense) on consent. This is not the explicit consent found in some social contract theory, but is to be explicated in terms of Kant's basic model of rational decision. A government can be said to be one of consent if it could have been chosen by a group of rational beings as a fair way of resolving their conflicts ..." - Murphie: Kant, p.134. - This kind of consent is to be assumed e.g. in case of minors, mentally defectives or criminal people. Their guardians have to make rational decisions for them, even in cases when the people so controlled are loudly protesting. Criminals with victims have outlawed or renounced most of their rights themselves, by their own criminal actions. Infants and mentally defectives have not yet fully grown into them. And since in Kant's time any monarch was supposed to have many loyal subjects, Kant should have considered consent-based monarchical societies, too. But can we blame him for the incompleteness of his political views, seeing how rare advanced thinking in this sphere is even today? - J.Z., 9.1.93.

KATCH, ABRAHAM I.: Judaism in Islam, N.Y., 1954. "A commentary, with an introduction, on the three first chapters of the Koran based on Jewish sources." - Goitein.

KATZ, JACOB, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times, N.Y., Schocken Books, 1961.

KATZ, JACOB, Religious Tolerance in the HALAKHA and Philosophy according to R. Menahem Hameiri, ZION 18, 1953, 15-30, in Hebrew.

KATZ, JACOB, The Semikhah Controversy between R. Jacob Berab and Ralbach, ZION, 16, 1951, 28-45, on self-government.

KATZ, JACOB, Towards a Rabbinate at the Close of the Middle Ages, in A. Melamed, ed., Benjamin de Vries Memorial Volume, Jerusalem, 1968, pp. 281-94, in Hebrew, on self-government.

KAYAOGLU, T., Construction of Territorial Sovereignty in Non-Western, Non-Colonized Countries: A State Socialization Model", Paper prepared for presentation at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 24-27 March 2002, New Orleans Marriott Hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana. - - [1] Political scientist Kayaoglu (2002) refers to Liu and also notes that: "Territorial sovereign states occupy current political space. Territorial sovereignty is not a timeless characteristic of the state system but is unique to the modern state system. Although territorial sovereign states emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it is now unimaginable to find a piece of territory over which at least one political entity does not claim absolute territorial jurisdiction." It should perhaps be noted that the high seas and the ground under them is still largely unclaimed, apart from the ever-expanding coastal areas that are claimed. - Richard C. B. Johnsson in his Non-Territorial Governance - Mankind's Forgotten Legacy. - TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, A-TERRITORIALISM, ETHNICITY, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

KEARSE, J. WARREN: Revocation of Trust and Disavowal of Unauthorized and Fraudulent Acts, form with introductory note, 121, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PEACE PLANS 672.

KEEPING ALL OPTIONS OPEN: Governments often state that they want to keep their options open. What citizens rather need than such licence for politicians is - to keep their own individual options open with regard to constitutions, laws, administrations, public services etc., offered by governments. This means, among other things, that compulsory membership in the politicians' "clubs" and budgets would have to be replaced by voluntary membership and taxes. - J.Z. 11.10.88, 3.4.89.

KEETON, GEORGE WILLIAMS: The Development of Extraterritoriality in China, London, Longmans, Green, 1928, 2 vols., ANU Menzies Library, Canberra. Reprinted in 1968.

KELSEN, HANS: General Theory of Law and State, N.Y., Russell & Russell, 1961. Favors personal law to some extent. (Some photocopied pages in JZL.)

KEUN, YEN-TSINE: Le Regime des Capitulations jusqu'a la Conference de la Paix de 1919 et la Reforme Judiciaire en Chine, Paris, 1920.

KIANG YONG-TCHANG: De la Juridiction Consulaire en Chine, Paris, 1922.

KIMBERLIN, RON: On N. Branden's response when pushed towards considering the competing government issue, a note by R. Kimberlin, in INDIVIDUALIST, 6/72, lp, 196, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051.

KINDERGARTENS FOR ADULTS: To what extent are all of us still kept in the territorial and statist equivalent of kindergartens or nurseries? – J.Z., 20.3.93. - Or even territory-wide prison systems? – J.Z., 10.11.07. - STATES, TERRITORIALISM, WELFARE STATES, PROTECTIONISM, Q.

KINDNESS: The fine and noble way to destroy a foe, is not to kill him: with kindness you may so change him that he shall cease to be so: then he's slain.” - Aleyn. – You do not have to love him – but if you are quite just to him, he, or at least most of his subjects, will cease to be your enemies. For instance: If you fully recognized governments in exile for all the diverse groups suffering under a dictatorship and even for a government in exile with the same program as the despotic one – but one only for its volunteers! – J.Z., 17.1.09, 25.5.12. - KINDNESS TO ENEMIES, FRIENDSHIP, FOREIGN POLICY, TOLERANCE FOR THE TOLERANT, ALLIANCES, APPEALS, DESERTION, REFUGEES, WAR AIMS, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATIONS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, PANARCHISM

KINGS OF INDUSTRY: Descriptive terms which people use are often quite misleading. In talking about modern captains of industry and leaders of big business, for instance, they call a man a “chocolate king” or a “cotton king” or an “automobile king”. Their use of such terminology implies that they see practically no difference between the modern heads of industry and those feudal kings, dukes or lords of earlier days. But the difference is in fact very great, for a chocolate king does not rule at all, he serves. He does not reign over conquered territory, independent of the market, independent of his customers. The chocolate king – or steel king or the automobile king or any other king of modern industry – depends on the industry he operates and on the customers he serves. This “king” must stay in the good graces of his subjects, the consumers; he loses his “kingdom” as soon as he is no longer in a position to give his customers better service and provide it at lower cost than others with whom he must compete.” – Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy, 1. – Nevertheless, in the sphere of politics L. v. M. remained an advocate of limited but exclusive territorial coercion, in accordance with his own political ideal rather than with the various ideals of free consumers for all kinds of political services. – J.Z., 28.6.92. – He said, so to speak: You can have any kind of State or society, as long as it is a “limited” governments, still a territorial one. – Just like Ford once had a sales slogan: You can have your car in any colour – as long as it is black! – J.Z., 10.11.07. -  I read, somewhere, that Mises even favoured conscription! True or false? – J.Z., 26.12.11. – However, at least in some of his early writings Mises also stood up at least for territorial secessionism. – J.Z., 25.5.12. - CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY, LEADERS OF BIG BUSINESS, CAPITALISM, MARKET, CONSUMERS, CUSTOMERS, CHOICE, COMPETITION, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, ROBBER BARONS, BUSINESS, BIG BUSINESS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENTS, DIS.

KINGS: No truce with kings!” – Poul Anderson, title of one of his SF stories. – Nor with presidents or other rulers or constitutions, unless one has individually chosen them for oneself. – J.Z., n.d., & 8.11.07 – Kings and other rulers, who only wish to exterritorially rule over their own volunteers, are quite another matter. They should be tolerated by non-members or outsiders for their monarchistic followers, even by radical anarchists, libertarians, republicans and democrats, who have chosen other societal or governance systems for themselves. – J.Z., 25.12.11, 25.5.12. - RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, LEADERSHIP, AUTHORITIES, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, RESISTANCE

KINGS: The days of kings are not over yet. They have not even really begun: Everybody ought to be free to become a King, but only regarding his own affairs. Only then will everybody be free, as free as he wants to be. – J.Z., 13.11.74, 10.11.07. - MONARCHISM & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

KINROSS, Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries. The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, New York, 1977, 1979. Copyright by the Estate of Lord Kinross. ISBN 0-688-03093-9 & 0-688-08093-6 pbk. Quill/1359 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 1019. An imprint of William Morrow & Co. Original Price: US $ 14.95, Can $ 20.00. - - This book looks at these questions mainly from the commercial point of view, that of religious liberty and that of territorial power politics. But its many observations on the system of millets and capitulations are interesting nevertheless, at least to me. Thus I want to share them for those not so lucky to find it, like me, second-hand for a mere $ 4. - Scanning these 17 pages in was almost a pleasure, apart from the handling this thick volume of 638 pages. The scanner made only a few mistakes. - My file is: Pan Lord Kinross The Ottoman Centuries. In Word 117 Kbs., zipped 38 Kbs. - I would gladly email it to anyone interested. - J.Z., 2.3.06.

KIRCHMANN, J. H. von: Die Grundbegriffe des Rechts und der Moral, 1869, Auszug durch Ulrich von Beckerath, ueber autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften, 7, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PP 671.

KLEIN, E. & PECHSTEIN, M.: Das Vertragsrecht internationaler Organisationen. Der Konventionsentwurf ueber Vertraege zwischen Staaten und Internationalen Organisationen oder zwischen Internationalen Organisationen im Vergleich zur Wiener Vertragsrechtskonvention von 1969. 107 S., Veroeffentlichungen des Instituts fuer Internationales Recht and der Universitaet Kiel, 92, DM 36. (3-428-05944-1) - Verlag Duncker & Humblot, 1986.

KLING, ARNOLD, Exit, Voice, and Freedom. - Arnold Kling, Exit, Voice, and Freedom: An Example (2009) [English] September 2009 Arnold Kling, Dissociazione, Votazione e Libertà: uno scenario (2009) [Italiano] Settembre 2009.

KNAPP, THOMAS L., AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF GEOGRAPHY - The following article by Tom Knapp is interesting, as, if ever so slightly, it goes into the right panarchist exterritorial direction, away from geography, from territory (where it is not absolutely required) towards consensual political communities. - C.B., 29.3.07: - AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF GEOGRAPHY, Tuesday, March 27, 2007. - My neighbor to the immediate south is a white, single male retired cop. - My neighbor to the immediate north is a black, single female retired utility company worker. - My household includes two non-retired adults (a male writer and a female medical research study coordinator) and two children (both boys -- nine and five). - Peering through my front window, I can see that my neighbor to the south has three yard signs out front for political candidates, and that my neighbor to the north has two. Five signs, five candidates (two different local offices with multiple seats up for election). I don't have any signs in my yard, although I support one of those five candidates. When I put out signs, they're usually for Libertarian Party candidates ... and I'm willing to bet that neither of my neighbors have ever voted for an LP candidate that they didn't live next door to. - Is there any particular reason why myself and my two neighbors should be represented by the same person in Congress or in the state legislature? I can't think of any. I'm sure that all three of us would agree on some issues, and that two out of three of us would agree on some others, but when you get right down to it the only major thing that we really have in common is that we live on the same street. And yet, come election day, all three of us end up represented by the same men and women in Jefferson City, Missouri and in Washington, DC. - Don't get me wrong -- geographically-based representation and government may make sense in some cases. At the city level, the main concerns are things that neighbors DO have in common: Streets and storm sewers and fire protection, for example. And, in the past, other considerations also made sense: Before the telephone, the radio, the television and the Internet, one's personal reputation (and therefore the ability to evaluate that reputation) was likely constrained to a small geographical area; and the cost and difficulty of travel made vote-counting a more logically local affair. - However, in a state with a population of several million, or a nation of more than 300 million, where decisions are made which affect those whole populations, chances are that I have a lot more in common with, say, the readers of this article than I do with my two neighbors. And the Information Age has made it possible for reputations to spread, and to be studied, over a much wider geographical area. So, I ask again ... why should my neighbors and I be represented by one politician, while you and your neighbors are represented by another, simply because of where we live? - - It doesn't have to be that way. - Although seats in the US House of Representatives are apportioned by state, there's nothing in the US Constitution that requires a state to draw its district lines along internal geographical boundaries, or even to have "districts" at all. I'm told that there's some applicable federal legislation (Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution allows for some Congressional interference in the states' decisions as to "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives"), but laws that can be passed can also be repealed. - It seems to me that moving to "at-large" elections of US Representatives -- in which the n candidates receiving the most votes statewide (n representing the number of seats apportioned to the state) are elected -- would produce more um, representative representation. - After all, union workers in St. Louis and Kansas City probably have more in common with each other politically than I and my neighbors do. - Farmers from West Plains and Carrollton and Troy probably have more in common with each other than any three people living on the same street in Columbia. - Republicans in Joplin and Kirksville or Democrats in Rolla and Sedalia probably have more in common with each other than any of them necessarily do with all the people living in their different apartment complexes or on their blocks. - Changing the way we allocate representation wouldn't eliminate pork. It might reduce primarily geographically-based pork -- Bridges to Nowhere and "defense contracts for my district" -- but we'd likely see politicians elected to office by identifiable constituencies with their own subsidy demands, like the aforementioned union workers and farmers. - - On the other hand, we might also see some worthy political minorities gain representation they've never had before. Libertarians, who can't place first in any geographically-based district, might be able to place ninth in an at-large election in a state with nine open seats, and get one of those seats and its corresponding vote in the House. - - I like my neighbors. We get along okay. We exchange pleasantries over the backyard fence. Sometimes we barbecue together. But just as I'm free to buy a different brand of laundry detergent or choose a different restaurant for that nice dinner out than either of my neighbors might, I'd also like to be able to choose my own political representation, in concert with those of like opinion, instead of being lumped in with them on the basis of geography and all of us stuck with the first pig past the post. - source: - There is much more to the tyranny of geography and to its opposite, than he describes here. However, he has taken a first step in the right direction - towards full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. - J.Z., 30.9.11.

KNAPP, THOMAS L., Alternative Institutions & Libertarian Revolutions, Some letters by T.L.K , C. B. & J.Z.: From: "John Zube" - To: "Thomas L. Knapp" (No longer valid by 2011!) - Subject: 030703 Thomas L. Knapp re alternative institutions. - Date: Thursday, 3 July 2003 - Dear Mr. Knapp, - I tried to reach you yesterday in vain, with one of the e-mail addresses given, namely but it was returned as undeliverable. Taking it this time from the author's name given in "Grasping the Nettle", I hope my reply reaches you. - I would be interested in your detailed revolutionary program, especially since I had, long ago, compiled one myself. [Now accessible under - or - J.Z., 4.9.11.] - If your program is no more than 1-2 Mbs then I think that my mailbox can cope with it. - I sent my reply to Christian Butterbach and also to Gian Piero de Bellis, who is expanding his panarchistic website , which contains de Puydt's classical panarchy article in several major languages, and, among other things, e.g. his own extensive writings on "polyarchy". - - Alternative institutions, within the present framework, to the extent possible, are good, but not yet good enough. We need alternatives to the present territorial frameworks as well and make them believable and historical experiences with them sufficiently known. - - If we succeed with this then "the" revolution might almost become a non-event, a peaceful collapse of the old system, being deserted by its defenders. - - Anyhow, we ought to go as far as possible in this direction via "disarming" policies, as we can, depriving the enemy regimes' military slaves of their motives to attack or resist us, while providing them with rightful and self-interested motives to join us rather than resist us, or to declare themselves neutral and do their own utopian things for or to themselves, at their own expense and risk. - There are also historical precedents for "dissolving" enemy armies rather than fighting them. - - By the way, in the hunger times in Germany post WW II, stinging nettles gathered in public parks constituted my family's spinach and helped us to survive. - PIOT, John Zube. (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental system of his or her choice.) -- Original Message -- From: "Christian Butterbach" To: "John Zube" <>Sent: Tuesday, July 01. - Subject: Important revolutionary appeal. - - Dear John, - You must absolutely immediately read Tom Knapp's brilliant essay of today: - This man can think and knows how to write and has a vast knowledge/culture. - And he is a revolutionary, what so many Libertarians are not. - Enjoy reading, Chris. - - - - Dear Chris, - I did follow your advice and downloaded this article yesterday and printed it out and read it - but am not as enthusiastic about it as you are. - Did he grasp the nettle firmly enough not to get stung? - Did he really go to the root of the evil? - Like you, I welcome anyone who recommends alternative institutions and who subscribes to the "Zero Aggression Principle", e.g. "the use of force against the innocent". - But he speaks of "the" revolution and of "such force as is required to defend that revolution ..." - That was the excuse of many bloody revolutionaries, who indiscriminately exterminated e.g. aristocrats, clergymen and "bourgeois" or propertarian farmers. - - Many libertarians have argued that the USA has been going downhill not only by some of its post-WW II actions but ever since it adopted the Federal Constitution. At the same time there are also many limited government advocates, who imagine that going back to the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights would limit territorial government sufficiently. - - By coincidence, I received yesterday also an e-mail from "Marc Brands Liberty" , which reproduced as First Steps to Liberty (Part 3 of 3) the LP News suggestion of free choice regarding Social Security arrangements, one significant example of alternative institutions. - But with Knapp and the LP I still miss the all-over vision of alternative - institutions, including sufficient tolerance even for the alternative institutions of one's enemies. - The LP pays at least some lip service to individual secessionism but does also fail to offer individual secessionism and volunteer communities to its enemies, as the main and general aim and also method for its libertarian and, therefore, largely but not exclusive non-violent revolution. - - Libertarians and anarchists have still to provide a rightful, sensible and consistent revolutionary program and to agree on the final aim of their revolution, a framework that would satisfy them and that would also keep the vast majority of the remaining statists satisfied. - - I have still to find any serious interest among them in such topics. Most still believe e.g. in marches, protests, demonstrations etc. or in individual or mass armed resistance, in steps that would lead to a bloody civil war. - (I admit that T. L. K. promised such a program, possibly even within one week!) - - Instead, they are full of wishful thinking: "What is certain is that the US has entered into a revolutionary situation." - What we have is rather a counter-revolution, led by a territorial government, against the all too few remaining liberties and rights. To that extent [that statist revolution] it is rather comparable to the 1933 "revolution" of the Nazis and to Lenin's counter-revolution. - - The vast majority in the US - perhaps less so than in most other countries - still consists of statists and many of them would gleefully advocate the hanging, shooting or forced labour camps for all anarchists and libertarians. - - Even if in reaction to increasing abuses of the territorial State there were to occur a revolution, I would very much fear it, because it would be a revolution largely by people mis-educated by the State. - - According to communists, who took themselves serious enough to at least study their kinds of revolutions, a support of 5-7% of the population would suffice to realize their kind of revolution against most of their opponents and the wishes of the apathetic masses. Assuming that this estimate is correct, at least for their kinds of revolution and that a similar percentage would suffice for anarchist and libertarians, one has to ask: Have anarchists and libertarians gained as much support, and this of people even willing to fight for their ideals? - If they had, have these 5 - 7 % agreed on a common aim? - On a common and consistent method? - Have they agreed on how to rightfully neutralise or even satisfy whatever aspirations or hopes or wishes the remaining 93 - 95 % of the population do have? - - Do the 5-7 % agree, sufficiently, among themselves? [Or do they, rather, constitute an all too mixed-up bunch, like the various Tea Parties, standing for some liberties and rights but also against others? - J.Z., 4.9.11.]  - I for one oppose "revolution for the sake of revolution" as much as "art for the sake of art", "religion for the sake of religion" and "statism for the sake of the State". - Have the libertarian and anarchist revolutionaries, the few who exist, agreed on rightful and rational financial and monetary alternatives? Do they know how to end inflations rapidly and to finance all the alternative institutions they want? - One instance: Although many of them are getting old, like you and me, have they agreed on alternative financing for anti-aging research, in their own interest and that of all others? - Secondly and for our purpose more importantly: Have they provided, proposals on how to provide jobs for millions of the present unemployed plus millions of refugees and deserters, without depriving anyone of their job and without reducing the standard of living but rather increasing it, so that the present immigration barriers and concentration camps for illegal immigrants would be dissolved by general consent? - Thirdly: Have they sufficiently pondered the proper financing of revolutions and of military insurrections and of resistance actions? - Fourthly: Have they agreed on rightful and rational alternative foreign policies? - Fifthly: Are they tolerant enough "Protestants" to advocate political, economic and social tolerance even for the remaining "Catholics" (statists), so that the statists will not desperately resist them? Do they consistently advocate: "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice"? - - If not, then I would fear their revolution as much as any counter-revolution by any statist regime. - I am also under the impression that Knapp starts from an Anti-American position, which is all too popular and this in spite of the fact that the US, in spite of its numerous and large flaws, may be still the least statist and oppressive territorial regime in the world. - Was he really unable or unwilling to think of any other one that is much worse? I would immediately think of e.g. North Korea, Vietnam, Red China, Cuba, Burma and many of the "self-governing" African States. - Should his intended libertarian world revolution start in the least oppressive States? Or should it rather be promoted against the most oppressive States? Could libertarians, to that extent, even become, temporarily, the allies of the US government but with the aim not merely to establish another "democratic" or "republican" two party regime but going far beyond it - for those who do want to go far beyond it? - It is hard enough to start a rightful and rational revolution in a single State, no matter how wrong and oppressive it is. To believe one could start one simultaneously and internationally seems to embody a lot of wishful thinking. - - Historically, a relatively popular and somewhat rightful revolution will tend to spread anyhow. A quite rightful revolution, sufficiently advocated and understood, could spread much faster, from any location however small. - On the other hand, one man, quite on his own, cannot make a general revolution, even though he might advocate the one-man revolution, i.e., a kind of revolution that would have very little in common with most past revolutions, because it is consistently based on one-man changes only, those applying the ideas of individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, voluntary associationism and exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. - Alas, how many consistent revolutionaries of that type do exist so far among the various anarchists and libertarians? - J. G. Fichte and Herbert Spencer advocated that first step: Individual withdrawal from the State or individually ignoring the State, but did not draw the necessary conclusions from it as de Puydt did. Fichte saw it as a natural part of every revolution but did not see that it ought to be continuously and consistently applied even after "the" revolution, to get away from territorial regimes and their imposed borders and "orders", constitutions and laws, towards a revival and spread of the old individualistic and voluntaristic "personal law" tradition, of which only minor traces remain today. - - Knapp speaks of "the decreasing relevance of geographically based nation-states" but with this remark he already concedes too much: Were they ever really relevant, necessary and justified? - Were they ever solutions rather than problem-makers? - - He wants an "international" or "supra-national" revolution. - Are most people sufficiently internationalists or cosmopolitans for this? Seeing the presently prevailing mentality, we might end up with a World State or World Federation, one that would come even closer to 100% totalitarianism than the Soviets and Nazis did and that would be even harder to overthrow. - - Does he offer a better framework for non-geographical or non-territorial societies, communities and protective associations than de Puydt offered? - - How far can one get, in a rightful and sensible direction, with appeals like: "take up the banner of liberty and carry it forward"? - - "The time of decision is already upon us." - - Decision upon what? What do we agree upon, can we agree upon and should we agree upon? His so far unpublished libertarian revolutionary program? - Is the decision in our hands? Are we free to decide upon our fate? What steps would be required to provide us with sufficient freedom of action and freedom for decision-making? - - I have not even seen consistent anarchists and libertarian attacks on the decision-making monopoly for presidents and prime ministers on war and peace, international affairs and international treaties. - - "... no matter how distant the revolution may seem, it is in fact already occurring." What kind of revolution is already occurring? - On this there will also be much disagreement. - Also on what makes a revolution rightful, fast and efficient. - - We have so far not even assured to make enlightenment certain, fast, efficient, easy and cheap, this in spite of the availability of alternative media like microfiche, floppy disks and CD-ROMs. (I bought recently 2 CD-Wallets, one for my grandchildren and one for myself. Each has room for 24 CDs and each of these 24 CDs could, judging by general literature precedents, contain 3000 tiles, permitting us to fill such a small pouch (about 16 x 16 x 4.5 cm) pouch with 72,000 libertarian titles: Have we as yet combined libertarian knowledge in this way and made it as cheaply and easily accessible as we could do in this way? Each of these pouches costs here less than A $ 3 and a local bargain shop offers them from 3 different firms, all: "Made in China".) - - K. says: "There will be winners and there will be losers." That is the old "zero-sum-game" fallacy. A consistently libertarian revolutions should come very close to the "win-win" game, instead, even for our enemies: We could and should offer them genuine self-government, undisturbed by any kind of dissidents and resistance and revolutions, undisturbed even by competing parties, in other words, their own kind of utopias, based on unanimous consent - as long as their voluntary members can stand them. - Consistent libertarians and anarchists would offer even to their enemies their best chance to do their things to themselves, unhindered, at their own risk and expense, in an extension of the principle of religious tolerance, which would suit the atheists as well as the religious fanatics, the radical freedom lovers as well as its radical opponents. - Each party could come to rule over all its followers, as long as it has any, independent of how many votes or members their opponents have. They would not have to defend themselves continuously against verbal attacks, would not have to engage in expensive and frequent political campaigns, but, instead, could rule undisturbed as long as they find followers. And they would find followers, as the instance of the continuing churches and sects proves. - - What makes for winners and what for losers in revolutionary attempts? Have we as yet sufficiently studied all the historical examples, having as the final aim not any single society or government in mind - but as many as people would freely choose for themselves? - "We have a compass - the Zero Aggression Principle - to guide us, and it dictates the character of our revolution." - - Does it provide as yet sufficient details, e.g. on how to transform a military liberation campaign into a rightful police action against genuine political criminals and war mongers only? Can governmental military forces come closer to this ideal than the US army did in Iraq? - Not even the principle and practice of collective responsibility is condemned here. Nor are e.g. individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers indicated as a means and as an end. - Should freedom lovers "dedicate themselves to a struggle" without even having agreed upon which kind of military, policing or militia organisation, weapons, training, and fighting methods would be quite consistent with the principles they advocate? - - So far they have not even bothered to come to an agreement on an improved - individual rights and liberties declaration. The discussion on alternative private drafts of them hasn't even started yet. I tried in vain to initiate it in PEACE PLANS 589 & 590 by reproducing about 100 such drafts. [Later digitized and increased to over 130. - J.Z., 4.9.11.] Dead silence from anarchists and libertarians was the "response"! Many of them even persist in arguing against rights and human rights. Others hold only with collectivist "rights". - In that respect they are still very far from being rightful revolutionaries. - - By what particular steps could revolutionaries achieve bloodless or almost bloodless victories - with victories meaning merely self-government or self-determination for themselves, leaving others to live under their self-chosen messes, rather than imposing upon them the degrees of freedom, which freedom lovers prefer for themselves? (Here also in a great variety. - E.g. there will be pro-abortion and anti-abortion freedom communities, and xyz currency and exchange media and clearing and credit systems practised among their voluntary supporters and some anarchists will try to manage without any money system as long as they can. Good luck to them. They will need it.) - - What kind of so far popular revolutionary mistakes should they avoid? I tried to provide such lists and explanations in my two libertarian peace books, which remain still ignored by most anarchists and libertarians. ( - How much struggle will be required if anarchists and libertarians become really enlightened in this respect and make no mistakes at all? - History provides a few instances in which regimes were overthrown very fast and easily as well as unexpectedly. - But unless the revolutionaries envision something better than another territorial regime for the future - that is all what they will get and often it has been worse, at least for a number of years, than the previous regime. - - "How can we organize to pursue this struggle without sacrificing our shared values?" - There are still all too few shared values between us. That would not matter only if we had already agreed on full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of anarchists, likewise for all kinds of libertarians and, most importantly, also for all kinds of statists and authoritarians. If we had agreed upon this, as our primary aim and method, then hardly any serious and prolonged struggle would be required, because then we would offer to each - but the imperialistic power-addicts - the realization of their utopias and this among like-minded people and at their risk and expense only. The aim would become self-realising - via consistent steps towards it. - - "... decentralisation and autonomy, harnessed to common goals." - Here the most important and only rightful decentralisation and autonomy is left out, namely the exterritorial one, i.e. the opposite to the present territorial forms of decentralisation and autonomy. Exterritorial autonomy, based upon individual choice or consent, has certainly not yet become our common and sufficiently understood, publicised and explained goal. I have experienced no rush of readers for my so far 24 volume series (on 24 microfiche) "On Panarchy" or for other exterritorialist titles in my PEACE PLANS series: & - - "... a program to rally around - a program that is principled enough to command the allegiance of the most ardent anarchist, yet 'reasonable' enough to attract the participation of principled minarchist libertarians." - That would still leave them in confrontation with the vast majority of all others, i.e., confronted with almost certain defeat, unless they managed to consistently offer to the various statists and authoritarians their chance, too, to live by their “ideals” as well, in their own voluntary communities. - Not their States or more or less democratic or republican "societies" should be destroyed but merely their territorial, imposed and compulsory features, leaving all these "idealists" and "utopians" to their own self-chosen devices and systems, principles and practices, as long as they are willing to put up with them. - - We should offer them liberation from complaints, continuous criticism, opposition and resistance, forced upon us by their present territorialism, i.e. an opportunity for them to practise, among themselves, their own and unanimously supported ideals, in the only way this could be done, namely, under full exterritorial autonomy. - - If we claimed that liberty only for anarchists and libertarians, we might become involved in a life and death struggle with the statists. If we claimed it for ourselves only as a "fool's liberty" or as a "deterrent example" [both in their opinion] and supported the practical, short to long-term and quite secure realisation of their ideals among themselves, much more thoroughly than they could be realised via territorial and temporary majority models, then we could hope to turn them, thereby, from enemies at least into neutrals or, possibly, even inito allies, for the common aim: Full exterritorial autonomy for all minorities and majorities. - - The usefulness of such a program to prevent further or new fighting could be demonstrated by applying it, in theory and or practice, to the present trouble-spots in the world, where, obviously, the territorial non-solutions are tried in vain, again and again, without considering the exterritorial and voluntaristic alternatives at all. - - Even without engaging in any military or revolutionary actions ourselves, we could promote our own aims by proclaiming quite rightful war and peace aims, as well as resistance and revolutionary aims, wherever people are already engaged in fighting - often for all too wrongful aims on both sides, simply because they are still blind to the rightful and mutually satisfactory alternatives to them. - - Are there anarchists and libertarians who advocated full exterritorial autonomy e.g. to all the diverse groups in Afghanistan and in Iraq and in and around Israel? - - If we did this consistently and persistently, then from there the rightful alternatives could spread to our countries, without us, in our countries, having to literally fight for them at all. Obvious successes tend to be widely imitated, even by those who do not comprehend why they were successful. - Are anarchists and libertarians prepared to grasp that nettle? - - One program for all the freedom movements? By all means, anyone who thinks he can offer it should do so. And it should not be advocated and discussed in only one new publication. - - I have tried to do so, so far largely in vain, since 1964 in my PEACE PLANS series. [Until 2002, when I reached issue Nr. 1779 and gave up striving for a round number like 2,000 issues. - J.Z., 4.9.11.] My own and the experience of others teach that no one should expect to be received as a new prophet and unifier and organiser of a new and comprehensive freedom movement. - - But to achieve consent on voluntary membership for all alternative institutions, including comprehensive ones, offering "package deals" or comprehensive insurance or protection contracts, on exterritorial decentralisation, on full exterritorial autonomy for minorities as well as majorities, for friends, allies, competitors as well as enemies, this seems quite possible, especially when one can point out the successes of religious liberty, wherever and whenever seriously tried, and those of experimental freedom in science and technology, in arts, in literature, in life-styles, in business organisation, in hobbies, crafts etc. and can also point out the practicality of personal law and exterritorial autonomy through reference to many historical precedents. - - Alternative schools, insurance arrangements, postal services and credit institutions, on their own, useful, valuable and enlightening as they can be, are not yet enough to end the domination of territorial regimes. - - Alternatives to territorial regimes themselves must also be thought about, sufficiently, and clearly advocated and this not only for freedom lovers but also for all kinds of statists. - - Revolutionary institutions? The fear of freedom, the fear of change, the fear of revolutions is still wide-spread. Why? People are not aware of all aspects of freedom and of all of its powers. Thus they still try to "protect" themselves or get protected against cheap foreign goods and foreign immigrants and remain unaware of the self-help opportunities and solutions that freedom provides. Most still equate anarchy with chaos and fear rather than love market forces. E.g. the anti-globalisation movement. - - We should also frankly admit that most revolutions so far have given the term revolution a very bad reputation. [Just like many anarchists have given anarchism a bad reputation. - J.Z., 4.9.11.] - In that situation we need also "Institutions for the preservation of the Status Quo" as well as "Institutions for Reactionaries!" To each his own and self-chosen one! We should not appear as their enemies but as their promoters! Their own choices for everybody! - Consumer sovereignty in every sphere! Let them fill their shopping baskets with all their authoritarian preferences. - Then we have only to agree that we will not interfere with their shopping (for their, supposedly, ideal institutions, goods and services) as long as they do not interfere with our shopping (for our kind of ideal institutions, goods and services). - - Up to 9/10 of the people in advanced countries live already in more or less cosmopolitan cities and have thus learnt large degrees of tolerance towards strangers and their strange behaviour. - Should anarchists and libertarians be any less tolerant? - Should they fight all statists instead of becoming, as far as possible, tolerant towards them, even liberating, seeing that they have also many still unrealised ideals? Many of them still dream e.g. about comprehensive and financial Welfare States. Let them have them - at their own risk and expense! As long as we are free to withdraw from them. We should insist only upon this, not the destruction of e.g. the "Social Security" system. Left to itself and its voluntary supporters, it will self-destruct soon enough, without us fighting to destroy it. - - "After more than a decade, the Russian Federation is still waiting for a true market economy to rise from the soil in which the Soviet Union spent 70 years sowing the salt of state control." - This image is misleading: The constitution and laws have not been sufficiently changed or abolished to do away with e.g. central banking, protectionism, the control of land titles by a bureaucracy and xyz other statist legal and bureaucratic interventionism. Not even postal services have been privatised, far less the railways, the roads, power production etc. Nor are the remaining up to 30% communists or communist sympathizers (in the population) free to do their own things to and for themselves, rather than remaining as political obstacles to free-market reforms. - Not even the right to geographical secessions has been officially recognised, far less the right to individual and minority group secessions and exterritorial autonomy and free experimentation. - - "The revolutionist is faced with the task of building alternative institutions of civil society as he overthrows the state." - If he clearly enough described the free and quite voluntarily and exterritorially decentralised - as well as voluntarily federated societies of the future, then he might not have to engage in the difficult struggles of setting up some alternative institutions under present conditions. The whole territorial system could then come to collapse like the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. - - The State socialist ideal was once so widely publicised and almost universally subscribed to that it was almost universally realised and still largely is. - Anarchists and libertarians have not yet made their alternatives as believable as the socialist ones once were (among the insufficiently enlightened people). (There were also forms of socialism close to some of the present anarchist and libertarian ideals.) If they had done this, then they would have become largely self-realizing, presuming only, that they would not be advocated as ideals to be subscribed to by all but only as ideals realised by and for their voluntary supporters. Central banking is still almost universally practised and approved. - - "The program of our revolutionary movement must begin with a statement of its goals; but it must also provide for a means of reaching those goals. The formation of alternative institutions in advance of the final crisis is of paramount importance." - - There isn't necessarily a contradiction between ends and means. The proper end may already be the most effective means. If comprehensive alternative institutions are the aim, then they would be prepared by alternative institutions now, in some segments, to the extent that they can be legally or illegally realised. - However, here, once again, we should ponder whether to dedicate our strength to trying to establish alternative institutions ourselves, in our own countries, or whether we should try to get them established among those somewhat rightful revolutionists in the world, who are already fighting their governments but doing it with an insufficiently liberating program and practice and who might, therefore, lose, if not aided by liberating ideas and practices. - - Creating the alternative economy is a tall order when considering the remaining disagreements e.g., on ideal value standards and payment methods, credit and clearing arrangements, even on free trade and the fact that some libertarians even oppose free migration and have no clear and correct ideas on how to overcome mass-unemployment. All the difficulties of black marketeers would also be experienced by these innovators. - - Alternative dispute resolution systems. By all means, to the extent that they can be privately arranged, preventing "settlements" in State courts. However, they would also be under threat of becoming outlawed. Here the practice of mock trials might help to publicise just alternatives to governmental "justice" systems. - - The monopoly for security and defence tends to be even more severely enforced, apart from the services of some private property protection companies. - Here it would be most important to clearly describe what e.g. alternative policing, defence and liberation efforts would mean in practice. - E.g.: What are the rightful anarchist and libertarian war and peace aims for Afghanistan and Iraq? Governments are so ignorant, prejudiced and helpless in this respect that they might even come to adopt them! - Instead of the numerous conventional war games, now offered on computers, we could come to develop our own revolution, liberation and defence games, practising libertarians principles and methods. - And if our governments do not adopt them [which is rather likely], then we could adopt the old practice of setting up governments-in-exile, including free-societies-in-exile, all already peacefully and exterritorially competing with each other and acting as spokesmen for all suppressed minorities under despotic regimes. If they cannot be formally and legally set up, then they can be set up in form of "mock-governments" or "virtual governments" or "virtual societies" on the Internet. - - By concentrating on particular alternative institutions the over-all aim might be lost sight of: Alternative institutions to territorial States and international organisations, not just substitutes for each of their institutions and not just one substitute for each territorial government but as many as are wanted by their voluntary customers, all only within the framework of exterritorial autonomy. - Likewise, not only one pro-freedom alternative should be offered to the UN but as many as can find voluntary supporters. - - Even many to most members of political parties could be won over if the alternative for them: Full and lasting self-rule for all their members and all their supporters, if this is clearly enough described to them. An end only to the rule of one party over other parties. That is something that they have mostly learnt to hate themselves, because at any one time only one of them or a coalition of them can rule. - The alternatives could be demonstrated in plays, films and SF novels and stories - once they are sufficiently developed. - Alternative institutions "in addition to making civil society possible after the revolution will also serve to strengthen our position in that revolution." - Agreed. That applies even to clearly enough described and publicised alternatives. More so to those alternatives already practised now, hopefully under the influence of freedom lovers, in one or the other country, where fighting takes place already and, for lack of a good program, is all too prolonged, bloody and risky. - - "The counter-economy will choke the state for tax revenue." - Have all the voluntary taxation and voluntary contribution alternatives been sufficiently described, published and discussed as yet? Have tax strike proposals been sufficiently discussed and developed as effective resistance methods? For instance: How many of the latter embraced also the refusals to accept State paper money and the issue of sound alternative means of payment? - - Since Knapp neither mentions exterritoriality nor personal law nor panarchy, I presume that he is still unacquainted with my ON PANARCHY series and with your relevant websites and with . - Perhaps more interesting details will be found in the announced program, possibly within a week. One can hope for the best but should also be prepared for further disappointments. - - One should not have only ONE revolution in mind but many of them, all of them, as long as all of them are confined to volunteers and their own affairs. - - The present regimes should not be destroyed, abolished or outlawed - but left to their remaining supporters as their present ideals for themselves. - Why provoke a wild beast? Even a cornered rat will fight. We should advocate all present regimes as quite rightful and to be recognised by all freedom lovers - but for their own voluntary supporters only and at their own cost and risk. We should insist only upon our own rightful and peaceful separation from them and also that their voluntary followers, to remain voluntary followers, must be free to secede from them as well, once they become disappointed with them, too. Moreover, in their and our interest, we should advocate that people from all over the world should become free to join these statist communities, if they are welcomed by them, or freed to set up alike societies or States for themselves, anywhere, always only on the exterritorial model. - Freedom for all statists to experiment exterritorially but no longer territorially (after finally and temporarily being voted into territorial power). - - Such a policy is only common sense when considering the small minority of anarchists and libertarians, confronted by masses of various statists. - These statists are not necessarily fanatic territorialists. The alternative to territorialism has simply not yet entered their minds, although they are daily surrounded by and engage in many exterritorial activities themselves and are often members of associations that do their own things exterritorially for and to themselves (admittedly, only under the thumb of the wider territorial system). - - Animosity to the present system must be accompanied by love for and understanding of the complete alternatives to it. That love and understanding has not yet been sufficiently developed. Literature on it is still scarce and largely unknown or misunderstood. - - How many freedom lovers are aware of the aggression inherent in territorialism and uniformity of laws and "equality before the law" and of the personal law and exterritorial autonomy alternatives to it? Most can only envision a single anarchist or libertarian alternative - and there are so many different ones. I am certain that there are many other hyphenated forms of anarchism and their opposites than the one you listed on a web-page - but so far no one bothered to make additions to this list! - - (Including myself, for lack of proven interest by others in this subject. – J.Z., 25.5.12.) Sufficiently enlightened and tolerant statists are not our enemies. We could peacefully coexist with them and should declare that to be our intention, in the same way as tolerated atheists are usually not fanatic fighters against any of the remaining organised churches and sects. - - Our revolution should embrace the revolutions of all dissenters - as justified for them, at their stage of development. - - Can there be a worse punishment for the remaining statists than leaving them alone to bear the costs and risks of their remaining statist beliefs? - - While we might be opposed by the ruling party or coalition, as consistent advocates of exterritorial autonomy, we could then gain the support of most other parties. Moreover, since no party or coalition is safely and permanently in the saddle, we could assure the careers of all their members, for decades ahead, via full exterritorial autonomy for them and their supporters. To that extent our revolution could also be a revolution at court, at the centre of the present power. - - The most powerful present territorial government, the US government, would also have to pay heed to the alternative policies declared by various US governments in exile and could not quite afford to ignore all the real solutions offered by them to those problems which the US government is obviously unable to solve. - - Historically, mere talk-shops of dissenters, discussing reforms, the juntas of South America, have often found themselves placed, quite unexpectedly, in the position of rulers, because they were they only ones which had at least somewhat pondered some better alternatives. The other citizens rather listened to them than to what their official governments had to say and the governments were left by their subjects, including their soldiers and their policemen. - - Not to drive rulers to desperate steps, some protection and an aircraft should always be reserved for them, to fly them to a neutral country, where they could write their memoirs, possibly earning millions with them. (That has already been widely practised in South Amarica, I was told by U. v. Beckerath, many years ago. – J.Z., 25.5.12.) After a while they might even find some followers again and become their leaders in their own panarchy or volunteer community or polyarchy. - - Leave the "great" leaders and their followers the freedom to try to realise their dreams among themselves. That would greatly reduce their motive to continue to suppress all freedom lovers. It would also induce more and more of their followers to insist: Put up or shut up. Now you can no longer blame all your own failures on the opposition by e.g. radical freedom lovers or other opponents. - - Since even majorities are usually constituted of various sections or minorities, a program of full autonomy for all minorities could, potentially, gain the support of the vast majority of all people. In this way anarchists and libertarians could get the numbers on their side, for self-liberation for them, as well as self-liberation or self-rule, to the extent that it is desired by them, for all others. - The motives for armed fighting would thus be greatly reduced on all sides. - - Full freedom need to be generally realised for all only to the extent that the freedom to opt for it should be generally realised. Territorial authoritarianism should be opposed everywhere but exterritorial authoritarianism should be tolerated. (It will tend to gradually self-destruct - by becoming deserted by more and more people. Perhaps, in the end, some examples of it should be artificially organised and even subsidized, as educational performances, like some old prison systems are theatrically re-enacted for the benefit of tourists willing to pay for such performances.) - - Whatever self-supporting "life force" or strength statism still has, in exterritorial form, should not be suppressed. Let its victims vote with their feet or, rather, their membership cards, changing them for others. All people have the right to misgovern themselves as much as they please! The status quo for all who prefer it. Reaction for all reactionaries - at their risk and expense. - - Are there other common points that all freedom lovers should subscribe to than 1.) voluntarism, - 2.) exterritorial autonomy, - 3.) personal laws, constitutions, juridical systems, - 4.) All these based upon individual sovereignty (even when it is collectivistically used) and - 5.) Realisation via individual and group secessionism being made as easy as voluntary associations for all kinds of peaceful and tolerant purposes? - - Some would insist on package deal or insurance contract alternatives to present territorial States for themselves. Others might merely want to become individual sovereign customers for free enterprises (including coops) that would offer them whatever specific "public services" they want for themselves. - - All would become voluntary taxpayers or contributors to the expenses of their own and self-chosen communities or protective associations or welfare institutions or general insurance companies etc. - - Those, who would not secede but remain attached to their present State organisations, would thereby become voluntary members of the status quo State institution they prefer, but continued only in form of an exterritorially autonomous community and in that form just they would be just another panarchy among many others. Their voluntary membership would turn their taxes into voluntary taxes, too. - - Exterritorial autonomy for all would make a peaceful coexistence possible, also a peaceful and progressive competition. It would also unify the interests of all people so enlightened, liberated and organised against the renewal of any territorial system. - - Dissenters would cease to exist. They could instantly become secessionists and associates of other institutions and service providers. - - Party strife would disappear. So would most false and misleading political territorial promises. Customers don't like being lied to and would desert such liars in droves. - - Even wide-spread harmony, peace and security would be within our reach. - - Why fight, when you are free to secede, associate and do your own thing to and for yourself in your own experiments? - - The fragmentation, sectarianism, intolerance and hostility among present "freedom lovers" can only be ended by them becoming sufficiently tolerant towards the tolerant practice of beliefs other than their own, including even statist ones. Tolerance for all tolerant actions. Intolerance only towards all intolerant actions. - The individualist secessionist revolutions, combined with freedom to associate in exterritorially autonomous communities, will not only dissolve territorial States but also dissolve or avoid revolutions of the old and conventional kind, making them obviously superfluous. - One might say that they would constitute the last revolution or, that they would permanently institutionalize the individual’s right to engage in a revolution regarding all of one's own affairs. - - Most advocates of non-violence have not yet sufficiently considered the individualist secessionist and exterritorial autonomy options. - - Dissidents of the world unite - to throw of your territorial chains. And do become exterritorially tolerant towards each other. Then each genuinely progressive step taken by any movement could rapidly be copied by all others and the all-over progress could become very fast. - In this way you could multiply your friends and allies rather than your enemies. - - We should distinguish alternative institutions WITHIN territorial States from alternative institutions TO territorial States. Moreover, we should also envision alternative institutions to exterritorial States and to exterritorial free societies, which are still a kind of collectivist package deal, one that would not suit some radical individualists. The latter might merely want to deal, from case to case, as individuals, with some specialised enterprise or coop that will exist and compete in a really free market, as sovereign consumers, rather than as members or subscribers. - - Even many of the ruling statists do now offer private alternatives to nationalised enterprises but tend to pocket the sales proceeds from such sales or conversions and use them for their statist purposes. - - I do hope to find much more that is positive in the promised program. - Alas, too many discoverers of this freedom aspect remain unaware of their predecessors and the extensive literature they have already produced. All of it should become united, at least on one if not several CD-ROMs, together with all the discussion of such topics that has so far taken place. Then each such innovator would no longer have to start ab ovo, or, so to speak, would no longer have to re-invent the wheel and could rather concentrate on whatever is really new that he has to contribute. - PIOT, John. - - On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 … John Zube <> wrote: Dear Thomas, - I tried to contact you years ago regarding your program. Only today did I get your current email address from Christian Butterbach. Yesterday I tried thrice to find out such a program by you from the IN, but I found only a few hints saying that you advocated advancing via more and more alternative institutions. - That is already taken for granted in all such efforts. - CB reproduced my two peace books, with at least some hints towards such a program - but I never found anyone but my friend Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, who was seriously interested in this subject. Most of the ideas I expressed in my books and in my PEACE PLANS series, are his. - Thus I would be very much interested in hearing how far you have come in developing such a program, which is certainly not easy. - Some of the difficulties are indicated in my book manuscript of 2010, still only called NEW DRAFT, which I attach. - PIOT, John Zube. - - T. L. K., 4.9.11: John, I look forward to reading your manuscript -- thanks for sharing it! - I promulgated or was involved in promulgating several programs back when I was involved in electoral politics. I've since abandoned it, and them. My work right now is not programmatic, but simply aimed at bringing market anarchist analysis to bear on current events. - - The organization I do most of my work with, the Center for a Stateless Society, has that as its mission, and thus far has had some successes, but in my opinion that's being pursued in rather piecemeal fashion, with the closest thing to a program being Samuel E. Konkin III's “New Libertarian Manifesto”. I do expect that to change, and for a more formal and realistic program to emerge over the next year or so. - Regards, Tom Knapp. - - [I strongly believe that one does not have to become involved in any party politics in order to have or to develop a good program, especially one that is not meant to be realized by a political party, involved in territorial politics. - J.Z., 4.9.11.] Somewhat revised: 25.5.12.

KNAPP, THOMAS L., Certainty and choice - Column by Thomas L. Knapp, posted on June 29, 2003 in Statism - Secession - CorruptionIn the future, intellectuals will debate at what exact point in time the United States in particular, and the world in general, entered into the present era. Perhaps it was at the turn of the century and of the millennium; more likely its roots go deeper, perhaps to the fall of the Berlin wall or the equally difficult to pinpoint 'end' of the Cold War. The irreparable structural infirmities in the foundations of American political society existed prior to September 11th, 2001. The 9/11 attacks and their aftermath go far in revealing the extent of those infirmities, but were not their cause. - What is certain is that the United States has entered into a revolutionary situation. Severe financial exigency, a failing economy, a failed foreign policy and an increasingly draconian domestic situation have combined to produce the circumstances under which a fundamental reorganization of American political society is not only desirable, but necessary; not only necessary, but inevitable. - Equally certain is that the primacy of the United States in international affairs, combined with the decreasing relevance of geographically based nation-states to the lives of the people constrained by the borders and governments of those nation-states, dictates that the revolution be international -- or, more accurately, supra-national -- in character. - I do not make these predictions lightly, nor am I an historical determinist. But while I do not believe that people are predestined to run over cliff edges, I do believe that it is possible to say with a high degree of certainty of a particular person that, having run in the direction of a cliff's edge at a certain speed, for a certain time, past a certain point, he has developed sufficient momentum that the fall is inevitable. - Anarchists and libertarians face a stark choice: to take up the banner of liberty and carry it forward, or to ignore the call of history and stand idly by as humanity plunges itself, and us with it, into a new Dark Age. - The time of decision is already upon us; no matter how distant the revolution may seem, it is in fact already occurring. There will be winners and there will be losers. Events will take their course, whether we choose to affect that course or not -- but an early and wise decision to do so enhances our prospects of victory and minimizes the likelihood that the gutters of the path we tread will run red with blood. - That last point bears reiteration: Violence is not inevitable. We have a compass -- the Zero Aggression Principle -- to guide us, and it dictates the character of our revolution. That compass will prove indispensable at the intersections on the path of revolution. - Is this an advance renunciation of armed insurrection? No, it is not. Our principles forbid us the use of gratuitous force. They forbid us the use of force against the innocent. They do not, however, shackle us in the event that the state forces the struggle down the path of violence. The revolutionist has not only the right, but the obligation -- if he intends to see the revolution through to victory -- to use such force as is required to defend that revolution and to destroy those who initiate force against it. - It is time for libertarians and anarchists to grasp the nettle -- to dedicate themselves to a struggle which will occur with or without their participation and to lay the foundations for victory in advance of its darkest days. - The organization of the revolutionary movement This process, of course, requires at least a modicum of organization -- a concept which, while not foreign to us, is not among our strong points. When we get together, be it in meat-space or online, our primary relationships might best be described as mutually good-natured antagonisms. We like to debate; action is our short suit if it involves much in the way of scale or coordination. - How can we organize to pursue this struggle without sacrificing our shared values? How can we turn what might be seen as a handicap into an advantage? That's the issue I've been grappling with in recent months while contemplating this essay. - The answers I've come up with are not new ones. If anything, they are simple restatements of our primary characteristics as a movement: decentralization and autonomy, harnessed to common goals. - The common goals, of course, are themselves subject to debate, and what the freedom movement needs at this juncture is a program to rally around -- a program that is principled enough to command the allegiance of the most ardent anarchist, yet 'reasonable' enough to attract the participation of principled minarchist libertarians. - It is not within the scope of this essay (which is intended as nothing more than an opening note) to provide such a program. Nor are the antagonisms between most existing anarchist and libertarian organizations conducive to the adoption of a program offered by any particular such organization. The Movement of the Libertarian Left cannot be expected to enter the Libertarian Party, or vice versa, and so on and so forth. Yet all must be appealed to! - It is my hope, within the week, to see such a program promulgated using the same methods that served Russia's 19th century revolutionists well: that is, promulgation under the auspices of a publication which has no prior affiliation of sole loyalty to any organization (although some of its members may). - This program will set goals, and ask the freedom movement to coalesce in pursuit of those goals -- while also clearly permitting the individuals and organizations doing so to preserve their personal and organizational autonomy in all respects. - Additionally, the program will call for actions to be taken by those autonomous individuals and groups on their own initiative. While congresses or coalitions may certainly arise under the auspices of the program and its publishers, the freedom to act -- and the responsibility for action -- will remain diffuse. - It is to those actions that we should now turn our attention, for they are of even greater importance in this revolution than in any prior one. - Revolutionary institutions - As society and polity develop in an environment of statism, the state's claim for its own necessity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It encroaches upon more and more areas of social activity, corrupting, destroying or bringing about the stillbirth of the market institutions that previously served or which, allowed to spring into being, would have served, those sectors. - This is not a new or novel observation: Jean Francois Revel explores it with reference to communism and other manifestations of totalitarianism in “Democracy Against Itself. After more than a decade, the Russian Federation is still waiting for a true market economy to rise from soil in which the Soviet Union spent 70 years sowing the salt of state control. - If the totalitarian state represents the extreme, the fact remains that by comparison to even the most minimal state at the dawn of the 21st century, the British monarchy was a minimalist libertarian paradise. A Cromwell or a Washington could shatter the throne knowing that, although the state itself might require rebuilding, civil society would go on in any case. Capital formation, commerce and the infinitude of daily activities that we take for granted would continue much as before. The state sat atop them; it had not yet put roots down in them. - Intended or unintended, the consequence is the same: the statist, over the course of the 20th century, has built new requirements into the revolutionist's job. The institutions of society are cocooned in red tape -- and beneath that tape, some of them are mummified remains, not living, vital creatures that can be expected to continue functioning if the tape is unwound. - The revolutionist is faced with the task of building alternative institutions of civil society as he overthrows the state. He cannot count on the current incarnations of those institutions to survive the fundamental transformation, which he proposes to carry out. - The program of our revolutionary movement must begin with a statement of its goals; but it must also provide for a means of reaching those goals. The formation of alternative institutions in advance of the final crisis is of paramount - importance. - We must create the alternative economy. - We must create the alternative dispute resolution systems. - We must create the agencies of security and defense. - Our timeframe for doing so, while uncertain in duration, is certainly limited in duration. Many of these institutions are already functioning in embryonic form or another; but they must be built, expanded, improved and made ubiquitous. - We cannot rely on a 'transition period' during which the old institutions will continue to function or through which they will 'evolve' into market institutions. The state has suppressed the market in these institutions. As the state dies, those institutions will die with it. - The silver lining, of course, is that these institutions, in addition to making civil society possible after the revolution will also serve to strengthen our position in that revolution, versus the state and versus other movements that seek to come out of the state's disintegration as society's chosen instrument of renewal. - The counter-economy will choke the state for tax revenue. The private courts will weaken the monopoly of the bar. The agencies of security and defense will shorten the reach of the state's officers of 'law' and reduce the fear of the masses at losing the state's inferior equivalents. All will present themselves as obvious beacons for a populace left adrift and seeking a new society in the wreckage of the old one. - How much time do we have? I do not claim to know. My personal belief, based on the study of past revolutionary eras, is that the moment of crisis and disintegration lies less than two decades in the future. The most accurate, although not necessarily most pleasing, answer, is this one: Not enough. - So let's get to work. - Average: Column by Thomas L. Knapp, posted on June 29, 2003 in Statism - Secession - Under this heading he offers 3 pages of URLs, with authors and titles, all supposedly dealing with secession, but, judging by the titles, none of them with exterritorial secession! - J.Z., 31.8.11. - Corruption -

KNEELING OR UPRIGHTNESS? I do not want to force anyone to his knees. Nor will I let anyone force me to kneel." - Willy Brandt. - Nice but rather empty phrases, especially when the panarchistic conclusion is not drawn from it and when one imagines, like former Berlin mayor and later German federal president Brandt, that all people in a country ought to be subjected to one territorial rule. Admittedly, B. was, perhaps, a bit less authoritarian than others while on these jobs - but he had compulsory membership, territorial uniformity and the suppression of individual secessionism and minority autonomy in common with the worst totalitarian regimes, - as a supposed ideal. - J.Z., 8.4.89. - OR UPRIGHTNESS?

KNEITSCHEL, DIETMAR, Federalism and Non Territorial Minorities, 2004. Note: Non territorial federalism is a conception developed by Karl Renner at the beginning of the XX century. In this very interesting essay Dietmar Kneitschel puts forward the proposal that it might be applied to help solving a quite critical situation like that existing in Sri Lanka. In fact, federalism in general and non territorial federalism in particular are the best conceptual tools for tackling ethnic conflicts that have been running for ages. Once these ideas become operative tools and practical attitudes, internalized by many individuals willing to overcome the ideology and practice of territorial statism, the chances to work out current intractable clashes between different cultural groups will be higher than ever. - The full text of the essay is on - Dietmar Kneitschel, Federalism and Non Territorial Minorities (2004) [English] March 2009


KNESE, FRITZ: On Panarchy, 14, 33-35, 69, in PEACE PLANS No.505. -- 100/101, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. -- 43, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. --  In ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. -- 106-107, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879.

KNIGHTS, CHRISTIAN "ORDERS": Somewhat exterritorially autonomous. Instances: Templars & Maltese. - See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VONOn Panarchy.

KNOTT, ADAM, Panarchy. Essays in the new political philosophy. Ed. by A. K. Contents: On Tolerance, John Zube (1); The Gospel of Panarchy, John Zube, (5); Panarchy: Some Foundations, Michael S. Rozeff, (9); The Right to Exit: An Apologetic for Panarchism, Gene Callahan, (31); Panarchy: The Libertarian Ideal, Adam Knott, (45); Extraterritoriality: What is it? Why deny it?; Richard C.B. Johnsson, (53); Some Notes for a Talk on Panarchism to Anarchists, John Zube, (73); Further Notes on Panarchism and Anarchism, John Zube, (85).

KNOTT, ADAM, Principles of Panarchism. - Principles of Panarchism (2009)

KNOTT, ADAM, The Practice of Panarchism. - The Practice of Panarchism (2010)

KNOTT, ADAM: The Present State of Liberty, 2007. - Adam Knott, The Present State of Liberty - (2007) Note: This is a very good essay on the theory of multi-governments. It doesn't deal with non-territorial self-governance. Nevertheless, panarchy being a conception that includes all those who believe in non-territorial rule, this essay can be considered one of the best formulations of a position that is fully part of panarchy, namely that of non-territorial government. - GPdB. - For more writings by Adam Knott go to: - -

KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIMENTS: Wissen kann man wenig, aber versuchen kann man viel." - Grafitti. - (One can know only very little but one can try many things.) - Ignorance is best reduced by experiments. Tolerance for actions enlightens more than tolerance for opinions. - J.Z. 15.1.93.

KNOWLEDGE, OWN KNOWLEDGE & INDIVIDUAL LIVES: One has to live one's knowledge." - T. H. White, The Book of Merlyn, 6. - Territorialists try to live other people's lives for them or allow them only to live their lives under the direction of others: the ruling territorialists. That assures the rule of ignorance and prejudice rather than of knowledge and experience, and it allows no one, not even the rulers, to live their own lives. For "every leash has two ends." - J.Z., 8.1.93, 16.9.04.

KNOWLEDGE: All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.” – Mao Tse-Tung, address, Tenan, Jul. 1937. – What can direct experience tell us about nuclear phenomena and sub-atomic particles and their interactions? – J.Z., 10.11.07. – Or about planetary systems and their conditions, when they are all too many light-years away from us and even our best instruments cannot supply us with sufficient details? And so he imposed his own lack of economic knowledge and experience upon hundreds of millions of people, instead of learning from the prolonged and multiple experiences of the best minds of the world for centuries. He also imagined what he could offer in his “Little Red Book” apart from the “power out of the barrel of the gun”, would be enough for rapid development progress. What he imposed was no genuine knowledge but primitive errors, assumptions and prejudices. Under the terrorism he institutionalized, to promote them, all too many millions, for a few years even believed in him, even when it led to further poverty and starvation! After dozens of millions of involuntary human sacrifices and wasted lives, at least much but not everything of his State socialism has been abolished. Alas, not yet monetary and financial despotism, and its territorialism, which do also prevails still in the “free” western democracies. – China, too, urgently needs full experimental freedom for all its dissenters. Only then can the benefits of direct experience of a few volunteers come to benefit the population of the whole country, saving most people some of the worst experiences and allowing all people to come to benefit from the best. – Panarchism, combined with monetary and financial freedom, could and would release the creative energies of the Chinese people, too, more than any other system. Territorialism and monetary and financial despotism still holds them terribly back. – By all means, let there be still some communist communes, but made up of volunteers only. Deterrent examples are needed for every new generation as well. - J.Z., 18.1.09, 15.12.11, 25.5.12. - EXPERIENCE, DIS., CHINA

KNOWLEDGE: As Thomas Alva Edison wrote, “No one knows more than one-millionth of one per cent of anything,” and in this lack of understanding we find an explanation for the growing governmental interventionism.” – Probably a hint by Leonard E. Read. Alas, I did not note down where I found it. – J.Z. – Do we really know by now only as little about how little rightful and successful interventionism by territorial governments is, as little about the harmful effects of territorialism of monetary despotism, of protectionism, of price controls, of gun controls etc.? Even ignorance should not be exaggerated. – J.Z., 10.11.07. – But then, how many people on Earth do already have considerable to sufficient knowledge of these subjects and are free to apply it? Territorial governments are not organizations for the mobilization of all knowledge. Panarchies of volunteers would be and they could harm and wrong only their volunteers. – J.Z., n.d. – Compare: “Release all creative energies!” – a frequent remark by Leonard E. Read. -  IGNORANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

KNOWLEDGE: Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason ... But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” - William of Conches - – How many people are there who really appreciate only one book, be it, for instance, the Bible or the Koran, and who have not even read that one thoroughly and critically? – Are there really 30,000 to 35,000 different religions on Earth, as some recent email, which I received, did assert? They would, largely, amount to so many kinds of organized ignorance, prejudices and dogmatism! But then there is too much of them also in the “social sciences”, too and that dogmatism, is still universally territorially applied, while in religion we have already much individual choice. – J.Z., 18.1.09. - FORCES OF NATURE, DOGMATISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL IDEOLOGUES – AMONG THEMSELVES: PANARCHISM, RELIGIONS, SECTARIANS, BELIEVERS, FAITH

KNOWLEDGE: Do not forgive them – for they know what they are doing to us? Or: “Do not forgive them because they do not know what they are doing to us.”? - J.Z., 10.10.96, 26.12.11. – With or without some or sufficient knowledge, one should only be free to act in the own affairs, alone or in association with like-minded people. That excludes all territorial “leadership”. – J.Z., 10.11.07. - FORGIVENESS, EXCUSES, TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS

KNOWLEDGE: Happy is he who knows the causes of things.” – Source unknown. – And unhappy is he who is not free to apply his knowledge to his own life and that of like-minded people. – J.Z., 8.6.86. – What good is a medicine that might save your health or even your life but that may not be freely produced, traded and consumed? – J.Z., 10.11.07. - COMBINED WITH LACK OF FREEDOM OF ACTION

KNOWLEDGE: I feel that when all is known, all will be well.” – D. E. Charlwood, No Moon Tonight, p.9. – Well, the supposedly existing greatest of the “know-it-alls” the omniscient God, produced an all too imperfect world and this supposedly omnipotent “being”, if it exists, has been mismanaging it ever since. It has not managed it any better than territorial governments have and via its supposedly holy writs, upholding the “principle” of collective responsibility, it has sanctioned some of the worst crimes committed by governments. – The somewhat enlightened individual, aware of his limitations and of those of all others, should only try to take care of his own affairs, as far as is right and possible for him, instead of leaving them to supposed gods in heaven or on earth. – J.Z., 10.11.07. - GOD, OMNISCIENCE, LEADERSHIP, RULERS

KNOWLEDGE: If knowledge is power and power corrupts, then knowledge corrupts. Further, if more knowledge leads to more power and maximum (absolute) power is maximally corrupt, then the more one knows, the more corrupt or evil one is. (Note, that it follows from this, that if one is omniscient, one must then be evil incarnate, thus God is the Devil.)” – Tom Easton, The Reference Library, ANALOG, 5/98. – In this kind of “knowledge” all the prejudices, myths, errors and ignorance of territorial rule and its “social sciences” of intolerance, monopolism and compulsion, its collective responsibility notions, are involved and their territorial application or domination by supposed leaders and experts. Panarchism or polyarchism, on the other hand, starts from ignorance and unpretentiousness. At best we know only what we like or what is best for us and not what is best for all others. Thus we do not lay down the law for the voluntary communities of others and claim only the right to choose the personal laws we want to live by or under, together with like-minded people. The biblical Adam and Eve story of the Christians also considers knowledge to be a sin. Modern libertarians have come to the conclusion that at least the pretence of real knowledge is also a sin, or immoral and aggressive when it is acted upon – on involuntary victims. The panarchists, multiarchists, polyarchists etc. among them do hold that convictions and beliefs entitle only to experimental freedom among volunteers and otherwise only to freedom of expression and information. At the same time, they are aware that knowledge of genuine liberties and rights is liberating and empowering over the own affairs because it does not only contain good will and wishes but also realization options of a rightful and peace promoting kind, leading to the self-determination “power” of personal and group autonomy, realized exterritorially and in free markets in this sphere as well. – J.Z., 8.7.98, 10.11.07, 25.12.11. - GOD, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

KNOWLEDGE: Ignorance is bold, and knowledge reserved.” – Thucydides. – But consider how bold knowledge could become if all of it were made readily available, including the best refutations of the errors, myths, fallacies, prejudices and wrong assumptions of ignorance? – J.Z., 9.11.07. – Except e.g. the knowledge for still more, easier and cheaper mass murder devices! – Once people have achieved full exterritorial autonomy for the realization of their own ideals among like-minded people, most of them would no longer wish for mass murderous powers and between them they could and would disarm all those, relatively few, who would then still strive for it. - J.Z., 18.1.08, 15.12.10, 25.12.11m 25.5.12. - IGNORANCE, RED., NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLES THEMSELVES, PRESENTLY TARGETED.

KNOWLEDGE: Imagination is more important than knowledge.” – Albert Einstein, quoted by Ben Bova in “Brothers”, page 21. – Yes, provided the imagination does not carry one beyond facts into mere fantasy or unwarranted assumptions. – J.Z., 18.9.07. – Merely imagined knowledge is the worst! – And it is so abundant and wide-spread and has been practised in territorial politics for all too many centuries. - J.Z., 18.1.09. – E. was so ignorant or prejudiced, when it comes to social sciences, that he believed in nuclear mass murder “weapons” for defence and liberation! – J.Z., 15.12.10, 25.5.12. - IMAGINATION

KNOWLEDGE: It seems that the general public doesn’t count knowledge as wealth. In the long run, knowledge is the ONLY wealth!” (*) – Ben Bova, ANALOG, 10/72, p.175. – Only once a fully developed market for knowledge and talents has finally been established - will it also show attractive enough financial returns for the acquisition of knowledge. So far, at least in the sphere of “social sciences”, the acquisition of “knowledge” was largely only the equivalent to joining one of the ancient priesthoods and long lasting churches or conflicting schools of opinions and hypotheses, which did not even deserve the term “theories”. Ignorance and popular prejudices in this sphere brought people more wealth than genuine knowledge. Only under full experimental freedom in this sphere, requiring exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, and under fully free market exchange of all existing knowledge and ideas and talents can this situation become reversed, towards the above indicated ideal. – So far the most wealthy people were not, as a rule, the most knowledgeable and able ones. – Knowledge should not be monopolized and then sold in fragments. Like manure it should be widely spread to do much good. - J.Z., 9.11.07, 25.12.11. – (*) Aren’t there some rich fools around, who know and care only about gratifying their senses? – J.Z., 25.5.12. – DIS., WEALTH, DIS. IDEAS ARCHIVE & TALENT CENTRE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge as idea and practice. - Fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza. - (Dante, La Divina Commedia, 1300) - You were not made to live as brutes but to follow virtue and knowledge (Dante, La Divina Commedia, early 14th century) - Idiocies, fallacies and ambiguities have reduced knowledge in the social sciences to fashionable opinions whose only requirement is to be functional to the ruling elite and plausible to gullible people. - In order to go beyond all this trash it is necessary to qualify knowledge as idea and practice and to highlight how knowledge emerges: - Knowledge starts from the perception of a problem for which a (theoretically) possible solution exists and is striven for. - Knowledge involves and relies on all the capacities of the human being (observation, intuition, reflection, action, etc.) in order to find a solution. - Knowledge leads to the finding of the solution(s). - In the process of dealing with problems, human beings produce knowledge structures (theories, empirical generalizations, hypotheses) that will assist them in furthering the development of knowledge (that is, in finding further solutions to further problems). - These building structures should respond, as far as possible and depending on the problem under examination, to certain criteria that are the measuring standards of any human effort and enterprise, namely: beauty (elegance of solution) - parsimony (economy of entities, e.g. in explaining phenomena) - accuracy (correspondence of statements with factual reality) - validity (consistency amongst statements in an argument) - generality (breadth of application) - testability (subject to verification and so to falsifiability) -- fertility (useful for leading to further theoretical and practical discoveries). - In science there are no theses and antitheses struggling for predominance but only relevant hypotheses subject to verification and never accepted as absolute truth. Nowadays scientists, when quite confident of a certain belief, talk of highly corroborated hypothesis. There are no longer laws to which eternal certainty is attributed. - The lack of certainty does not mean that one statement is equivalent to another. It means that all statements have to conform to the criteria previously highlighted in order to qualify as knowledge beliefs and they maintain that qualification only if they continue to conform to those criteria. Given the fact that nobody knows the future, the most sensible position is to be cautious about giving to any scientific statement concerning future events an eternal (and so unsustainable) patent of truth. - Gian Piero de Bellis in: Escaping Obscurantism & Overcoming Nonsense - EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, SOCIAL SCIENCES, HYPOTHESES, THEORIES, SCIENCE

KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge becomes a rightful power or influential only to the extent that it is of interest to others, accessible, communicable and provable. – J.Z., 13.9.88, 10.11.07. – In practice, when it comes to political, economic and social system matters, this can be done only among volunteers, free to act under their self-chosen personal laws. – J.Z., 18.1.09. – POWER, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY

KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge becomes power or, rather influence, only once sufficient people bother to acquaint themselves with it. – J.Z., 29.3.87, 10.11.07. – Territorialism requires that majorities acquire sufficient knowledge before it can be acted upon. That is what slows territorialism down, even democratic territorialism. Its leadership represents merely the lowest common denominators. – J.Z., 18.1.09. – POWER, PUBLIC OPINION, ENLIGHTENMENT, DEMOCRACY, LEADERSHIP, POLITICIANS, RULERS

KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge is power – if you know it about the right person.” – E. W. Mumford, 1878 -1940. – Andrews Quotations, p.227. But this is not the kind of knowledge we ought to acquire, most of all. – J.Z., 9.11.07. – However, such knowledge about ruling politicians, dangerous as it is for individuals to possess, if sufficiently publicized, could be useful to get rid of these great territorial mis-leaders and their laws, platforms and “reforms” or confine them to their remaining volunteers only. – J.Z., 18.1.09, POWER, BLACKMAIL, LEADERS, RULERS, POLITICIANS, PANARCHISM

KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge itself is power.” Wissenschaft selbst ist Macht.“ – Bacon, Religioese Betrachtungen. – So far, the knowledge in territorial powers is merely the knowledge on how to mislead people by their nose into still one more man-made territorial disaster. – Currently, Keynesian inflationism is once again fashionable, seen and practised as a panacea, regardless of its terrible consequences. – We should not forgive our territorial mis-leaders for they either do not know what they are doing to us or they do! - J.Z., 18.1.09. - POWER

KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which only knowledge gives.” - James Madison, 1822, quoted by - Newt Gingrich, Window of Opportunity, A Blueprint for the Future, 22 & 262 - For a long time (and even now) ignorance and prejudice governed us. But libertarian ideas and knowledge, once fully mobilized, via special market institutions for ideas and knowledge, could come to rule over ignorance, prejudice and aggressive attempts. - Are the most wise and knowledgeable men always governing the ignorant and prejudiced ones or is it, mostly, rather the other way around, at least under territorialism? – Can the people as a whole or its majority become sufficiently enlightened, enough to introduce liberties and rights, or should the already enlightened minorities be freed to demonstrate them and the insufficiently enlightened are also free to practise their preferred reforms among themselves, regardless of their quality or defects? –– Freedom to experiment, voluntarily and exterritorially with all kinds of political, economic and social systems – except territorial ones! -J.Z., 4.1.08., 25.12.11, 25.5.12. - VS. IGNORANCE, POWER

KNOWLEDGE: One can know only very little but one can try many things.” – ("Wissen kann man wenig, aber versuchen kann man viel.") - Graffiti. - Ignorance is best reduced by experiments. Tolerance for actions enlightens more than tolerance for opinions. - J.Z. 15.1.93. – In the same country hundreds to thousands of free experiments with alternative systems - to the territorially imposed ones - could and should take place – but all only among volunteers. Exterritorial autonomy and personal laws would make that possible. – How fast would progress occur then in the spheres so far monopolized and held back by territorial, coercively collectivistic monopoly governments? – J.Z., 18.1.09, 25.12.11. - FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PANARCHISM, Q.

KNOWLEDGE: One has to live one's knowledge." - T. H. White, The Book of Merlyn, p.6. - Territorialists try to live other people's lives for them or allow them only to live their lives under the direction of others: the ruling territorialists. That assures the rule of ignorance and prejudice rather than of knowledge and experience, and it allows no one, not even the rulers, to live their own lives. For "every leash has two ends." - J.Z., 8.1.93, 16.9.04. – One ought to be free or get or use a chance to become free to do so. So far we are still all too far away from this ideal. – J.Z., 18.1.09. – We are not yet free enough to live according to our own knowledge. Those in the world favouring e.g. Free Trade, Free Banking and Full Financial Freedom, are not yet free to practise them among themselves, world-wide and where they live and work. – The most obvious facts are all too often widely overlooked or ignored. – By all means, the remaining proletarians and egalitarians and the “intellectual” State socialists should also be free to do their own things, nationally and internationally, to themselves! - J.Z., 18.1.0-9. - LIFE, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, OWN KNOWLEDGE & INDIVIDUAL LIVES, EXPERIMENTAL & ASSOCIATIONAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSUMER –SOVEREIGNTY TOWARDS STATES & SOCIETIES

KNOWLEDGE: The awakening began with Roger Bacon (d. 1294); it grew with the limitless Leonardo (1452-1519; it reached its fullness in the astronomy of Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1643), in the researches of Gilbert (1544-1603) in anatomy, and of Harvey (1578-1657) on the circulation of the blood. As knowledge grew, fear decreased; men thought less of worshiping the unknown, and more of overcoming it. Every vital spirit was lifted up with a new confidence: barriers were broken down; there was no bound now to what man might do.” – Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, p.105. – The obvious and visible progress made us overconfident about what to expect. With too much statism remaining territorially institutionalized, the hopes associated with some civil liberties and what was already misinterpreted as fully free enterprise and fully free trade and freedom of contracts (“Laissez-faire, laissez passer” – Let people produce and exchange), the resulting crises were ascribed to freedom instead of the remaining territorial statism. The territorial barriers and all that they stood for in statism, monopolism, coercion and interventionism, were not completely broken down and are still not recognized as wrongful and harmful. The remaining ignorance and prejudices, especially in the “social sciences” held us back and made possible one man-made disaster after the other, in spite of and even with the help of natural sciences. “Nuclear giants and ethical infants!” (General Omar Bradley) - Underlining by me. – J.Z., 6.4.91, 9. 11. 07, 25.12.11. - SCIENCE, PROGRESS, REASON, EXPERIMENTS, MAN, INSTEAD OF WORSHIPING THE UNKNOWN, RELIGION, FAITH, BELIEF

KNOWLEDGE: The knowledge of all religions would at best only lead us to religious freedom or religious tolerance and not necessarily to any worthwhile knowledge or tolerance e.g. in the social sciences. Nevertheless, all religious still pretend to possess sufficient social science knowledge, including philosophical, moral or ethical and economic knowledge and act upon that pretence. To that extent all religions are “sinful” and amount to “ignorance in action”, all too often in intolerant and intolerable actions. – J.Z., 10.11.07. – Has any religious leader ever addressed the “social scientists” and told them: “Learn from our practice of religious tolerance how to deal with your differences of opinion and ideas”? – J.Z., 15.12.10. - RELIGIONS & TOLERANCE, Q.

KNOWLEDGE: The more we know, the stronger we are in our choices.” – Frank Herbert, The Jesus Incident, 88. – Provided we are free enough to make use of all our panarchist choices as well. – That requires full experimental freedom in those spheres, which are so far monopolized and all too much mismanaged by territorial governments. J.Z.,18.1.09, 25.12.11, 25.5.12. - STRENGTH THROUGH CHOICES

KNOWLEDGE: the more you know, the wider your field of possible operations becomes, and the more fluid and dynamic a society you need.” – James Blish, The Quincunx of Time, p.107. – Social science questions are so complex and involved that mere freedom of expression and information are not sufficient to enlighten the public about them. (*) They must be accompanied by freedom of action among volunteers, by freedom to experiment with offered solutions, always under full exterritorial autonomy and only at the expense and risk of the voluntary experimenters. Territorial States have so far suppressed that liberty and thus have practically achieved all too little that is quite rightful and positive. They are still merely the high priests of popular errors, myths and prejudices and their leaders - not only the Lenins, Stalins, Mussolinis, Hitlers and Maos, are foolish enough to believe in these spleens. – J.Z., 9.11.07, 15.12.10, 25.5.12. – (*) Probably, digitized “argument mapping”, as recommended by Paul Monk and others online, could sort them out and clarify them sufficiently. So could an ideas archive and an encyclopaedia of the best refutations of popular errors, myths and prejudices, which are obstacles to progress. – J.Z., 25.5.12. - COMPLEXITY, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

KNOWLEDGE: There is no knowledge that is not power.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson. - I would insert "potential" between "not" and "power". - J.Z. – If a supposedly “great leader” has, largely, only the usual popular errors, myths and prejudces in his mind, then he will rapidly gain and all too long keep power, but he will not have the power to provide any worthwhile solutions. Even if he publicly asks for them, and is offered them, he will either either not understand and accept them or not apply them. For that we have had too many examples. – How often have territorial leaders accepted full monetary and financial freedom – if ever? – How often have they renounced their decision-making monopoly on war and peace, armament and disarmament? – How many genuine individual rights have they failed to recognize so far and how many even of the classical ones do they still infringe with their laws or actions? – The full and all too dispersed knowledge of mankind is not being mobilized by territorialism and its “leadership”. - Self-management power should also be distinguished from wrongful power over dissenting others. –J.Z., 18.1.09. 25.12.11. -  POWER, DIS.

KNOWLEDGE: This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power.” - Herodotus. - The best ideas, the greatest talent and knowledge are not always or even rarely sufficient in the absence of sufficient freedom of expression and freedom to experiments and of opportunities for both. - J.Z., 25.11.02.

KNOWLEDGE: Those who don't know enough, or only imagine that they do, want to force their wills upon others. Those who do know enough would rely on voluntary and free actions and experiments, promoted by freedom of expression and information. - J.Z., 25.2.99, 26.1.02, 25.12.11. - FORCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

KNOWLEDGE: We know a great deal, but we don’t always use what we know.” – S. Johnson & L. Wilson, The 1 Minute Sales Person, p.76. RED. – What fraction of genuine anarchist and libertarian knowledge has so far been fully applied? How many people are quite free to do so? – J.Z., 18.1.09.

KNOWLEDGE: What I really know I know only for myself. An expressed opinion rarely promotes anything. It provokes contradiction, delays and stoppages.” - Goethe, “Sprueche in Prosa”, J.Z. tr. of: “Was ich recht weiss, weiss ich nur mir selbst; ein ausgesprochenes Wort foerdert selten, es erweckt Widerspruch, Stocken und Stillstehen.” – All the more required are experimental freedom, panarchism and an Ideas Archive. – J.Z., 15.0.08.

KNOWLEDGE: When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.” - Albert Einstein. - – Maybe he should have mentioned that it also misled him into a number of false assumptions, in his special sphere, just like religious people are thus misled. – Although, he, too, was a refugee from totalitarianism, he showed not comprehension of its radical alternative, namely exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, or panarchism, nor did he comprehend anything but a totalitarian and mass murderous defence against totalitarian regimes. He recommended nuclear “weapons”, i.e., mass murder devices! “Weapons” to be used against whole peoples, in accordance with the “principle” of collective responsibility! Naturally, these did then also get into the hands of totalitarians and were already abused by a “democratic” president! - J.Z., 12.1.08. - FANTASY, IMAGINATION, METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS, CREATIVITY, ORIGINALITY, INTELLIGENCE

KNOWLEDGE: When you know you know - you are twice armed.” – From the 1977 Collins Desk Calendar. – And you may still be quite powerless to freely act upon your knowledge. Just like those who were marched to the gas chambers, we are being marched towards an all-out nuclear war, all in the service of what territorial statists call “defence”. – J.Z., 18.1.09. - GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

KOHR, LEOPOLD, Disunion Now: A Plea for a Society Based upon Small Autonomous Units, 1941, originally published in THE COMMONWEAL, Sep. 26, 1941, under the pseudonym Hans Kohr. Republished in German in DIE ZEIT, Nr. 43, October 25, 1991, S. 19, 4pp: 183, in PEACE PLANS 1689-1693. - Did he come out clearly for exterritorially autonomous units or only for geographical decentralization? - J.Z., 1.9.04. ] - Leopold Kohr,  Disunion now - Gian Piero de Bellis put it into his collection: Polyarchy - Polyarchie - Poliarchia - Poliarquia. - 4pp: 183, in PP 1689-1693.

KOHR, LEOPOLD, The Power Theory of Aggression, 62 KBs, in - from The Breakdown of Nations, 1957. - This text is a masterpiece of social and political analysis. It presents the theory that the principal cause of aggression and wars is the excessive size leading to excessive power. According to this theory, given a critical dimension (amount of size power) the (almost) inevitable consequence is violence. Kohr calls it the "power theory of aggression or the power theory of social misery". - GPdB. – Really small territorial States, at least in our times, are only rarely aggressive. Historically, e.g. Athens and Rome have shown how aggressive they, too, can be. – Compared with the world e.g. the Kaiser’s Germany, Hitler’s Germany and Japan in WW II were rather small, too, and so was England, when it was building up the British Empire. - J.Z., 25.5.12.

KONRAD, KAI & STERGIOS SKAPERDAS, The Market for Protection and the Origin of the State. - Kai Konrad and Stergios Skaperdas - The Market for Protection and the Origin of the State - Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 2173, 1999.

KOO, VI. KYUIN WELLINGTON, PHD, The Status of Aliens in China, N. Y., Columbia University Press, 1912. Previously: The Alien in China. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, edited by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University, vol. L, 1911, part 2., No. 126.

KOONTZ, ALAN P. & ZUBE, JOHN, EXTRACT FROM CORRESPONDENCE, ON PANARCHISM: John Zube, 17.10.85, to Alan P. Koontz, Route 2, Box 252-D, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia 25411 - Dear Alan, thanks for your letter of Oct. 3rd., received yesterday. ... Under Stirner's "economics" I meant the thoughts on the subject dispersed through his major and minor writings. I have seen some of them referred to and criticized but no one seems to have put all of them together as yet, together with some critical comments. - As with many other authors, one can also read their economics or anti-economics between their lines. I hold also hold that, politically, Stirner was more individualistic than Smith but economically the reverse seems to be true to me. - It is surprising that a man like Stirner wrote only as little or disappointing that not more of his writings have come upon us. - You may be right that Nietzsche was largely influenced by Stirner, was not truly original in his writings and largely adapted Stirner's ideas. But to be convinced of this, I would have to read a monograph demonstrating this, overwhelmingly. - How much and how little force should be used, how it should be organized and limited and on what occasions it should be used and how etc., I tried to describe in my book-length manuscript in PP 399-401, of which I may enclose an extract here, on microfiche. - Your questions do, among other things, amount to the question: When are revolutions justified? - In this I largely agree with Leonard Read: Complete and forceful revolutions are not justified as long as still a large degree of freedom of expression and information, association and assembly exists. With their aid public opinion can be changed, at least within a few years, if only all alternative communication channels and means are fully utilized. Seeing the usual price, in blood, of an armed revolution, that agitation-effort-price appears to me to be a bargain. - When any regime is firmly implanted, i.e. relatively popular with the majority of the population, then we do have at most a case of rightful resistance by minorities against their oppression by the majority but not a case for revolution. (Please, do read de Puydt's article on panarchy.) - In this case minorities must strive for liberty via secessionism. And they would often be well advised not to go for minority autonomy directly, for themselves only, but, rather, to speak up for majority and minority autonomy elsewhere and everywhere, for everyone - because there are a great number of potential allies around for such a generalized aim. - Even the temporary, fluctuating and ruling majorities consist, upon close inspection, out of numerous minority groupings or factions, not only their right, left and centre. - Once, through proper agitation from other countries, minority autonomy and majority autonomy are realized, where they are most acutely and obviously suppressed, e.g. in Ireland, Lebanon, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia etc. etc., there would be a feedback effect upon our types of representative democracies. - In short, our blueprints should start with cases where liberty is most obviously and extensively suppressed. Compared with totalitarian regimes, our governments, with all their faults, are still "angels". - Moreover, in this way we would act rather as their allies than their enemies - never mind our long-term aims. – At least then we would not aim at their overthrow but merely at the reduction of their rule to their own volunteers, in other words, merely at the abolition of their territorialism. – With that restricted aim we would not rouse their maximum antagonism and retaliation, unless they are fanatical territorial unifiers and centralists, as the Northern States of the USA were, under Lincoln, when they resisted the territorial secession of the Southern States in the Civil War. - - Once the totalitarian and dictatorial threats are removed from the world scene, then the representative democratic systems would tend to become more classical-liberal to individualistic - especially once some radical examples of this latter type are in operation in formerly totalitarian countries. Militarism would tend to subside. - - When anarchists and libertarians constitute as tiny a minority as they are, in democratic countries, it is no more rightful for them to attempt a revolutionary overthrow of the institutions desired by the majority than it is for terrorists to attempt to realize and impose their preferred institutional pattern by means of terrorist acts. - - The major voluntaryist insight is that all coercive public relationships ought to be replaced by voluntary ones and only individual secessionism can achieve and maintain such a condition, and can do so quite peacefully and without wronging anyone. - - The term "insurrection" should be used with some discrimination. When an individual purchases a computer or uses a micrographic agency to produce some libertarian writings, then this does not yet constitute an "insurrection" in the widely accepted meaning of this world. At most it amounts to some of the first steps of a non-violent resistance via enlightenment efforts. But as a panarchist one can very well speak of the institutionalization of revolutions by individuals, acting for themselves and establishing or joining quite different constitutions for themselves – while spilling only a drop or ink rather than any blood in the process. When people do their own thing and can do so undisturbed, then and for them the revolution is complete. Most importantly, the lives of others remain undisturbed. That is the main benefit of these "one-man-revolutions". - - Panarchism would introduce the freedom for the consumer to shop around - for every kind of service, even that of competing governance systems, societies and communities. - - Denial of the justification or excuse attempts for territorial States or attempts to ignore it, and to provide some alternative self-help services, can be very useful, but again, for lack of violent and initiated actions against the old State institutions – no bombs, arson or attacks on policemen or soldiers - it would not amount to an insurrection or riot. - - Naturally, once a State thereupon used forceful suppressive measures, an insurrection might follow. Rather than risking this in a democracy, why not, instead, attempt to positively and ideologically "steer" insurrections that do already exist in other countries, like e.g. that in Afghanistan, in the right direction? That would save much bloodshed, help to diminish despotism and set proper examples, without carrying the civil war here, like some of the Anti-Vietnam-War activists desired. - Why should we let our opportunities be limited by national borders? - - Alternative institutions of all kinds are self-help institutions, not forceful insurrections that do attempt to abolish or destroy the old establishment. Rather than destroying it, they want to gradually diminish it by competition, reducing it to rule over their remaining volunteers. With them the old rulers would have a sinecure – as long as they have any followers. No longer a need for a police State for them or for any election campaigns. They would get the best chance to do and demonstrate their things – with the almost unanimous support of their followers. – Perhaps the opponents of the existing State might achieve that its establishment would, finally, be deserted by all. But it would already be sufficient for themselves - if they managed to reduced it to the voluntary actions of a minority or majority group of true believers. Then the establishment would amount to no more than just another alternative institution. - - - Definitely, not all communist-anarchist "collectives" are based only on master and slave relationships. What you have in mind are coercive collectives. - - Admittedly, many of the communist anarchists are prepared to use force to get others to adopt their kind of sharing systems. But until they have done so successfully and subjugated dissenters, they are confined to voluntary actions among themselves. I still think that they are prospects for completely voluntaristic approaches to their ideals. - - In spite of not agreeing with them, we should help them to achieve autonomy, too, as far as this is in our power or influence, starting, again, with e.g. autonomy for such groups in the Soviet Union and Red China. After all, ideas do not respect borders. … Revised: 25.12.11.

KORAN, From Quran Sura cix: "Say: O ye unbelievers! // I worship not what ye worship, // And ye are not worshippers of what I worship; // And I am not a worshipper of what ye have worshipped, // And ye are not worshippers of what I worship. // To you your religion; and to me my religion." As opposed to this, upon converting the first French king to Christianity, the baptizer gave the following intolerant advice: "Burn what you have believed and believe what you have burnt!" Later practices followed the intolerant maxim: "Cuius regio, eius religio!" [The religion of the subjects has to follow the religion of the ruler]. Even Genghis Khan was tolerant when it came to religion. The "enlightened" Frederic II of Prussia went only so far as to declare: "Believe what you will – but obey!" The notion of "to you your religion; and to me my religion", seems far more tolerant, to say the least. - RCBJ. - TOLERANCE, MUSLIMS, ISLAM, MOHAMMED, QURAN, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, CHRISTIANITY

KORAN, A VERY INTOLERANT PASSAGE, APPARENTLY NEVER YET REPEALED OR COMPLETELY RENOUNCED: Pan Liu Extraterritoriality an extract page 335. - IN THE LEVANT PRIOR TO 1453 - III. EXTRATERRITORIALITY IN THE MOHAMMEDAN   STATES PRIOR TO 1453:  The Testament of Mohammed and the Capitulation of Omar furnish the customary basis of Mussulman practice with regard to jurisdiction over foreigners. The explana­tion for the position held by the Mussulman on this subject, as has been intimated above, has to be sought in his religious beliefs. According to the Koran, which is at once a gospel, a code and a constitution, all those who were not followers of the Mohammedan religion were to be treated as enemies and to be slaughtered without mercy.2 But the exigencies of commerce demanded and effected a mitigation of this rule. "The innate and invincible aversion of the Moham­medans," says Pradier-Fodére,3 "to do business outside their country; their inexperience in navigation, which forced them to recruit their crews only from among foreign sea­men; the need, which the political chiefs of Islamism felt, of utilizing their extended coast, their fine harbors, the rich products of their fertile soil, and of reaping the numerous advantages of maritime commerce, were early destined to inspire the Sultans with a favorable disposition towards the /// 1 .... 2 Koran, sura xlvii, verse 4, "When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast and fetters." - (Stressed by me, in red. Is that still, today in their “holy” book? Such a passage is certainly easy to remember for fanatics! It may, according to Gibbon, merely be the false interpretation of a secretary, which Mohammed later dismissed as quite unreliable. – The above is also the version in the translation by J. M. Rodwell, in the Everyman’s Library edition, 1978. But the footnote states: “The Meccans and other unbelievers in Muhammad’s time. The Hanefites suppose this law to apply only to the battle of Bedr. The Shiites take it as of universal obligation.” - - The first note to this Sura XLVII, subheaded: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful” says:“This Sura was revealed at a period after the victory at Bedr. When there was still some hesitation on the part of Muhammad’s followers to take decided steps for securing their position. See 37.” - - In “The Meaning of the Glorius Koran, an explanatory translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, A Mentor Book, New American Library, 15th edtion, no date, page 361, this passage is translated as follows: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burden. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allay. He rendereth not their action vain.” – This religious “ethic” is as bad as that of Jews and Christians failing to generally renounce the preaching and practice of “collective responsibility” in their “Holy” scriptures. - - How many more hundreds of millions will have to become slaughtered before the clerics finally manage to completely renounce wrongful doctrines and interpretations? - - - I think that there is a good case for Christians, Jews, other faiths and atheists etc. to demand both from Islamic officials and churches and sects a complete and public renunciation of this doctrine.  Just various interpretations, somewhat moderating this dogma for some, are, obviously, not good enough, at least not for those inclined towards “holy wars” and terrorism – and for their still all too numerous victims. - J.Z., 5.1.2005)

KORAN, THE: Translation by George Sale, London, Frederick Warne, n.d., JZL. Page 137: "Fight against them who believe not in God, nor in the last day, and forbid not that which God and his apostle have forbidden [allowed? – J.Z.], and profess not the true religion, of those unto whom the scriptures have been delivered, until they pay tribute by right of subjection, and they be reduced low." - Ibid, notes: "This I think the true meaning of the words 'an yadin', which literally signify by or out of hand, and are variously interpreted: some supposing they mean that the tribute is to be paid readily, or by their own hands and not by another; or that tribute is to be exacted of the rich only, or those who are able to pay it, and not of the poor; or else that it is to be taken as a favour that the Mohammedans are satisfied with so small an imposition, etc. - That the Jews and Christians are, according to this law, to be admitted to protection on payment of a tribute, there is no doubt: though the Mohammedan doctors differ as to those of other religions..." - I tried to read a modern English edition of the Koran, recently, about one third through, looking in vain for a passage on tolerance or limited warfare. Supposedly women and children as well as water sources are not to be killed or destroyed. If you know of any other passages in the Koran, preaching tolerance, please point them out to me. - J.Z., 29.1.99. – Typically, the term “tolerance” is neither in the above quoted translation by Sale, nor in the Mentor Book - one by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, nor in that of G. Margoliouth, nor in Abraham I. Katsh: Judaism and the Koran nor in the German book by Helmuth von Glasenapp: Die nichtchristlichen Religionen, titles which I just retrieved from my library. No wonder that I have no inclination to fully read any such books. – J.Z., 25.12.11. – ISLAM, INTOLERANCE, DHIMMI & DHIMMITUDE, INTOLERANCE, TOLERANCE

KOSOVA & PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS: Margaret Thatcher in "Statecraft, Strategies for a Changing World", HarperCollinsPublishers (77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB,, ISBN 0 00 710752 8), 2002 , page 310: "While the war was raging in Bosnia, Greater Serbianism was proceeding to the same goal by other means in Kosovo. In April 1995 - shortly before the Serb defeats that led to the Dayton Accords - I had the opportunity to learn from the self-styled President of Kosova, Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, about the systematic intimidation of the ethnic Albanians there. Deprived of employment, education and access to medical care by a policy of racial discrimination in favour of the Serb minority, the Albanians - who constitute 90 per cent of the population - had eschewed violence and instead set up a whole system of parallel institutions. They had even elected their own 'President". Dr. Rugova, a moderate, mild-mannered and highly civilised intellectual, had become the centre of this resistance movement ..." Otherwise, so far, this book is mainly concerned with the "Statecraft" of territorialism.

KOTENEV, A. M., Shanghai: Its mixed Court and Council, Shanghai, NORTH CHINA DAILY NEWS & HERALD, 1925. - Another references gives 1927 as the date of publication. Perhaps a second edition appeared then. - J.Z.

KOWALEWSLY, Prof.: Moderne Sitten und Altes Recht (Modern customs and old law), on the mountain tribes of Caucasia and their voluntary associations. They were compared, by Kropotkin, in Mutual Aid, with the Cof or Sof of the Berbers or Kabyles. - COF

KRAUSE, KARL CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH, deceased 1832. German philosopher using his own terms, which are hard to understand for Germans but becoming clear in Spanish and French translations of his works. He was one of the early advocates of individual secessionism in at least one of his works. Hint by Ulrich von Beckerath. - I have not found such a text by him as yet. - J.Z.,1.9.04.

KRITARCHY: -March 2009 - The beginning of an interesting experiment at Cherry Hill (New Jersey) to implement Panarchy (or Kritarchy) on planet Earth. Daring and fascinating. - Hint by GPdB in his selection of websites.

KROPOTKIN PETER, Anarchism, 1905, an article for the 11th edition of the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 10pp: 206, in PEACE PLANS 1689-1693.

KROPOTKIN PETER, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal, n.d., "Piotr", revision of a speech given by Kropotkin in England, 19pp: 187, in PP 1689-1693.  - Anarchism.... "seeks the most complete development of individuality combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all its aspects, in all possible degrees, for all imaginable aims; ever changing, ever modified associations which carry in themselves the elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms which answer best to the multiple aspirations of all. A society to which pre-established forms, crystallised by law, are repugnant; ..." - "Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal. Apparently, this limited panarchism would not permit panarchies for conservative statists. - Here he does not even subscribe to "personal law". - J.Z.

KROPOTKIN, PETER, Der Staat, S. 42f: "Durch die gesamte Geschichte unserer Kultur ziehen sich zwei Traditionen, zwei entgegengesetzte Stroemungen:  die roemische Tradition und die volkstuemliche, die kaiserliche Tradition und die eidgenoessische, die autoritaere Tradition und die freiheitliche ... Wir schliessen uns jener Stroemung an, welche im 12. Jahrhundert die Menschen antrieb, sich zu organisieren auf der Grundlage freier Vereinbarung der freien Initiative des Einzelnen, der freien Foederation der Interessen." - Quoted by ROLF CANTZEN, Freiheit unter saurem Regen, S. 35.

KROPOTKIN, PETER, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, 1902, 362pp, indexed, with a foreword by Ashley Montagu, 13 pp, in PEACE PLANS 229. A condensation of this book to 32 pages, by Miriam Allen deFord, is in PP 1140. – Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid, has some references to the Cof or Sof of the Berbers or Kabyles and their "naya" or protection system. Reproduced in plan 201 in PEACE PLANS No. 12. --  German edition: "Gegenseitige Hilfe", 1910, S. 34. See PEACE PLANS No. 621. - See also under COF.

KROPOTKIN, PETER, Paroles d'un revolte' also: La conquete du pain. Quoted by Eltzbacher, Paul, Der Anarchismus, Guttentag, Berlin 1900, p.175, on the contractual free society of the future. Alas, his economics is quite communistic. Would he have subscribed to "capitalism for consenting adults!"?

KROPOTKIN, PETER: According to: HEARNSHAW, F. J. C., Democracy at the Crossways, A Study in Politics & History with Special Reference to Great Britain, Macmillan & Co, London 1918,XV 511, bibl. 496-504, index 505-511, JZL. -  In this discussion of anarchism (263-287), he ascribes to Kropotkin the following panarchist general view: "11 ... after all, it does not involve a much greater departure from present-day ideas than religious toleration did from the ecclesiastical ideas of the Middle Ages. Religious toleration is indeed, Anarchism in the ecclesiastical sphere; and in the sixteenth century it was regarded with as much horror, by Catholic and Calvinist alike, as is political Anarchism to-day by both Constitutional Democrat and Collective Socialist. Nevertheless it came; and everywhere now throughout the civilized world religion is a matter of free personal determination, and its Organization a matter of voluntary association. It is permissible to imagine, with Kropotkin, that the time may come when the individual may be as completely emancipated from political and economic compulsion as he is from religious persecution; when he will associate with his fellows or remain in isolation as he pleases; when his taxes will take the form of voluntary contributions to causes of which he approves; when his personality will have freedom to develop in all directions unchecked." - That is an interpretation of Kropotkin. Has Kropotkin uttered himself as clearly on this? - J.Z., 1.9.04.

KROPOTKIN'S ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: In the place of the coercive state, Kropotkin would set up the free association of free groups. He recognizes that men cannot live isolated and independent lives, and that they must cooperate in groups, but he insists that they should be free to choose their groups and be privileged to withdraw when they wish. Within the coercive state of today, he points out, there is an infinite variety of voluntary associations which have been formed for specific purposes - such as the Mir and Artels of Russia, trades-unions, cooperative societies, and the innumerable athletic, philanthropic and scientific bodies In an anarchist society such groups would not only continue but would multiply; communes of like-minded persons, including not merely territorial groups, would be formed by free agreement, the members promising to perform certain functions in return for the services afforded by the commune. No penalty need by applied for a violation of these promises other than an expulsion from the fellowship. The communes would in turn federate for various purposes with many other communes while retaining the right to withdraw. The political organization of society would thus be built from below on the principle of assent instead of imposed from above by compulsion. But Kropotkin's anarchism is something more than mere voluntarism. He proposes an economic organization, which will recognize "the right to well-being" for everybody. A comfortable supply of food, clothing, and shelter should be assured to all because of the sheer fact of their need ...." - W. A. Dunning : Political Theories, Recent Times, 205. - How come a professor of political science does thus recognize the voluntaristic and exterritorial autonomy and individual secessionist aspect of Kropotkin's teachings much more clearly than most people do who declare themselves to be anarchists and followers of Kropotkin? - J.Z. 3.1.93.

KUKOBAKA MIKHAIL: Kukobaka vs. the Soviet System, from SOCIAL INVENTIONS, No. 18, 1989/90, on Mikhail Kukobaka, who renounced his Soviet citizenship, 1p, 196, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PEACE PLANS 1,051. - Under Lenin such renunciation was, supposedly, punished by death. How did the law in Russia develop on this subject, from the Czars to modern times? - J.Z., 1.9.04.

KUNKE, MAX: Die Kapitulationen der Tuerkei, deren Aufhebung und die neuen deutsch-tuerkischen Rechtsvertraege, Muenchen, Berlin, Leipzig, 1918.

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

KYSHE, JAMES WILLIAM NORTON: The history and the laws and courts of Hong Kong: from the earliest period to 1898, with a new foreword by Sir Ivo Rigby, Hong Kong, Vetch & Lee, 1971. (Sydney Univ.)

KYSOR, GEORGE: On Panarchy, 12, 13, 35, 60, 65, 67, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. - 101, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. - 23, in ON PANARCHY V, in PP 554. - pages 12, 54, in ON PANARCHY VI, pages 12, 54 in PP 585. - 18, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870. - TC 150, 79-80, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.


[Home] [Top]