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 - U

(1973 - 2012)



ULTIMATE POLITICAL SYSTEM: PANARCHISM? Even panarchism will not be able to offer it. But at least as a transition method and institutional form, for human beings as they are today, it offers the most rightful, rational and progressive as well as the cheapest options.  What will be the result of 100 or 1000 years of panarchism being predominant in our political, social and economic thinking, actions and institutions? Who knows? Probably no one. But that much more rightful and better institutions and practices will result than are all too common at present, that is as certain as anything can be that is undertaken by human beings. Neither monarchies nor aristocracies nor democracies nor republics correspond sufficiently to human nature, to man as he is and can be. Panarchism does. JZ, 19.8.04.

ULTIMATUMS: I am unconditionally against ultimatums of any kind in relation between states.” – Sakharov, quoted by Samuel Pisar, Of Blood and Hope, p.175, upon the question: “Did he contemplate a sort of Western ultimatum to the Soviet government – change your system first, and then we’ll talk of coexistence?” – The West should rather have considered coexistence with the captive nations in a form that would give them hope. A.) By proclaiming quite rightful war and peace aims. B) By realizing on its own side all individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they are already recognized and wanted by members of voluntary communities in the West and for themselves. C) By fully recognizing and letting independently exist already, in its sphere of influence, all kinds of governments and societies in exile, all of volunteers only, all only under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy and, with regard to the Soviet Union, they should have been made up mainly out of refugees and deserters who would also try to represent all those likeminded people then still suppressed in the USSR, as their own kind of government, in the future, once they are quite free to individually choose them for themselves. None of these governments and societies in exile would have recognized the territorial empire of the Soviet Union or any territorial borders in and around that sphere, but they would have also recognized, any kind of communist or other State socialist government in exile, indicating that their concern was not a crusade against communism or State socialism as such, but merely one against the continuing imposition of such systems upon dissenters. - If such alternatives had been set up, practised and proposed in time, as allies of the Western democracies or, better still, panarchies, already established in the West, then the Soviet Union would not have lasted as long as it did. The nuclear strength of the Western Powers did also do very much to prolong that regime. It threatened the victims of the regime and not its rulers. It also clearly indicated that liberation was not the aim of the Western Powers, just like the nuclear Strength of Soviet Russia indicated that “liberation” or what they pretended to be a genuine liberation, of the “proletariat” or what they considered to be merely a “proletariat” was not their real aim. In reality, they established a one party dictatorship over the “proletarians” as well. - International as well as external policies should certainly no longer be the monopoly of territorial governments. They have abused this monopoly all too often for that. – JZ, 14.8.08, 19.8.12. – WAR AIMS, PEACE AIMS, PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, ALL ONLY FOR VOLUNTEERS

UN & PANARCHISM: For those still favouring some form of UN, it would offer an alternative UN, that would recognized the independence of all minorities that want it - but without conceding to them any territorial privilege. That UN should also offer a much better declaration of individual human rights than its previous one of 10 12 1948. – JZ to Richard Johnsson, 14.1.05. If the UN and its sympathizers should not be open-minded enough towards such a reform of the UN then it should be confronted by competing associations, e.g. world federations and cosmopolitan societies that would attempt to represent not merely territorial governments, to the extent that they still have voluntary supporters, but also all minorities that strive for no more than exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers. Just one - or several more international organizations, all established upon private initiatives. Will it be difficult to win over the international anarchist and libertarian movement people and many to all others to such alternatives? A very few of the freedom lovers have already considered exterritorialist alternatives or even assert that they are implied in anarchism and libertarianism as they understand them. – JZ, 17.1.05, 19.8.12. - INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

UN ANCIEN DIPLOMATE: Le Regime des Capitulations, son Histoire, son Application, ses Modifications, Paris, 1898.

UN, WORLD STATES, WORLD SOCIETIES, WORLD FEDERATIONS, ON A PANARCHISTIC BASIS: The UN merely represents territorial governments - not their victims. It is also an attempt to impose a single territorialist system world-wide, just like the European Federation tries to impose one system over all of Europe, without the consent of individuals and dissenting minorities. The UN does not have individuals as voluntary members, as it should. It does not permit individuals and minorities to secede from it and its territorial member governments. It includes even dictatorships. It does not include governments-in-exile, far less panarchies. Its armed force does not constitute an ideal militia force for the protection of individual rights and liberties. It is merely made up, for each occasion, of detachments of governmental national armed forces, which have nowhere consistently upheld all individual rights and liberties. How could they have done this, when they are still largely unknown to or unappreciated by them? The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" of the UN is one of the worst governmental declarations of "rights", full of wrongful Welfare State notions and claims and all too incomplete when it comes to genuine individual rights and liberties. It does not envision and tolerate competition with it by other kinds of world federations with voluntary membership and only personal laws for their members. Nor does it represent all minority groups. The present UN remains part of the problem rather than of the solution. – JZ, n.d. & 19.8.12. - - TURNER, JENNIE M.: Proposal for a New Constitution of the United Nations, mimeo, 4 pp. in Canadian Peace Research Institute files, proposes either UN reform or a parallel "Federal Union for Defence and Prosperity", P.R.A.J., Ref. No. 29 532.

UN: A shrill and contentious assembly of pauperized beggar-states united only in the dishonorable determination to extract international alms from more progressive, advanced, self-sustaining and virtuous states. …” – Norman Spinrad, A Thing of Beauty, ANALOG, 1/73. – Are there “virtuous” States? Can there be, on the territorial model, much larger than a private national company. Perhaps some of the mini-states with minimal territories, may come as close to ideals as territorial States can. But all the others have, as a rule, several dissenting minorities. – Has any libertarian ever made an evaluation and comparison of all the mini-states? - JZ, 8.8.08.

UN: more than 150 wars have been fought since 1945.” – Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger. Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, The Women’s Press, 1985, p.337. – - So effective has the UN been as a peace promoter! No wonder, it represented territorial governments rather than people in all their varieties. It never advocated exterritorial secessionism for individuals and minorities or full monetary and financial freedom or condemned collective responsibility and has largely misunderstood individual rights and liberties and does not know or recognized important ones of them at all, no more so than territorial governments do. According to another source, I do not remember, in any year since 1945 between 30 and 90 wars have been going on, somewhere. – JZ, 29.9.07. - & WAR & PEACE, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

UN: That the Security Council should be as powerless as the United Nations, of which it is part, is wholly consistent with the theories which gave birth to them both. That nations, which are manifestly unable to govern themselves individually – many having acquired nationhood since the day before yesterday – should be credited with the ability to govern all nations collectively, including those with centuries of tradition and cohesion behind them, is the final absurdity. – Kenneth McDonald, THE FREEMAN, 1/78: “Who Guards the Guardians?” – They have all the basic mistake of being territorialists, usually with several more or less suppressed or outvoted minorities. If all the “nations” represented there were merely communities and societies of volunteers, all only exterritorially autonomous, it would be quite another matter. Then all of them would have some fundamental rights, liberties and interests in common. – JZ, 8.8.08, 19.8.12.

UN: The UN so far represents merely territorial governments, not even territorial populations. It and other territorial internationalists attempt to impose a form of world-wide federalism upon all populations. It does not have a single voluntary subject or member, except its own employees and the representatives of the territorial States appointed to represent them there. Entry to and exit from it takes place only through the decisions of territorial governments. It does not envision and propose competition with itself by other international bodies, representative ones or appointed ones. In none of its attempted solutions has it, to my knowledge, deviated from the territorial model or even ever discussed the exterritorial and voluntary alternatives to it. Even many small territorial governments are still more powerful than it is and despotic ones tend to ignore its and its resolutions altogether. Its “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” of Dec. 12th 1948 is one of the worst ones in existence. It is statist and largely State socialistic and excludes man important individual and especially economic rights. Nevertheless, it has not yet been sufficiently and publicly criticized and publicly confronted with any of the better drafts of genuine individual rights and liberties. That would have been a job especially for libertarians and anarchists – but they, too, have neglected this job for decades. Its army consists merely of detachments of military forces of territorial States and these all too often behaved badly or were prevented from offering significant protection if they could have and would have wanted to. The UN, after trying to define aggression for about 5 years finally gave up. I do not know whether that attempt has been taken up again in recent years. Only once aspect of it interests me: It has its headquarters in N.Y.C. – and there it has an exterritorial status. – JZ, 6.7.04, 24.3.09.

UN: Well, can you trust a nation in the U.N. any better than out?“ – Robert Frost, to Untermeyer, Robert Frost, Life and Talks, Walking, p.397, in 1957. – The U.N. never united “nations” but at best their territorial governments. Moreover, it did not “unite” these governments, either, put merely put representatives of them into one permanent discussion or debating club. – JZ, 8.8.08. – Q.

UNANIMITY & PANARCHISM: Panarchies are unanimous communities - at least regarding all the essentials that hold these volunteer communities together. As soon as dissent reaches a degree for an individual, which he considers unbearable for him, he would individually secede from this community and found or join one which he would like completely or more than the previous one. - JZ 16.10.92, 4.1.93, 23.9.04. - Maybe, in the very far future a complete unanimity on public affairs would be achievable. I doubt it and am not prepared to hold my breath till then or do without full liberty for myself until all subscribe to the same ideal of full liberty for themselves. - JZ, n.d. - UNITY, UNIFORMITY

UNANIMITY, SOCIAL ACTION, ORGANISM: Only unanimous action can be properly described as 'social action', since we are all members of society and of the 'organism'. The moment unanimity ceases and conflict arises, the 'organism' disappears and none of the conflicting groups can with propriety claim to represent 'society'." - Victor Yarros, March 7, 1896, in LIBERTY.

UNANIMITY: Maybe, in the very far future a complete unanimity on public affairs would be achievable. I doubt it and am not prepared to hold my breath till then or do without full liberty for myself until all subscribe to the same ideal of full liberty for themselves. - JZ, n.d.

UNANIMITY: Only unanimous action can be properly described as “social action”, since we are all members of society and of the “organism”. The moment unanimity ceases and conflict arises the ‘organism” disappears and none of the conflicting groups can with propriety claim to represent ‘society’.” – Victor Yarros, LIBERTY, March 7, 1896. - PARTIES, SCHISMS, FACTIONS, TERRITORIALISM, UNITY, REPRESENTATION, POLITICS, VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT, MANDATE, INDIVIDUALISM, PANARCHISM, SOCIETY, ORGANISM, “SOCIAL ACTION”

UNANIMITY: The key feature of the indigenous African political system was unanimity. Majority opinion did not count in the council of elders. This explains the African penchant for debating, sometimes for days, to reach unanimity. The primary reason for unanimity was survival. If a head of a lineage was irreconcilably opposed to a measure, he could leave the village with his lineage to settle elsewhere. This, of course, was a frequent occurrence in African political history, as evidenced by migrations of families and even whole tribes. To prevent such break-ups of the tribe, unity of purpose was always advanced.” – George B. N. Ayittey, Africa Betrayed, St. Martin’s Press, A Cato Institute Book, 1992, p. 41. - This raises the question: Why was it that progress was, nevertheless, so slow in Africa? Ignorance and prejudices prevailed there almost everywhere, far longer and more extensively than in Europe. One part-answer might be: Territorialism was continued and emigration cannot sufficiently counter-act it when there are no longer any useful unoccupied territories left. – JZ, 29.9.07. - UNITY & SECESSIONISM IN AFRICA, MAJORITARIANISM, SECESSIONISM, Q.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT: As I tried to show in “The Venus Belt”, people live their everyday lives by Unanimous Consent. Yet I found that the process is so natural that it’s transparent – invisible – in fiction unless you focus on its most political (and therefore least natural) aspects.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.80. - & PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

UNANIMOUS CONSENT: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the … Unanimous … Consent of the Governed.” - “The unanimous consent of the governed.” Back home, consent usually means the result of an election. One side wins, the other loses.” – “And a lot of other sides, … don’t get any hearing at all. Of the minority eligible, only a few actually vote, especially the way they would if they had a completely free choice of candidates or issues – things that never get on the ballot, somehow. And of those few, only slightly over half will win. The real majority always loses. Consent of the governed? Confederate delegates represent themselves and only those others who publicly and explicitly give them permission to do so.” – L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach, p.262. A Del Rey Book, 1980, published by Ballantine Books. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, VOTING, ELECTIONS, TERRITORIAL POLITICS VS. VOLUNTARISM & INDIVIDUAL CHOICE

UNANIMOUS CONSENT: Some folks have an impression that, under Unanimous Consent, nobody does anything without everybody else’s permission. On the contrary, no group does anything without the Unanimous Consent of its members, which is a different thing, indeed.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.79. - Well, on minor matters of choice, like clothing, reading matter, food, entertainment etc., for the day or hour. In most communities of volunteers the otherwise like-minded people will still have some individual choices left rather than being totally under the commands of their collective, as e.g. recommended by Plato. – Even most totalitarian regimes did not quite abolish such choices, e.g for small private food-growing plots, which continued in the Soviet Union to produce a large percentage of all food. – Different communities will concede to their members different bills of rights and different degrees of rights – if any, except the absolute individiual right and liberty to secede from all of them. - JZ, 27.9.07, 19.8.12. - PANARCHISM & POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUALISM

UNANIMOUS CONSENT: Under the most absurd political handicaps, the Unanimous Consent system produces and distributes goods and services more broadly, more efficiently, and much more cheaply than any other economic system in human experience, giving us the highest standard of living anywhere in history, anywhere on Earth.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.80. – - As if it were already fully realized anywhere on Earth! Under the most absurd political handicaps it is, obviously, not allowed to operate quite freely. Even in the best democratic States it is not allowed to operate freely. Moreover, unanimous consent on some points can be achieved, although only temporarily, e.g. even among monarchists, State socialists, religious fanatics etc. and among them it usually does not produce a high standard of living but, instead, much poverty and misery. – Quite different unanimous consent systems should be allowed to compete freely, all only for their own volunteers, whatever ideology etc. they do have in common. – At least here LNS failed to realize unanimous consent outside the economic free market system and failed to envision it for a free market for freely competing non-territorial alternative economic, social and political systems full consumer sovereignty towards them as well, not only ordinary consumer goods and services. – His ideal and mine are certainly not yet the ideal of the majority of human beings. – So why should they be territorially forced upon them? Naturally, we should not be forced to submit to any other territorial and statist system, either. - JZ, 27.9.07, 19.8.12. - & PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

UNCLE SAM: Instead of Uncle Sam as a government symbol, it should be a clown riding a dinosaur.” – Stormy Mon, Imagine Freedom, No.10. - TERRITORIALISM

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER: A condition which will not be complete until everybody is a corpse.” – Adous Huxley. – And yet, last century, some of the most civilized States in the world still demanded it and did not distinguish between the unconditional surrender of a totalitarian State and that of the majority of the population and of all dissenting minorities, all of them more or less dominated, and exploited and abused by the State. – A separate peace treaty should always be offered to all the diverse groups of the oppressed, optimally via panarchistic governments and societies in exile. - JZ, 9.8.08, 19.8.12. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, SCORCHED EARTH POLICY, AIR RAIDS AGAINST CIVILIANS, TOTAL WAR, FIRE-STORM BOMBING

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER: Even here, he thought, the old, old evil: surrender your beliefs or surrender your life.” - Brian Daley, RON, based on a screenplay by Steven Lisberger, story by Steven Lisberger & Bonnie MacBird, A Futuristic Adventure Motion Picture from Walt Disney Productions, page 68. - DESPOTISM, TOTALITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM, ENFORCED OBEDIENCE, SUBORDINATION, COERCION, THREATS

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER: Unconditional Surrender’ shackled victors and vanquished alike.” – John Terraine, in review of: Rudolph Bohmier, Monte Cassino, tr. by R. H. Stevens, Cassell, 314 pages, in THE AUSTRALIAN, 17.9.64. – WAR AIMS, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER DEMANDS, TERRITORIALISM, NWT

UNDER-GOVERNED: There is no such thing as being under-governed. All countries are over-governed, at least territorially. All countries or, rather, populations, do have territorial governments and that, in itself, means already that they are over-governed. There is no such thing as a rightful degree of territorial government, good government, mini-government or limited TERRITORIAL government. Only communities of volunteers, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy can have rightful governments – of whatever kind they may be, or can form communities or societies that are right for their voluntary members, at their stage of development and enlightenment. – JZ, 5.1.75, 2/75, 14.8.08, 28.3.11. – DIS., LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES: Actually, even the presently most developed countries are, at least in some respects, still underdeveloped. E.g., they still suffer under territorialism, with its e.g. taxation, monetary despotism, and bureaucracy and an excess of laws and regulations – and numerous other legalized but wrongful political interferences. – The USA is a good example for this. - JZ, 9.8.08, 19.8.12.

UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES: The Frontier Is Freedom. – Certainly, the backwardness of many an underdeveloped nation today is related to the fact that the enterprising individual is stigmatized and ruined by his neighbors and the local officials. To have lived in some remote “native” village long enough to know how their social curbs on progress operate is to understand why the best laid plans of economic development schemes have a way of failing utterly.” – Edward P. Coleson, THE FREEMAN, 3/76. – The innovators ought to be given the chance to become exterritorially autonomous. – JZ, 9.8.08. – PANARCHISM.

UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES: underdeveloped countries need good government rather than charity.” – Henry Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, Dec. 77. – Towards the end of his life (he died in 1978) H. M. seems to have, sometimes, forgotten his anarchism. He never accepted panarchism or FULL monetary freedom. I would rather reword this to: Underdeveloped countries need free trade, free migration, freedom for investments, free banking, at least for volunteers, but certainly not any territorial government, no matter how good it is supposed to be, or any charity or foreign aid. – JZ, 6/82, 9.8.08. When THE SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER of 9/78 quoted this remark by Meulen, I commented: No government rather than bad or even good government and charity. – JZ, 8.6.82, 19.8.12.

UNDERDOG: I rather work for the benefit of those who are morally and intellectually above average than those who are below. (Apart, naturally, from looking after my children and grandchildren, as long as they still need it.) This world is not yet sufficiently organized in favor of the former or to give them an equal chance but, rather, victimizes them all too much and all too often, as a result of all too popular errors, myths and prejudices. This does not only happen in totalitarian States. Instead of the superior people becoming leaders or initiators, all with voluntary followers only, they become suppressed or ignored, while popular errors, myths and prejudices become territorially and legally institutionalized and the worst kinds of people get to the top, even in democracies. (See Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom” on that.). Precisely by the many, who are concerned about the “underdogs”, under all kinds of false premises and conclusions, e.g. class warfare notions, it is the superior people who are actually treated as underdogs and exploited, e.g. by progressive taxation, which largely destroys capital that otherwise would have greatly benefited especially the poor, if only it had been left in the hands of productive capitalists. Those, who are trying to help the supposed underdogs do this, as a rule, by statist measures which are wrongful and monopolistic, preventing self-help, and which do, in balance, cause more harm to the supposed underdogs than they benefit them, simply because they suppress their individual rights and liberties and those of the high earners, savers and the rich. No extensive robberies, legally or illegally practised, have ever managed to increase rather than reduce the general standard of living. – One of the best articles on this subject is: W. G. Sumner, The Forgotten Man. – JZ, 26.9.08, 14.8.08, 28.3.11, 18.8.12. - CONCERN FOR UNDERDOGS, SOCIAL JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EGALITARIANISM, IDEAS ARCHIVE, TALENT CENTRE, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

UNDERSTANDING: All experience seems to testify that when ignorance clashes with ignorance the sparks will fly and breed ill will, animosity. But when understanding and clear exposition are administered to ignorance, affection and esteem tend to flower.” (*) – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.139. - (*) - All the more, the less the ignorant are “administered”, top-down but, but can, instead, engage freely in their own experiments, always only at their own expense and risk and that of their voluntary associates. JZ, n.d. - IGNORANCE, ARGUMENTS, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SELF-HELP, THINKING, LOGIC, WORDINGS, RED., DIS., LANGUAGE, REASONING

UNDERSTANDING: Are you thinking it is too late for understanding instead of destroying?” - Deborah Wheeler, Jaydium, p.331. - It is not merely a choice between two terms or two actions. Understanding what? E.g. territorialism, monetary despotism and taxation as factors promoting wars and exterritorial autonomy, monetary freedom and voluntary taxation as factors making for peace? In my ABC Against Nuclear War I listed and described shortly 500 factors that are involved, in causing wars and preventing peace, which are certainly not all of them. And this book was and still is a record non-seller. Who shows the interest to really understand all these factors, rather than leaving them to the supposed experts? – JZ, 16.9.07. - & WAR -

UNDERSTANDING: But one’s obligation to hate, and even one’s avenging instinct, were being weakened by understanding. Inability to understand was the most important ingredient of hate. Did they say hatred obscured understanding? No; it was understanding that obscured hatred. …” - Hans Habe, Off Limits, The Year 1945, p.130. – It was a conventional territorial democracy, with all its usual remaining flaws, that made the Hitler Regime possible. But the latter maintained itself only through internal terrorization of the whole population. – Its foreign enemies overlooked that and so counter-attacked the whole German population, as if it had consisted only out of convinced Nazis. – Those, who had managed to escape this regime should have convinced them otherwise. But these refugees were interned, instead, as enemy subjects! - JZ, 9.8.08. - Moreover, all too many of them were still only territorialists and among them, many still subscribed to collective responsibility notions and hardly anyone of them knew and appreciated all monetary and financial freedom options. - JZ, 28.3.11. - HATRED, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS

UNDERSTANDING: Even so, I have faith that the vast majority of the American people want liberty and are willing to accept the personal responsibility which liberty requires. I believe that the only requirement for the return to liberty is an understanding what it is. I believe that we will understand it and that we will then return to it.” – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.36. – The former liberty was not complete. Thus more than a return to it is required. For instance: Full monetary freedom and full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers of all kinds. Also a complete declaration of all individual rights and liberties. – JZ, 9.8.08. – And a militia suitable for their protection! Whatever kind of paradise is possible for human beings does not lie in our past but in our future  - if we still have one, i.e., if we do not let our errors and territorial institutions destroy us. - JZ, 28.3.11, 19.8.12. - NWT, PEOPLE, ENLIGHTENMENT, LIBERTY

UNDERSTANDING: For I am sure that when a person understands freedom, he must believe in it.” – Ben Moreell, THE FREEMAN, 4/75. – Even if he does not understand it, he has the right to make his own mistakes - at the own expense and risk. - JZ, 28.3.11. - FREEDOM

UNDERSTANDING: We are accustomed to see men deride what they do not understand, and snarl at the good and beautiful because it lies beyond their sympathies.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. – Let them, as long as one has or gets the freedom to experiment together with other volunteers. – JZ, 23.1.09. - & SYMPATHY

UNDERWRITING BY GOVERNMENTS: Equally important, the government should not underwrite business in any manner: no favors, subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, regulatory agencies, credits to exporters, loan guarantees, and so on. As Libertarians dismantle these interventions with all deliberate speed, the day will be hastened when all businessmen operate solely in the competitive sector, and none remain in the privileged, protected sector.” – Roger McBride, A New Dawn, p.52. – Unless they are members of a corresponding panarchy, with voluntary victims only. – It is unlikely that all people will ever subscribe only to the supposed ideal of a “limited” but still territorial government. - JZ, 9.8.08. - GUARANTIES, SUBSIDIES, PROTECTIONISM, ASSISTANCE, PRIVILEGES, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, BAILOUTS, GUARANTIES

UNELECT: Second, the Un-Party will try “To ‘UnElect’ and Rehabilitate Bureaucrats and Politicians.” – NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, Aug. 14, 1977. - I do very much doubt that this can be done by any political party or under territorialism. Rather, exterritorial autonomy for all parties and movements of volunteers - over their own affairs! - JZ, 28.3.11. - RECALL, UNPARTY, PARTIES, TERRITORIALISM

UNEMPLOYMENT & PANARCHISM: Under panarchism numerous economic experiments could be tried at the same time, by different groups, in the same country, all with the intention to rightfully and tolerantly do away with involuntary unemployment. Of special importance among these experiments would be free banking or monetary freedom experiments, all of which would have opted out of the tutelage of national central banks and currency and credit legislation. - The first among the 1 million Australian unemployed would become free to try to supply themselves with paid work, without depriving anybody of it, by undertaking themselves and only among themselves all the monetary, financial and organizational steps required for this purpose. No imposed laws and regulations and union rules could keep them any longer unemployed. - JZ, n.d. - See: 33, 34, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. Also Ulrich von Beckerath's second book: "Must Full Employment Cost Money?" - which was reproduced in PEACE PLANS No.10 and is now online at 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: a device so sheltering that many employables prefer their handouts coercively taken from taxpayers to earning their own way.” – Leonard E. Read, Who’s Listening? p.45. – Unemployment is a preventable but not an insurable risk. Likewise inflation and war. – All three are man-made – to any degree - with despotic territorial laws and powers. - JZ, 20.4.09, 28.3.11.

UNEMPLOYMENT: All political parties to enjoy full exterritorial autonomy to apply own work job provision schemes to their own members and voters. None to be given the chance any longer to impose the costs and restrictions of their schemes upon non-members and non-voters or the voters and members of other parties. Full self-responsibility and the experiments of others would soon teach them what does work and what does not. I simply predict that all schemes embodying monetary and financial freedom would succeed. JZ, 31.12.92. - PARTIES & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM OR PANARCHISM

UNEMPLOYMENT: Especially all attempts to provide employment should be exempted from all tax impositions. All taxes to become automatically voluntary only - among the voluntary members of protective communities that are autonomous on an exterritorial basis and are established by those who individually seceded from the present territorial States. JZ 31.12.92. - & TAX EXEMPTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: Experimental freedom or freedom of action for all volunteer groups, at their own expense and risk, on the basis of exterritorial autonomy, under their own personal laws, especially for actions and experiments to abolish unemployment. - JZ 31.12.92. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

UNEMPLOYMENT: Extensive and frequent unemployment and inflations should have been expected by freedom lovers from a system of monetary despotism that Marx and Engels demanded in their 1848 Communist Manifesto in order to destroy the bourgeois economy and introduce communism. Nevertheless, even all governments that pretended to be anti-communistic or anti-socialistic in their outlook and actions, adopted this communist monetary platform: central banks with a note issue monopoly and legal tender power for its notes. It gave them more power, more liquidity and made them more independent from tax revenues. They did not care about the consequences of this system to the whole economy: frequent and severe economic crises, mostly of them inflationary but sometimes also of the deflationary kind and often both combined in stagflations. They never bothered to learn about and apply or allow sound alternatives to this monetary despotism. Nor did they care about the massive unemployment and impoverishment that was the result of their monetary despotism. They did not even care that, as a result, their own governments were often replaced by dictatorships or even totalitarians regimes. They became the high priests of the popular monetary religion of the people. It seems never to bother their all too faithful and loyal subjects and victims that their monetary priests and gods never delivered upon their promises. Monetary and clearing self-help measures as well as the free choice of alternative and sound value standard are, usually, furthest from the minds of most of the victims of this “system”, all the debtors, the unemployed and all the creditors, including the wage and salary recipients. They still expect the very high priests of this monetary religion, who cause and “manage” monetary and economic crises, to be able and willing to effectively fight these and thus they keep voting them into power. - Only panarchistic freedom to experiment among volunteers can get us out of these messes. Many of such experimenters will make mistakes but never on the colossal and territorial scale that territorial governments cause. Some of them will learn from their mistakes, not repeat them at all and try, instead, the ways and means that do work. Some might even have enlightened themselves sufficiently in advance to run successful monetary experiments right away. Their system would then spread, rapidly, just like very effective freeware does. However, as long as territorial governments are allowed to exist, they are likely to suppress the best and continue to repeat the worst possible monetary and financial experiments. Even if thereby hundreds of millions of people are made unemployed, impoverished, subjected to dictators and driven into wars. – JZ, 19.4.98, 29.9.08, 19.8.12. – FREE BANKING, MONETARY FREEDOM EXPERIMENTS VS. MONETARY DESPOTISM

UNEMPLOYMENT: Exterritorial autonomy for all dissenting groups: Each exterritorially autonomous group of volunteers to be at liberty to provide for its own productive employment and welfare, credit and insurance arrangements, its own monetary and financial system, and to be exempted from all present territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. Based on this exterritorial autonomy, the resulting freedom of action and experimentation among volunteers would soon demonstrate the fallacies and errors and prejudices involved in most of the currently popular employment schemes and the rightfulness and efficiency of monetary and financial freedoms for all who make use of them, in providing jobs and sales for them. - JZ, 14.12.92, 31.12.92, 19.8.12. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

UNEMPLOYMENT: I am in favor of unemployment for all governments, all their ministers and public servants, as far as all such jobs are concerned. But I have no objection against them doing something rightful, productive, constructive or creative instead. – JZ, 4.7.75, 19.8.12. – Or “serving” only communities of volunteers, at the expense and risk of these volunteers. Only the territorial monopoly claims of statists should no longer be recognized. – JZ, 30.9.08.

UNEMPLOYMENT: I do not understand why people are puzzled by the phenomenon of simultaneous higher unemployment benefit and lower employment. Economic principles work: if you increase the demand for anything, the supply will grow to meet it. In your country and mine we have made it ever more attractive to be unemployed. We have increased the demand for unemployment, and the supply of unemployed has risen to meet that demand.” - Milton Friedman, From Galbraith to Economic Freedom, p.49. - At the same time we failed to increase sound monetary demand for productive labor, at market wage rates, by means of additional, optional, competitive and market-rated sound currencies. - JZ, 28.3.11. – It does not make any sense to discuss monetary demand for labor, services and goods without also discussing a sound supply of the exchange media or clearing avenues required for these turnovers, and the value standards used in them and, instead, to merely to rely on a legalized monopolist like a government or a central bank to supply both, sufficient exchange media and a sound value standard to mediate all the wanted and possible exchanges. Such a supply will only occur under panarchistic free competition and free choice for sovereign entrepreneurs and sovereign consumers of these very important goods and services. – JZ, 5.3.23.

UNEMPLOYMENT: I would like to see a comprehensive anthology that would systematically deal with all the sense and nonsense that has so far been uttered on the subject of unemployment and contributed to the ignorance and confusion on this subject in most heads. If well and clearly written it could become a bestseller. Perhaps it could be produced gradually and collaboratively through a website that would discuss all the ideas, opinions and facts in this sphere. As a starting point for such a discussion I recommend Ulrich von Beckerath’s second monetary freedom book: “Must Full Employment Cost Money?” – which can be found on – The electronic “argument mapping” methods developed by Paul Monk et al and described online should also be systematically applied in this discussion. – That no government was so far able to effectively cope with mass unemployment should be obvious by now. Any failure to do so can, once again, bring a totalitarian regime like that of the Nazis to power. - JZ, 23.9.98, 26.9.08. – Under the experimental freedom of panarchism all methods to reduce and abolish unemployed could be freely tried out at the same time and in the same country, all only among groups of volunteers. Then progress in this sphere would occur very fast, I believe, especially since some of the ideas proposed and backed up by some experiences have shown that involuntary unemployment and sales difficulties could be overcome within hours or days – but not by monopolized and legalized governmental “actions”. – JZ, 5.2.12.

UNEMPLOYMENT: If automation were really causing unemployment then what could or should happen? - Philip E. Jacobsen, in THE CONNECTION 133, p.78, raised the following question: If only a small percentage of the work force could support the whole population, why should they? - Ulrich von Beckerath, in his monetary freedom books, online at raised the old legend of “Aladin’s Lamp” as an instructive example. Why, indeed, should Aladin or the owners of automated factories, bother to produce for the whole world, rather than merely for themselves? What do the others have to offer them in return? They could all act as armies of worshippers of or personal servants of Aladin and the automated producers but Aladin and these producers might get bored with them and dismiss them. What then? We should remember that people are biological robots or production machines, at least potentially, who do own themselves and could work for themselves. Thus these unemployed millions or even billions of them, could then work for themselves or for each other, in division of labor, in the conventional ways, without the help of Aladin’s lamp or of the automated production equipment, perhaps even without tools or machines or only with primitive ones. They could then act as if Aladin’s lamp and the automated production equipment of the others did not really exist. Which would mean, that they would be over-employed, with primitive and hard labor – until they have supplied themselves with their own and better tools, machines and, at last, also with at least some automated production equipment. Unemployment would certainly not be caused and maintained among them by Aladin’s lamp, by the machines or automated factories of others but by their own lack of initiative to engage in their remaining self-help options. – Alas, with their current mentality they would tend to put Aladin and the automated producers under so heavy taxation, that the unemployed could then all go on the dole. – And they would feel somehow satisfied and complacent about this robbery, seeing that they believe in welfare “rights”. - JZ, 15.8.08.

UNEMPLOYMENT: If politicians knew how to provide employment, do you think they would try to do without the votes of e.g. a million unemployed (*) and of their dependents? - JZ 21.12.92. – While they do not know how to end and prevent involuntary unemployment, by their despotic territorial laws they do prevent other people from solving this and other problems themselves, by free and rightful self-help actions, based on sound monetary freedom theories or practices carefully developed in free experiments among volunteers. – (*) About as many existed in Australia in 1992.) - JZ, 28.3.11. - POLITICIANS, VOTING, MONETARY DESPOTISM, CURRENCY POLICIES, MONETARY & BANKING LEGISLATION

UNEMPLOYMENT: In the Spring 05 review of Laissez Faire Books of John Stossel’s, “Myths, Lies, and Nasty Behavior”: “Outsourcing Kills American Jobs: America lost 361 million jobs between 1993 and 2002.” – “Sounds terrible – until you know that, during these same years, America gained 380 million new jobs. Free trade, including outsourcing, brings the creative destruction that makes that possible.” – Such generalizations simply ignore the inflationary as well as the deflationary and stag-flationary effects of monetary despotism and assume that it could work as well as monetary freedom would. – Like many sick people they are simply in denial – because they are still alive. – Man was conditioned to put up with slavery for thousands of years and with serfdom for hundreds of years, so we should not be surprised that he is able and willing to put up, unquestioningly, with the effects of monetary despotism under a variety of delusions for all too many decades. – That, certainly, saves them much thinking. And yet it would need only the panarchistic freedom required for all peaceful dissenters to demonstrate - to anyone interested - with the successes among their free experiments (all only undertaken at their own risk and expense), how fast and easily involuntary mass unemployment of deflations, and inflation and stagflations, recessions and depressions as well, can be overcome by voluntary self-help steps, including especially full monetary and financial freedom measures. – JZ, 19.4.09, 29.3.11, 19.8.12. - OUTSOURCING JOBS, EXPORTING JOBS, FREE TRADE, PROTECTIONISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS.

UNEMPLOYMENT: The only unemployed should be public servants – in the interval before they have to take up a productive job. – JZ, 4.1.75. – As public servants of a territorial government they should become permanently unemployed, together with all such governments. But they should be free to try to establish or join a community of voluntary victims of “public services”. Then these statists would only harm the other statists, voluntarily submitting to them. – JZ, 4.10.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, BUREAUCRACY, STATISM, VOLUNTARISM, PUBLIC SERVANTS

UNEMPLOYMENT: The Prime Minister thinks that a little bit of unemployment is not so bad, after all. Yes, but whose? I wouldn’t mind if he were permanently unemployed! – JZ, 9.6.74. – Add to these all other territorial administrators, politicians, legislators and public servants as well as public works employees. Let private or cooperative and competing firms do all the jobs that people really want done, at competitive prices and subscriptions and allow the statists to continue their statist religious rituals only among their voluntary victims and exclusively at their own risk and expense. – And let groups of volunteers undertake all the experiments or measures they think would abolish unemployment among themselves, always at their own risk and expense. - JZ, 4.10.08, 19.8.12. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

UNEMPLOYMENT: What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.” - Edward Langley, Artist 1928-1995. – It is not enough to make them unemployed but they ought also be forced to surrender their loot. According to recent newspaper reports Putin secreted away over 46 billion dollars. All naturally quite honestly “earned”. – On the other hand, merely to get rid of their rule and not get it replaced by the rule of another official robber baron, would probably be worth a golden hand-shake. – But, to that extent? - Such funds will probably be productively invested somewhere – and indirectly benefit many people - but why should interest and dividends go to such corrupt politicians? Politicians get richer while their subjects get poorer. – JZ, 5.1.08. – Not only have we got rid of them – or confine them to their remaining volunteers, in their own panarchies, but we have to get rid of all their silly and wrongful anti-economic laws – or gain the freedom to opt out from under them! – Panarchies and personal laws for them – and also for us, without their guidance and laws, doing our own things for ourselves, under full experimental freedom: panarchism. - JZ, 20.4.09. - UNEMPLOYMENT OF POLITICIANS

UNEQUAL TREATIES & FOREIGN CONCESSIONS IN CHINA: The abolition of the wrongful parts of the old system should not have been started with a manifesto for the abolition of the unequal treaties but, rather, with one for the abolition of the inequality of the treaties. Equal autonomy treaties for all foreigners everywhere, i.e. Chinese concessions in England, the USA, Japan, Russia, Germany, France etc., could even have worked with some equitable immigration restrictions that would correspond to the remaining popular prejudices against "foreign devils" on all sides. - JZ 16.10.88, 3.4.89. (Why do simple and rightful alternatives usually occur to people all too late?) - - Now I do no longer know what I meant then by "equitable immigration restrictions". I think all of them ought to be abolished, permanently. Panarchies would permit those, who find others disagreeable, to separate themselves sufficiently from them, through their own constitutions, laws and jurisdiction. In their own panarchies they could be as exclusive - or integrative - as they want to be. -  The basic rights of others should never be restricted just because some prejudices are popular in some populations. - JZ, 12.12.03. – The prejudices against immigrants would tend to become diminished once the immigrants are free to practise their personal law systems among themselves, be it their own kind of Welfare State or self-help and laissez-faire society, being thus and obviously not an additional tax burden for the natives or competing block of voters. – J.Z., 19.8.12.

UNEQUAL TREATIES IMPOSED BY FOREIGNERS UPON CHINESE VS. THE IDEAL OF "EQUAL TREATIES" FOR ALL: Chinese political and historical consciousness may still be traumatized by the experience with what they called the "unequal treaties", which foreigners had obtained for themselves and their "foreign concessions" but for which they were not prepared to grant the corresponding concessions to Chinese living overseas. We should counter this by proposing and practising now "equal treaties" for foreigners and dissenters from the Red Chinese regime in China and for Chinese, democratic ones, as well as communist ones, in our countries, with each individual living only under the preferred treaty system - anywhere. With this tolerance first practised towards Chinese, Chinese Minorities and other minorities, on our side, our proposals for such tolerance in Mainland China would be much more trustworthy. To some extent the regime does already permit or even initiate limited degrees of capitalism in free enterprise zones in China. That should be extended into Capitalism for consenting adult Capitalists in China, on an individual, minority and exterritorial and full autonomy basis, i.e. for all volunteers, as well as any other system for them. Nationalism and communist propaganda for many decades would see to it that at least for millions of voluntary followers the old communist framework would remain. It would even be voluntarily purged of all counter-revolutionaries and dissenters. (Merely by excommunications and secessions.) Trade relations between the diverse autonomous communities in China - and in the rest of the world, could be fast enough established. Foreigners could under these conditions peacefully "invade" China, while Chinese could thus peacefully "invade" the rest of the world. We would then tend to adopt much sooner the best of what we have to offer to each other than we did in the past. I would especially look forward to translations of all the remaining treasures of Chinese literature and sciences into the major Western languages. The remaining totalitarian features of the Mainland China regime would soon collapse when confronted with such a programme and practice. Chinese immigrants, making use of old Chinese monetary freedom traditions, could soon supply themselves with paid work, wherever they settled and their employment policies would soon be copied by their neighbours. They would bring rather than take over jobs. Stable currencies, freely competing with each other, would be another result. - JZ, 5.2.93, 9.12.03. – GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES IN EXILE. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS – EVERYWHERE.

UNEQUAL TREATIES IN CHINA: If individuals and their volunteer groups are not free to choose their own uniform laws for themselves, then the kind of uniformity desired by others is likely to be forced upon them. Thereupon at least some of them will "think" of "resisting" terroristically with pistols, bombs or even nuclear mass murder devices - in the attempt to impose, in their turn, their favourite territorial uniformity upon others. - Why try, in the first place, to establish territorial uniformity and continue to consider it as a solution for all of the many trouble spots in the world? Why leave territorial uniformity, however widely chosen or imposed and opposed, as the only option? Since it did not work against religious dissent, why expect it to work among political, economic and social system mongers? - From a letter by JZ to THE AUSTRALIAN, April 93. - FOREIGN CONCESSIONS, EXTERRITORIALITY, UNIFORMITY, COUNTRIES, LAWS, STATES, GOVERNMENTS, INDIVIDUALS, TERRORISM, MINORITIES, TERRITORIALISM

UNFORCED ASSOCIATIONISM: Forced association, even with someone innocuous, is bound to provoke resentment. - Diogenes of Panarchia, TC 135, p18.


UNGOVERNMENT: We have proof that (with the exception of waging war (*) and creating inflation) every job now being attempted by government can be done better by cooperative private action.” – NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, 14.8.77. - (*) wrongfully, murderously and destructively, rather than really promoting peace and freedom and effectively defending them against aggressors – JZ, 9.8.08.

UNIFICATION OF EAST & WEST GERMANY: Enemies cannot be “united” but at most reconciled or suppressed or left alone to do their own things for or to themselves. Uniting governments should be distinguished from uniting people. And among “the” people its numerous minorities and their rights and liberties should be respected. A territorial unification cannot do this sufficiently. There must be freedom for friends or like-minded people, whatever their convictions, ideology or religion, to voluntarily and individually unite with each other, always without any exclusive territorial monopoly claims for them or any others. Even the few remaining convinced communists should have been allowed to try to continue their communist ideals among themselves, at their own risk and expense, if they had committed no major and inhuman crimes against their opponents, while they were territorially in charge. Even fully justified revenge and punishment should largely be forgotten about in the enjoyment of full rights and liberties for all - if a liberation went that far. And if it did not, then former political crimes with victims should also be largely amnestied, except in some extreme cases, since they are all too common in almost all territorial States, except the very smallest. – JZ, 27.9.90, 14.8.08. – For how many are there, even now, who do not still subscribe to territorialism, in spite of all its wrongs and irrationality? Almost all are, in fact, accessories to its crimes and did not clearly disassociate themselves from them. - JZ, 30.3.11. - PANARCHISM

UNIFICATION OF EAST & WEST GERMANY: Now we have thus all the old problems united, once again. – JZ, 26.9.90. - The smaller a territorial State is, the easier they could be solved. And if territorialism is quite abolished then any group of volunteers would be free to attempt a solution under the then resulting experimental freedom. – JZ, 14.8.08.

UNIFICATION OF EAST & WEST GERMANY: That freedom, which I aim at, was, naturally, not achieved through the territorial unification of these two States. – JZ, 4.10.90, 14.8.08. – (“Die Freiheit, die ich meine”, die wurde durch diese territoriale Staatsvereinigung natuerlich nicht errreicht.)

UNIFICATION: but I’m not prepared to say that because total isolation is bad, total unification is good. The extremes may both be equally horrible. …” - Isaac Asimov, Foundation and Earth. - He, too, did not distinguish between voluntary and compulsory unification, voluntary and compulsory separatism, territorial and exterritorial unification and territorial and exterritorial separatism. - Any particular truth can only be found by sufficient distinctions. Generalizations or abstracts do, usually, not make sufficient distinctions. - JZ, 30.3.11. - ISOLATIONISM, SEPARATENESS, INDEPENDENCE, DECENTRALIZATION, CENTRALIZATION

UNIFICATION: How clearly and forcibly had Proudhon told Mazzini and his adherents what Italian unity would bring to the people: “Every original characteristic in the various districts of a country is lost by the centralization of its public life – for that is the proper name for this so-called ‘unity’. A centralized state of twenty-six million souls, such as Italy, would become, suppresses al liberties or the provinces and municipalities in favor of a higher power – the government. What is this unity of the nation in reality? It is the merging of the separate folk-groups in which men live, and which differ from one another, into the abstract idea of a nation, in which no one breathes, and no one is acquainted with another. … To govern twenty-six million people, who have been robbed of all dominion over themselves, calls for a gigantic machine; then to set this machine in motion, a monstrous bureaucracy, a legion of officials. To protect it from within and without, there is required a standing army, officers, soldiers, mercenaries; these will from now on represent the nation. Fifteen years ago the number of official in France was estimated as six hundred thousand. The number has not diminished since, the coup d’état. (*) The strength of the army and the navy is proportionate to this number. All this is indispensable to unity. This is the usual cost of a state, a cost which, because of centralization, is constantly increasing, while the freedom of the provinces is constantly diminishing. This grandiose unity calls for fame, glitter, luxury, an imposing civil list – embassies, pensions, benefices, and so on. In such a unified state everyone has his hand out, and who can count the chiselers? The people! Who says unified nation means a nation that is sold to its governmentAnd the profits of such a unified system! They are not for the people but for the ruling classes and castes in the state.” – Proudhon to Mazzini, quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p. 426/27. – Underlinings by JZ. – Compare Hitler’s – or, anyhow, a prominent Nazi slogan like: “Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer!” (“One empire, one people, one leader!”) Also: “Fuehrer befiehl! Wir folgen Dir!” (“Leader, command! We will follow you!”) – (*) The number of public officials in Red China has recently been estimated to come to ca. 46 millions. And that large number is still low, as a percentage of the total population. Most democratic States have a much higher percentage of officials. To that extent some of the ancient Chinese tradition is continued even there. According to Ulrich von Beckerath, there was usually only one Mandarin for ca. 20.000 of the population and the local manufacturers and merchants were often wise enough to bribe that Mandarin so that he would not rule over them! - What degree of “laissez-faire” has actually existed in China, at least unofficially, for a long time? Many have stated that until about 1750 it was the most advanced society in the world. From then onwards the numerous technical and scientific innovations occurring in the much more decentralized Europe, and later in the USA, led to much more rapid progress there. Some ascribed this more rapid development to the effect of patent laws. Others to degrees of monetary freedom and free trade. Others to a greater appreciation of individual rights and liberties. We have no final judgment on this issue yet. We haven’t even got it on the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” as yet. There are over 45 diverse theories on this topic. – We ought to try to learn much more from history than we have done so far. – JZ, 14.8.08. - STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, POWER, CENTRALIZATION, GREATNESS, WARFARE STATES, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, INDIVIDUALISM VS. UNIFORMITY & TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

UNIFICATION: The most important among them “Empire and State”, show how different both are according to their nature, for “the one requires for its existence the same mentality, while the other presuppose nothing but a compatibility of men of the same country and peacefulness in transactions”, and he meant, that the longing for a dissolution of the diverse (German) States in a (German) Empire would merely be the striving for the freedom “to be able to secede with impunity from the league of the State and its state-citizenship”, although he does not believe, that this urge could find its full satisfaction in a (German Reich) empire, either and that those, who in addresses and petitions ask for this dissolution, are clear among themselves, that it is less the “freedom of the whole”, than the freedom from ideological coercion, which induces them to declare to the ruling dynasties (i.e. their particular States) their secessions and to declare to the “Reich” (Empire, united German or other nation) their sympathy. – This was the last time that we know of a collaboration of Stirner with a periodical. If he did still publish something else, then it certainly was no longer done under his own name.” - John Henry Mackay, Max Stirner, S.196. - - Was the unification drive in Germany really built upon the desire of many to get away from local despotism by unification in one empire and a conscious desire to gain and keep the right to secede, even exterritorially, as the opposite to the right to join? I know that historically the development of the State from the despotic rule of local feudalist princes to absolute monarchs, dreamed of as benevolent father figures, had often such a motivation, for the own and nearest prince seemed to be, to his victims, the worst possible one. – JZ, 11.10.07. – UNIFICATION ATTEMPTS, FEDERALISM, NATION-BUILDING, STATISM, EMPIRE & INDIVIDUAL SECESSION FROM THE STATE, TERRITORIALISM

UNIFICATION: What does territorial and governmental unification matter compared e.g. with freedom to travel, freedom to migrate, free enterprise, free trade, freedom of speech and press, freedom of information, freedom to engage in any job and profession, free pricing, free wage, salary, fee and subscription arrangements, freedom in the supply of exchange media, clearing options and value standards, freedom to secede as individuals or for whole minority groups, freedom to associate in exterritorially autonomous communities, societies or under competing governments, all under personal laws only and without any territorial monopoly, full freedom of contract in all spheres, freedom from compulsory taxation and its replacement, if at all, by forms of voluntary taxation or subscription, i.e., with the realization of all individual rights and liberties to the extent that people are prepared to accept them as rules among themselves. Only such rights and liberties are really important and give any sense to any unification attempts. Territorial government unifications prevent rather than promote this kind of unity and freedom in diversity, of mutual tolerance and peaceful coexistence, of non-violent competition, which is also a form of generalized cooperation. Territorial unity should never be equated with freedom and justice for all. Its is even the greatest and most dangerous enemy to all individual liberties and right. Freedom for enlarged territorial governments means as a rule less freedom and rights for their subjects. Territorial rulers are not, as a rule, tolerant cosmopolitans, who fully respect the rights and liberties of others. Nor are they able to protect them effectively, even if they wished to do so. Political territorial unity without all the basic rights and liberties is of no value at all by itself, objectively, apart from national and patriotic spleens, errors, myths, false assumptions and conclusions about it. – JZ, 6.9.90, 14.8.08.

UNIFORMITY IS DEATH, VARIETY IS LIFE. – Free after Bakunin. Quoted in German in “espero” Nr. 41, Oct. 2004, page 2, in editorial: “Frei nach Bakunin, Einfoermigkeit ist der Tod, Mannigfaltigkeit das Leben.”

UNIFORMITY, COUNTRIES, LAWS, STATES, GOVERNMENTS, INDIVIDUALS, TERRORISM, MINORITIES, TERRITORIALISM: If individuals and their volunteer groups are not free to choose their own uniform laws for themselves, then the kind uniformity desired by majority of others is likely to be forced upon them. Thereupon at least some of them will "think" of "resisting" terroristically with pistols, bombs or even nuclear mass murder devices - in the attempt to impose, in their turn, their favourite territorial uniformity upon others. - Why try, in the first place, to establish territorial uniformity and continue to consider it as a solution for all of the many trouble spots in the world? Why leave territorial uniformity, however widely chosen or imposed and opposed, as the only “option”? Since it did not work against religious dissent, why expect it to work among political, economic and social system mongers? - From a letter by JZ to THE AUSTRALIAN, April 93.

UNIFORMITY, DIVERSITY, SOLIDARITY: a genuinely revolutionary movement must mirror NOW the unity and diversity that is a prerequisite of any humanized society of the future. Solidarity, yes; uniformity, no!" - Dave Dellinger. - Not uniformity and solidarity with all, e.g. intolerant people, terrorists and Jihad "warriors" or murderers but tolerance for the exterritorial, voluntary and autonomous associations of all others and solidarity with all attempts to introduce and practice this kind of diversity. - JZ 41.12.82, 12.1.93, 23.9.04.

UNIFORMITY, ENFORCED OR CHOSEN? Coercive and enforced uniformity, on the territorial model, is the worst threat. It may be practised with the "best intention" and still amount merely to the realization of errors, prejudices and myths not only among voluntary supporters but their impostion upon all dissenters. But even if, objectively, it were a paradise or utopia, it should not be imposed but merely offered to individual potential consumers. - JZ 8.4.89.

UNIFORMITY: A shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.” – Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), Modern Man in Search of a Soul, 1933. - IMPOSED, ONE LAW FOR ALL, ONE TERRITORIAL POLITICAL INSTITUTION FOR ALL INHABITANTS

UNIFORMITY: I can merely point out here that all uniform state systems, excluding difference, excluding competition, mean a perpetual arrest at the existing level (*) of progress. So long as great government departments (over which, be it observed, from the very exigencies of administration, the mass of the people can never have any real control) supply our wants (**), so long shall we remain in our present condition, the difficulties of life unconquered, and ourselves unfitted to conquer them. – Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p.179. - (*) Or progress only at the speed that territorial politicians and bureaucrats can imagine and implement it. – (**) Or, rather, those which they say we have or should have! - JZ, 9.8.08. - TERRITORIALISM

UNIFORMITY: Imperium. It’s the maintenance of a single way of life. You are commanded to be contented. Life must be uniform on all planets as it is in the Imperial Government…” - Frank Herbert, Children of Dune, ANALOG, 3/76.

UNIFORMITY: Imposition of uniform standards does grave disservice to the diversity of human tastes and abilities.” – Murray N. Rothbard, Education, Free and Compulsory, p. 9. – EDUCATION, DIVERSITY, COMPETITION, COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE & CURRICULUM

UNIFORMITY: Is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than that of face and stature.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. – Variety of actions is as important as variety of opinions and ideas. – JZ, 85/86.

UNIFORMITY: Men have now arrived at such a high pitch of civilization that all institutions which act in any way to obstruct or thwart the development of individuals, and compress men together into vast uniform masses, are now far more hurtful than in earlier ages of the world.” – Wilhelm von Humboldt, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.105. – POWER ADDICTION, INSTITUTIONALIZATION, POLITICIZATION, TERRITORIALISM, CENTRALIZATION

UNIFORMITY: no amount of suggestion or pressure will make people uniform.” – R. J. Williams, You Are Extraordinary, p.82.

UNIFORMITY: One does not suit all.” - Goethe

UNIFORMITY: Savagery is uniformity.” – Murray N. Rothbard, Education, Free and Compulsory. – Enforced uniformity amounts to savagery. Voluntary uniformity or conformity is another matter. It unites e.g. merely chess players in their common interest. – JZ, 9.8.08. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL TOLERANCE

UNIFORMITY: Should we aim at uniform human beings, uniform fathers, uniform mothers, via cloning of the supposedly best types? Uniform peoples fathered by just one man, produced from the eggs of just one potential mother? Uniformity in hair styles, dress, eating, drinking, reading, entertainment, rations for all, uniformity in sexual practices, one sport for all, uniformity in everything – or in nothing but what is desired by volunteers for themselves? We might as well try to replace mankind by uniform robots with artificial intelligence. – JZ, 3.10.90, 2.8.08.

UNIFORMITY: The government is always endeavoring to make people uniform. So literally true is this that in most countries it actually forces them into the uniform of the soldier or the convict.” – George Barrett, THE MATCH, July/August 75. - TERRITORIALISM

UNIFORMITY: The only kinds of uniformity that are worthwhile are those achieved or chosen by individuals, among themselves, one by one, at the pace of individuals. – JZ, 19.11.93. 12.8.08.

UNIFORMITY: The strongest bulwark of authority is uniformity; the least diversion from it is the greatest crime.” – Emma Goldman, The Place of the Individual in Society, 1930’s. – Apart from some tolerated individual private idiosyncrasies, hobbies, crafts, fashions, leisure activities etc. – In totalitarian States even these are severely limited and nowadays even the majority-democratic States have “leisure” policies and expenditures. In this district, for instance, they are pushing for a “leisure centre”, to cost over A $ 17 million, more than the expenditure originally planned for the Sydney Opera House, then reckoned in much less inflated money. The wording of the poll on this, to occur with the next compulsory council elections, is “loaded” in favor of the proposal. Already more than half a million dollars have been spent on “consultations”! Where there is a common trough the pigs will gather.  - People are so little uniform that governments are forced to put their soldiers into uniforms, to prevent them from not recognizing each other or the supposed “enemy” soldiers, also put into uniform for this purpose. Nevertheless, the governments on both sides claim to really represent “united” or uniform nations, clearly distinguishable from the members of other “nations”. – JZ, 9.8.08. – AUTHORITY, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM

UNIFORMITY: The tendency to uniformity and the suppression of the urge to be different and better is now spreading to all corners of the earth, because the forms and movements of the machinery of the State as invented and practised first by Germany and then by us, are easily copied by any group of politicians who can secure the reins of government in any country. – Sir Ernest Benn, The State the Enemy, p.15.

UNIFORMITY: there is something bigger and brighter than our squabbles, our greeds, our want to make our fellowmen into copies of us.” - Poul Anderson, Dialogue with Darkness, p.13.  UNITY, INTEGRATION, DOMINATION, EGALITARIANISM, EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW

UNIFORMITY: Uniform flowers, birds, meals, books, und uniforms instead of clothing, too? All to be “blue ants”, in blue denim clothing, as initially under Mao’s dictatorship, or, rather, everything competitively provided and individually chosen and paid for? Uniformity is not an objective value by itself. – JZ, 15.2.05, 198.08.

UNIFORMITY: Uniformity enchains rather than liberates. – JZ, 19.11.93.

UNIFORMITY: Uniformity imposes foolishness, errors and prejudices uniformly rather than wisdom – in most cases. Only the simple-minded or prejudiced would see in uniformity itself a basic factor for every solution. – JZ, 19.11.93. – Well, there are exceptions: The voluntary acceptance of uniform standards of measure was to be welcomed. Adoption of time zones had also some value. Australian States for many years had different width for the rails of their State railways! Some want to impose a single and uniform language on the whole world. But Esperanto, Ido and Voklapuek are just three of over 100 international languages proposed so far. Should we start a world war on which international language proposal to adopt, universally and compulsorily? The voluntary acceptance of a second language for international use is much preferable. The use of English, in spite of all its remaining flaws, is gradually spreading. Ca. 20 % of the world population can somewhat use it already. At one stage Latin was almost an international language - among the educated, at least within the Western World. But it is hardly as adapted to modern realities as some of the modern languages are. Should all of us have to subscribe to the crisis theory of Ludwig von Mises – without closely examining all the other crisis theories, of which there are at least ca. 150? And how could one achieve uniformity among the over 1000 conspiracy theories? – JZ, 13.8.08.

UNIFORMITY: uniformity in anything, including government, can only be had at the expense of individualism – of thought, action, standards, incentive, personal liberty and decision-making.” – Peter A. Wright, of the Australian Campaign Against Centralism.

UNIFORMITY: Uniformity is prized by all bureaucracies, political or other, simply because it saves bureaucrats from the always agonizing responsibility of dealing with the individuality and the complexity of real life.” – Robert A. Nisbet, The New Despotism, p.27. – Freedom for diversity rather than any imposed uniformity! – Imagine only one game allowed, one form of dancing, one form of sport, one kind of hobby or craft, one hair style, one organized kind of touring, one kind of tooth brushes, one kind of music, one kind of poetry, and e.g. Science Fiction or the Bible being compulsory reading for all! – To counter all such spleens, going into the tens of thousands and filling all too many heads, we need an encyclopedia of the best refutations! - JZ, 20.4.09. - BUREAUCRACY, INDIVIDUALISM, DIVERSITY, VARIETY, VOLUNTARISM, COMPULSION

UNIFORMITY: Uniformity of character and uniformity of culture are to be regretted. Biological evolution has depended upon inborn differences between individuals and tribes, and cultural evolution depends upon acquired differences. When these disappear, there is no longer any material for selection. In the modern world, there is a real danger of too great similarity between one region and another in cultural respects. (*) One of the best ways of minimizing this evil is an increase in the autonomy of different groups.” – Bertrand Russell, Authority and the Individual, p.78. - (*) And in political, economic and social ones as well! Panarchism! To each group of volunteers their own system, society or community! – JZ, 9.8.08.

UNIFORMITY: We cannot live with uniformity, for if all were precisely as you or I, all would perish; this is easily demonstrable.” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truths Will Out, p.31. – Even the mere degrees of territorial uniformity that are already enforced do greatly restrict our individual rights and liberties. – JZ, 9.8.08.

UNIFORMS: Men should not be “free” to murder each other with impunity simply because they dress up for it in uniforms. The uniform does not make their action non-criminal.” - Kurt Tucholsky, Politische Texte, S.55, in a JZ tr. only of: “… Menschen sich nicht deshalb ungestraft toeten duerfen, weil sie sich vorher dazu einen Schlachterkittel anziehen. Denn der macht nicht straflos.“ – However, presently precisely that and an order from above brings about such immunity for murders, committed quite legally, although not morally. – JZ, 3.4.91. – SOLDIERS, WAR, SLAUGHTERS OF HUMANS IN BATTLES, WAR, DEFENCE, ENEMIES, AGGRESSIVE DEFENCE & DEFENSIVE AGGRESSION – RESULTS OF TERRITORIALISM

UNIFORMS: Prohibition of uniform and weapons. Whoever enjoys dressing himself in colorful cloths should be free to do so, as long as he does not demand that others put themselves into similar costumes.” – John Henry Mackay, Abrechnung, S.129. – (JZ tr. of: “Uniform- und Waffen-Verbot. Wem es Spass macht, sich in bunte Tuecher zu kleiden, der moege es so lange tun, als er nicht von anderen verlangt, dass sie sich ebenso kostuemieren.“) - As long as he demands it only of like-minded volunteers that would be still tolerable. – JZ, 9.8.08.

UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATION OR DROPPING OUT OF WAR & PEACE RELATIONSHIPS AS USUALLY CONDUCTED BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS: 23, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. – An extract from “The Soviet Union and Peace”, the most important documents issued by the government of the Soviets, 1917-1929, published by Martin Lawrence Ltd., London, introduced by Henri Barbusse. Here only those documents relating to the one-sided peace declaration by the Soviet delegate at Brest Litowsk, 49 pages, on 23-41 of PEACE PLANS 878. A perhaps unique precedent for a strategy that might be pursued in a better cause. There are all kinds of “dropping out” of territorial statism! See also PEACE PLANS Nos. 7, 16–17, 61-63 & 399-401.


UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATIONS OR ONE-SIDED PEACE DECLARATIONS: The idea that peace like war could be declared one-sidedly, and that peace could thus be brought, at first seems to be quite absurd and yet there is a historical precedent for its partially successful application, an instance which could teach us a lesson for our time. - - Whilst an official declaration of war or the threat of war do have a well-known war promoting effect on the nationalists on the other side, a unilateral peace declaration may have a healthy and pacifying influence on at least part of the opposing forces, the conscripts and other dissenters. This influence ought to be further explored and exploited. - - A one-sided peace declaration seems to require more time than a war declaration and in the meantime the fighting might go on. The reason for this may be merely that the possibilities and the techniques of unilateral peace actions have not yet been sufficiently thought through and applied. - - - The Historical Example: During the peace negotiations at BrestLitovsk, on the 10th. of February, 1918, the Soviet delegate, Trotsky, declared that Russia would cease hostilities and demobilize her troops, that the war between Russia and the Central Powers would be at an end but that the Soviets would not sign "a peace of annexations". - He coined the famous but rather misleading formula: "No war, no peace". - (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica) - - "We end the war but nevertheless do not conclude peace". (Source: FREIE RUNDSCHAU, Sep./Oct., 1958.) - - What Trotsky declared or proposed was certainly neither a war nor a peace of the old type. - - Karl Helfferich in: "Der Weltkrieg" (The World War), Ullstein, Berlin, 1919, pages 552 ff, gave the following account of this extraordinary statement: "Finally, Mr. Trotsky, in the session of February the 10th., 1918, stated that in the opinion of his delegation the decisive hour, had come. Russia would want no further part in this war. Without signing a peace treaty Russia declares an end to the condition of war with Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria, and would simultaneously give the order to the complete demobilization of all Russian forces on all fronts. For all talks between the Central Powers and Russia, necessary because of this new situation, Mr. Trotsky referred to direct negotiations between the governments concerned and to the commissions of the Central Powers which were then already in Petrograd. Mr von Kuehlmann ... stated that the Central Powers were still at war with Russia ... The armistice would have the conclusion of a peace treaty as its aim. If this purpose were no longer pursued then military operations would begin again after the expiration of the armistice period. - - Mr. Trotsky replied that the Russian delegation would now have exhausted its authorities and considered it necessary to return to Petrograd." - - "This unique military, political and diplomatic move amounted to a onesided declaration of peace towards the majority of German and Austrian citizens and soldiers and a onesided cessation of hostilities but, nevertheless, it still implied a strong threat of revolutionary resistance against the ruling regimes (labelled imperialistic and militaristic) and an ill-defined group of people assumed to be the main enemies, the socalled capitalists. - - "Motivation of the Bolsheviks: Only the confusion concerning political, military and economic aims among the other parties and their infighting in the face of military defeats, inflation, breakdown of transport and trade, allowed the Bolsheviks to exploit the war-weariness of Russian soldiers and civilians, most of whom were in a mood for peace at any price: Only because of this situation and because they had a program (though a bad and unjust one), which they ruthlessly pursued, could they seize power and keep it. - - "In this particular affair they did not have much choice. They really had to keep their promise to bring about peace because they could not continue the war: The Czarist army was already disintegrating. Since months it had lost all its offensive power. It demobilized itself long before Trotsky, on the 10th. of February, announced the demobilization. There was hatred between officers and soldiers, sometimes leading to massacres. The former supreme commander, General N. N. Dukhonin, suspected of having tried to prolong the war, was literally torn to pieces by a mob of soldiers. It was foreseen that the army was likely to withdraw from the field before the end of the Russian winter. Food and other supplies were short. In some cases there was actual famine. A new, communist indoctrinated Red Army had not yet been built up. - - Most of the Bolshevik leaders believed a general European revolution to be imminent and were therefore inclined to attempt a revolutionary defence with peace as the immediate aim. In this they only slightly overestimated the warweariness and underestimated the force of nationalism in Germany. (Fear of the spread of the revolution, probably more than fear that Russian war materials might fall into German hands, induced the Western Allies to intervene.) - - "On the 14th. of February, 1918, Trotsky declared: 'Yes, we are weak and unable now to continue the war. But we posses sufficient revolutionary strength to show that we will not voluntarily sign a peace treaty forced on us on the point of bayonets. We refuse our signatures.' - - "In the session of the Central Committee on the 21st. of January, Bucharin had argued that the old order in Europe would break down very soon. Even a new advance of German troops would not prevent this. On the contrary, German power would be exhausted by the vast Russian spaces. - - 'Even if we had to sacrifice Petrograd and Moscow, even if we had to withdraw behind the Ural, nevertheless, only with such a tactic could we bring about the German revolution ...." - - Lenin's objections, in favour of signing the peace treaty immediately in order to obtain a breathing space were outvoted. Lenin probably more than the others recognized how much internal resistance he would still have to suppress in order to stay in power. Compare about this his speech on the 8th. of January, 1918. In principle he agreed, though, with his associates. He had often demanded the transformation of an  "imperialist" war into a civil war. - - "Quite obviously, the Bolsheviks wanted to obtain the greatest possible propaganda effect from their peace program (which they intended to adhere to only as long as it suited them). For this purpose they had already prolonged the negotiations as much as possible and had in numerous instances appealed directly to the soldiers and citizens of the Central Powers. - - "The Bolsheviks believed that they could spread they revolution by offering a just peace without indemnities and annexations. All their utterances during the negotiations were made for propaganda effect and were widely publicized. The proposals of their delegation were in detail: 1.) No coercive annexation of conquered territories; troops to withdraw immediately from occupied territories. - 2.) Complete restoration of political independence of nations suppressed during the war. - 3.) Formerly dependent national groups are to be given the opportunity to decide in free referendum about their political allegiance or independence. - 4.) Guaranties for the rights of national minorities in areas with mixed nationalities. - 5) No reparations ... - 6.) Colonial disputes to be settled according to l4. - "Other suggestions were: To end economic boycotts and economic exploitation of weak nations by enforced trade treaties, to renounce secret diplomacy and its treaties and to undertake all negotiations about peace in public. - - "The Central Powers were asked to agree to these terms or to publish more acceptable war aims of their own. Then, when the peace conditions demanded by the Central Powers were obviously less just, the Bolsheviks wanted to appear as defenceless victims, martyrs for a good cause. - - "Did the Bolsheviks apply their ideas concerning national freedom in practice? They machine-gunned demonstrators marching in favour of the first freely elected national assembly Russia ever had and closed this assembly forcefully after one day's session! (They had obtained only 25% of the seats and even this only through deceptive propaganda.) Russia was already to a large extent under terrorist rule. The dictatorship of the proletariat had been proclaimed. Independence movements in Finland, the Ukraine and the Baltic States were forcefully suppressed. - - "The Effects of the Peace Declaration: The Austrian representative, Czerning, was of the opinion that the de facto peace situation created by Trotsky's declaration would have to be accepted. - The German military representative Hoffmann opposed this understanding and demanded that the armistice be ended, an advance towards Petrograd begun and that the Ukrainian nationalists be supported. - - Among the ruling circles there was a limited discussion of the new situation. - - Finally the voices of the military men gained the upper hand. Thus, on the 17th of February 1918, the German forces were ordered to advance. The remnants of the Russian army fled in panic. - - But, it is significant that the Austrian forces did not participate in this offensive. - - "On the 19th. of Feb., 1918, Lenin, afraid that his government might be overthrown, sent a telegram stating that he would not accept the peace terms without further disputes. Now the German leaders hesitated and finally imposed new and harsher terms, which were signed on the 3rd of March, 1918. One very interesting condition of the peace terms was that Russia give an undertaking to abandon her revolutionary propaganda! - - "The signatory to the treaty, Sokolnikov (leader of a new Bolshevik delegation), allowed himself the gesture of not discussing or ever reading the treaty and declared that there could be no question of discussing the treaties 'in this atmosphere of force' and that they would sign the drafts submitted to them 'under the eyes of the workmen, soldiers and peasants of all the world who would judge these treaties.' - - "Thus Lenin obtained his desired breathing space to suppress the diverse opposition against his regime." - - Was Trotsky's declaration fruitless? I think that only the timing was wrong and the actions and aims of the Bolsheviks made them lose the moral advantage they had gained. - - - - I have not yet found any studies of the influence of the above peace declaration on German, English, French and American troops. From one reliable private source I heard that the advancing German soldiers were close to mutiny, saw no sense in conquests and continuing the war as, apparently, the Russian army was no longer a threat to Germany. If the Germans had met stiff resistance or if the advance had continued for a few weeks, then the opinion of Bucharin might have proved correct and the German soldiers might have mutinied, months before the German sailors in Kiel did, in November 1918. According to hear‑say reports, the morale of the soldiers of the interventionist forces of the Western allies, was very low, too. (I would be glad if any of my readers could further enlighten meat these points.) - - Karl Helfferich summed his report up with the remark: "Even the most radical enemy of the Bolsheviks cannot deny Lenin's and Trotsky's policy a clear purpose, tenacious energy and cleverness. In the midst of a catastrophic Russian breakdown, they took the initiative in the negotiations with the militarily victorious enemies. They made their program the basis for the negotiations at Brest and forced thus their opponents into a defensive position. Yes, they even found the strength to aggressively threaten the rear of their opponents by appealing to the people to take up the fight against their national and social order and by trying to transform the national war into a class war between the international proletariat and "capitalism". Even though this daring attempt was momentarily outbalanced by the countermoves of a separate peace treaty with the Ukraine and the resolute military advance, nevertheless, it was not defeated. The attempt was quietly and tenaciously continued, even during the 'breathing space. The events since November 1918 have shown with what success." - - Even the peace treaty did not prevent further guerrilla fighting. Open fighting occurred in the Ukraine and Finland. Furthermore, none of the food and raw materials, which the Soviets were obliged to deliver, were actually supplied. - - Some thoughts about the rational and moral core of unilateral peace declarations and the limits of their effectiveness: It has been said that history repeats itself or, rather, that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat its mistakes. This would not happen as often if historians were more inclined not only to describe what has actually happened (or what they believe has happened), but what might have happened according to other historical experiences, if such and such mistakes would not have been repeated. I believe that the main value of historical studies consists in making such judgments possible. - The Bolsheviks were unfit to make the above described unilateral peace declaration with full success. Their totalitarian program, like that of other authoritarians, was in practice a declaration or war towards all dissenters, internally and externally. They wanted peace only with those who fully agreed with them or subordinated themselves to their commands. Such a "peace" is not very different from one imposed by a Genghis Khan or a Hitler. It rather promotes war than peace. - - By falling from one extreme to the other, the Bolsheviks showed that they did not really understand this part of their program, either: The one-sided demobilization order of the 10th of February, 1918, was followed only 11 days later by an appeal, to begin a total and all-out resistance to the last drop of blood and to adopt a scorched earth policy. - - The Bolshevik program had at last to fail like that of the French Revolution: "Peace to the humble cottages and war to the palaces!" ‑ because it was not carried out by those who paid lip service to it.  Only for a limited time could the propaganda value of their slogans carry them through. After that they could only rely on the mistakes of their enemies, their 5 million men strong Red Army, based on conscription, and on the terror policy of their secret police and, naturally, for the internal and external dupes, who fell for their propaganda and their flawed ideology. - - In the long run no dictatorship could apply this peace program successfully. The divergence between the propaganda for a war of liberation or revolutionary resistance and the dictatorial practice of the propagandists does, sooner or later, becomes too great to remain continuously overlooked by many or most people. - - Nevertheless, with such propaganda moves, the communists have obtained power. Once they are in the saddle and the subjects have realized how much they have been deceived, it seems to be too late, unless of course, a genuine peace and liberation movement would fully apply this method against the communists. - - How could this be done? To what extent could we go along with the relevant steps proposed by Lenin et al, and where would we have to depart from their methods? - - The mere unilateral peace declaration is obviously not enough. As the rapid build‑up of the Red Army showed, Lenin did not intend it as a first step towards a renunciation of all force, either. - - The most important part of this peace declaration was that it did not proclaim a general peace with all groups on the other side, e.g., the monarchists and nationalists, but only a partial and selective peace with all those Lenin believed to be on the side of the revolution or who might be won over to it. The Bolshevik ideas still implied an all-out but discriminating revolutionary war against all other "classes". In this they went certainly too far. - - From the concept of concluding a peace not with the whole population of a territory but only with some part of its people, living intermixed with people belonging to other groups, from this notion of an "exterritorial" peace, it would not have been very difficult, for all but convinced communists, to perceive the possibility of concluding peace with or at least tolerating other non-aggressive, exterritorial and autonomous associations of volunteers, even if they are established and maintained by e.g. monarchists, nationalists, capitalists, imperialists, fascists, religious enthusiasts, anarchist, libertarians or members of other races. - - The one-sided peace declaration not only towards the own adherents but towards the members of all tolerant communities would have reduced the number of irreconcilable enemies to a minimum and would have isolated them. This remnant of enemies could then have been easily rendered harmless by a mere police action. - - I would go along with Lenin's renunciation of absolute pacifism, with his proposals to abolish secret diplomacy, the declaration just war and peace aims (like ‑ no annexations or reparations, self‑determination for national minorities), the ending economic warfare, the introduction of democratic rights for soldiers, including secessionism (resignation of officers has already a long tradition), the right to take up negotiations directly with the citizens and soldiers on the other side, the attempt to work towards the defeat of oppressive governments by means of military insurrections and revolutions and to further, in particular, mass fraternization and cooperation to end the war between conscript armies ordered to slaughter each other. - - (At one stage, and at least in one theatre of this war, Russian soldiers were not only electing their officers but deciding, by hand-raising, on the battlefield, whether to continue an attack or not. - I presume that a few hands and arms were shot off as a result. According to the report that I received on this, they sometimes decided upon a further attack and courageously carried it out.) - - Self-evident condition for all these proposals is naturally that they do not only remain mere propaganda slogans but that just and sound proposals are carried out. - - Those who are prepared to uphold and defend individual human rights and liberties could apply such methods much more successfully than those intending to introduce a new dictatorship under fancy names like "dictatorship of the proletariat". (Really meaning, in practice: "Dictatorship OVER the proletariat. - JZ, 24.10.11.) - - Further just and opportune steps of a successful peace declaration, directed to the oppressed people behind the Iron Curtain and towards a successful resistance against their oppressors, would e.g. be: a) abolition of conscription and mercenary armies, - b) unilateral nuclear disarmament, - c) decision about war and peace by the citizens directly (organized in volunteer militias), - d) non-recognition of the dictatorial regimes, their ejection from the UN (A practical application of Article 2 of the UN Charter which confines membership to peaceful nations only), - e) recognition and propagation of the right and duty to resist all infringements of human rights (even if these offences are backed up by laws or by military commands), and of the right to revolt against oppression and to commit tyrannicide, - f) recognition of rightful governments in exile (those desiring to rule only over voluntary members), - g) welcome for refugees and deserters and protection of their human rights, - h) free trade in non-military goods, that is exchange to mutual benefit (State socialists would lose much of their trade benefit because of their system of central planning and direction, their centralized command “economies”.), but neither credit nor aid should be given to the communist regimes. - i) Instead, and as far as possible, direct aid should be given to the oppressed people (e.g., by wheat bombs, compare plan 44) and trade should be taken up with them, rather than their rulers and they, rather than their rulers, should be give credits. - j) Armament of volunteers for the defence of human rights, with discriminating weapons only, - k) training of our men in just and discriminating defensive tactics and strategies only, l) amnesty for all who surrender soon enough, without having committed any further crimes. - These points constitute just some instances that happened to come to my mind here and now, not to an attempt to provide a comprehensive list and to set priorities. – For some details see my two peace books, on - JZ, 14.11.01.) - - In other words, our whole potential for unjust and aggressive as well as for unjust defensive warfare ought to be destroyed and must be seen to be destroyed. At the same time, our potential for just defensive actions should be increased. - - Since I am not one of those anti-communists who would gloat when millions of Russian and Chinese conscripts would be forced by their rulers to slaughter each other, I rather select, as a short illustration of the main idea described above, an unconventional example from a letter (21.4.65) of my friend Ulrich von Beckerath: "If for instance, in a war between Peking and Moscow, even a single military unit, e.g. a division under the leadership of its general, declared the war at an end and declared simultaneously a new declaration of human rights together with instructions how to realize them" (compare plan 110) "then mankind would step into a new phase of development, The military units in the neighbourhood and lastly all troops in opposing positions would unite to a "peace corps" but would keep their arms... I am convinced that the Moscow-Peking antagonism is merely one between the governments. The people bear no animosity against each other. …" - PEACE PLANS No.7, plan 169, pages 74 - 83. – Somewhat revised: J.Z., 19.8.12.

UNION OF THE USA: The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so …” – Alex de Tocqueville, Democracy n America. - - Fictions can hardly agree with each other. Only adult individuals can give a genuine consent, as far as their own affairs are concerned. - JZ, 23. 11. 06. – SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL & EXTERRITORIAL RATHER THAN GOVERNMENTAL & TERRITORIAL

UNION-MEMBERSHIP: State membership should not be any less voluntary than union membership. - Compulsory union membership is almost as wrong as is compulsory State membership. - JZ, 3.6.84. - Compulsory State membership and territorial laws and institutions are features of totalitarianism not of democratic or republican self-rule, self-government, self-determination and self-responsibility. - JZ, 15.11.02. – VOLUNTARISM RATHER THAN CONSCRIPTION INTO UNIONS


UNIONS & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONS FROM THEM, AS FROM ALL OTHER COERCIVE ORGANIZATIONS: The dozens to hundreds of popular errors, prejudices, fallacies, wrong assumptions and conclusions of compulsory trade unions have, to my knowledge, not yet been listed together and confronted with their best refutations. Then, obviously, they should all  become confined to their voluntary victims and nobody could be legally forced to hire any of them. – At the same time all self-management options should be sufficiently publicized and discussed, e.g. the productive coops, autonomous group work, the purchase of enterprises by employees, using their own bond-issues as means of payment. - JZ, 19.8.12.

UNIONS AS EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL REPRESENTATIVES (FOR CERTAIN INDUSTRIES OR JOBS) VS. FREELY COMPETING UNIONS WITHOUT ANY COMPULSORY MONOPOLY & MEMBERSHIP & ALSO EXPOSED TO VARIOUS FORMS OF INDUSTRIAL COOPS AND PARTNERSHIPS, WHICH WOULD MAKE UNIONS FOR THEM OBVIOUSLY SUPERFLUOUS. – Trade-union privileges, granted by territorial governments, and their coercive and monopolistic practices, also upheld by territorial States, ought to be as thoroughly criticized as territorial States should be, including their branches of professionals like e.g. medical doctors and lawyers. While they are already slowly fading away, this process is still too slow and they are still practising many wrongful and harmful powers, mostly legalized. As totally voluntary bodies they should be allowed to continue to exist and to make contracts – for their own members only. – They should certainly not be granted a monopoly for any particular job or for a whole industry. – JZ, 5.2.12, 19.8.12.

UNIONS: A cartel is defined as "an association of industrialists for establishing a monopoly by price fixing, etc." - Labor unions are no less cartels than are some industrial combines. They are price fixers; this is their chief claim to fame. They fix prices not by voluntary agreement but by edict backed by violence.” - Leonard E. Read: Who's listening? p.36.

UNIONS: a government cannot repeal these laws precisely because the Unions would stop it. If this is so, then we might as well come right out and admit that the real government of the country is the union movement. The real problem is that the government wants to solve the Union problem without giving up its own power. To do both is impossible. And only an entirely free economy, and a respect for individual rights will give as a real and lasting solution to the Union problem. Or any other problem.” – John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.260. – Both, the trade-unionists, the employers, the opponents of the trade unions and of the employer-employee relationship, do all have the right to their own personal law, in their own panarchies of volunteers. There they may restrict or liberate themselves as much as they like. – JZ, 9.8.08, 19.8.12.

UNIONS: A) All the following remarks are directed especially against compulsory and coercive unionism. – If all the others do their own things only for and to themselves, I do not mind. Everyone has the right to make his own mistakes. – Voluntarism in all spheres! But I hold that everyone has the right to secede from and to resist coercive, monopolistic and compulsory unions and their actions, to the extent that they infringe anyone’s individual rights and liberties. – JZ, 12.10.08.

UNIONS: Actually, our very survival depends upon individual secessions from dictatorships and all nuclear powers. (Never mind, how few people have recognized this fact as yet.) Until this process is well advanced, none of us will be safe. I consider voluntary membership in churches, States, unions and armies - and secessions from their present compulsory forms - as trial runs for survival. - JZ, 29.2.84, 13.10.08.

UNIONS: Americans must have the right but not be compelled to join labor unions.” - National Right to Work Committee, "REASON", 1/79.

UNIONS: Anyone who says voluntarism is anti-union is condemning unionism by saying that it can only exist on compulsion.” - Reed Larson, "reason", 1/79.

UNIONS: Based on my experience as a laborer, I choose freedom. I do not want "labor" union protection. The officials of these power structures are absolutely unaware of what my best interests are; indeed, more than likely they do not know their own.” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.65. - Their usual misleaders are just another kind of power addicts, like most territorial politicians. - JZ, 31.3.11.

UNIONS: Compulsory unionism involves a denial of the right of the laborer to freely own and dispose of his own labor.” - Ralph Borsodi, 17 Problems of Living, p.355. (353?)

UNIONS: Compulsory unity of monopolistic trade unions is almost as disastrous in its economic effects as is compulsory territorial unity and nationalism is in politics, economics and social life. – JZ, 1.9.97. – At least union membership is shrinking. State membership and subjugation isn’t. – JZ, 13.7.08. Unions are certainly not as popular as they once used to be. But any old faith tends to die out only slowly. By now many of the gods of the ancients are forgotten by most of the population. – It was never the trade unions which determined the level of all wages and salaries. Productivity and market or anti-market conditions did, e.g. forced and exclusive currencies, which established and perpetuated stagflationary crisis conditions. Under full economic freedom, with its full employment, the rewards for labor would rise to its productive performance, the more so the more self-managed labor is. Under full monetary freedom the very output of consumer goods and services could and would be monetized, by those who offer them and they would exert a corresponding demand for the continuous labor required to keep these goods and services coming. The trade unions were and still are in denial of such truths and almost never promoted self-management, because that would have made them superfluous. To maximize productivity, all would become have to some extent co-owners of productive capital and somewhat entrepreneurial at least at their workplace. Only thus could labor incentives become optimal. – Compare the writings e.g. on productive cooperatives, autonomous work groups, employee shareholding and the purchase of enterprises by their employees, on terms, paying for them with their own industrial or agricultural bonds. - JZ, 20.8.12.

UNIONS: Court judgesemployers must negotiate with unions – even when none of their employees is a unionist.” – News report, 21.12.94. – “It’s a free country, isn’t it?” And “courts of justice” are courts of justice because they are called “courts of justice!” – And “laws” are “law”, instead of mere irrational and wrongful decrees, because they are called “law”! - JZ, 13.8.08.

UNIONS: development of coercive bands of workers whose paychecks are protected by force in spite of incompetence or inefficiency.” - JAG, Feb. 28, 1973. – However, unless the sale of the goods and services is wrongly guaranteed by legalized monopolies, they tend to make themselves unemployed to the extent that their wage and salary demands exceed the free market price levels which sovereign consumers are prepared to pay for their goods and services. – In balance trade unions reduce the standard of living in a country rather than increase it. They are obstacles to rather than promoters of higher productivity and thereby higher earnings. – J.Z., 20.8.12.

UNIONS: Do unionists really run the country when, as in my job, they lose 40 hours of normal wages every week through direct and indirect taxation and when only overtime payments, reckoned tax-free, remain for them to live on? Are they then, in principle, better off or worse than the serfs in the Middle Ages were, as far as the use of their working time is concerned? - JZ, n.d. - Did unionists ever demonstrate or strike for lower taxation or the abolition of it? Did they ever stand up for individual secessionism? - JZ, 31.3.11. – Did they ever criticize central banking, legal tender or territorialism? Are they the most enlightened or are they among the most unenlightened people in a country? – JZ, 20.8.12. – Q., TAXATION

UNIONS: Employers should be free to refuse to employ any unionist. Unionists should be free to set up and run their own and self-managed production and business enterprises, in free competition with all others. They have no right to demand that others supply them with jobs, which they all too often refuse to perform whenever it suits them. – JZ, 22.4.98.

UNIONS: government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions.” – Editorial note in FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS, Sept. 97, No. 49, p.7. - Just like territorial States are governments by the politicians for the politicians. - JZ, 31.3.11.

UNIONS: Government, in its last analysis", wrote Professor Woodrow Wilson, "is organized force". (*) And it would seem irrefutable, also, that the prevailing force is government, whether or not it be given that name. If the controlling or prevailing force is government, then labor unions may be termed government. They have legal sanction to employ coercive force and, when it comes to ruling the nation's economy, they often prove to be more powerful than the agencies known as government; indeed, they more and more frequently rule Federal, state, and local governments. - What, really, is a present-day labor union? It is an organization of otherwise independent sellers of labor to manipulate the price of labor to their own advantage - by coercion or the threat thereof. - - (*) See The State by Woodrow Wilson, Boston, D.C. Heath & Co., 1900, p.572.” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.71. – I deny that they could do so without legalized monopolies, i.e. in a really free market. For then they would not only encounter the refusals of their employers but also of investors and consumers to pay them more than free market wages and salaries. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNIONS: I mean the conclusion that the control of natural capital, of the natural and unreproducible (*) source of all production, or our natural environment, of the planet itself, - that this control and not control of the artificial and reproducible products of human art and skill drawn forth from the planet, is the kind of monopoly that primarily disorders the social service market; and this is what makes workers dependent upon capitalists for opportunities to work, and emasculate their natural ability to exact service for service.” – Louis F. Post, Social Service, N.Y., 1910, p.329. – (*) “irreproducible” according to my spell-checker. Underlining by me. – JZ – As a Georgist the otherwise much enlightened Louis F. Post could not shake this notion. - If one merely takes into consideration the number of private land title holders in a country or in the world, one arrives as so many that the belief - that all of them constitute a class of monopolists - is as absurd as the notion that employers are monopolists, seeing that e.g. in the USA alone there are already 10 to 20 million of them. Land titles as well as jobs and the ownership of enterprises change hands daily in uncounted numbers. Even under the all too restrictive conditions of monetary and financial despotism and other statist and unionist intervention with a free labor market and government regulations. Except in the remaining totalitarian countries no one is bound as a serf to any real estate or to a job [forced labor], apart from the ultimate control over development and taxation that the existing governments reserve to themselves as national territorial monopolists, and tribute gatherers, ruling over private land holders and all job holders and employers. I do hold that the passage underlined by me applies much more e.g. to coercive and monopolistic trade unionism and its wrongful interventions, also to the prevailing monetary despotism, expressed in monopoly money with legal tender power and the financial despotism, expressed in taxes and regulations and manipulations of the capital market. It applies to the employer-employee relationships rather than to all kinds of self-management, partnership, extensive employee-shareholding and the best types of productive, because businesslike, cooperatives. The only land monopoly that I agree to be significant is that of territorial governments. Alas, most “land-reformers” ignore it! Even without the wars between these kinds of Warfare States, they murdered, between them, during the last century over 200 million people and impoverished and enslaved many more. Post’s anti-landlordism largely ignores this large-scale and criminal land monopolism. George-ists seem to think: Why pick on the really big and dangerous landlord, the territorial government, as an enemy, when you would rather blame the relatively small local landlords and land speculators? - JZ, 12.1.96, 13.7.08, 31.3.11, 20.8.12. – HENRY GEORGE, LAND REFORMERS, TERRITORIALISM

UNIONS: If they can help it, they do not want to let any worker, contractor or businessman support himself without submitting to their protection racket. – JZ, 1.3.84. – Just like territorial governments, they deny, as far as they can, the withdrawal and independent contract options, because they reduce their own domination or power. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNIONS: Individual and voluntary work contracts cannot be rightfully but merely legally or coercively interfered with by third parties like unionists. - JZ 29.2.84, 20.8.12. - Just like exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers cannot be rightfully interfered with by territorial States, no more so than e.g. bank deposits by bank robbers. - JZ, 31.3.11.

UNIONS: Labor union, n. An association of workers organized to advance the interests of the union organizers.” - L.A. Rollins, Lucifer's Lexicon, "reason", 8/76. - But then, what can one say of the ordinary members who imagine that the union is organized for their advantage? Being wronged and harmed, by some powerful functionaries, they go on believing that it is all for the benefit of the members! [Just like most voters still believe in territorial statism. -  JZ, 20.8.12.] Those who are still faithful communists in the Soviet Union or in Red China have at least the excuse that there exist neither freedom of information nor of expression so that they are systematically misinformed. Our consenting victims do not have that excuse. - JZ 1.3.84. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP

UNIONS: Labor unions are the worst thing that ever struck the Earth because they take away a man's independence.” - Henry Ford. - From booklet distributed to Ford workmen during CIO organization drive, 1936, TIME, August 20, 1945. - As if territorial States were not much worse. - JZ, 31.3.11.

UNIONS: Legislate monopoly unionism and you institutionalize unemployment. - Rev. Edmund A. Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 5/73. - As well as anti-industrial strife. Just like the legitimization of territorial States and of monetary and financial despotism has led to international wars, civil wars and violent revolutions. - JZ, 31.3.11. - LAWS, PRIVILEGES, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP & SUBORDINATION, TERRITORIALISM,

UNIONS: Let us not, however, confine our criticism to unions and job control. There is no distinction between control of jobs and control of goods. Thus, all who favor wage and price controls are on the side of violence - coercive denial of your right and mine to deal with whomsoever we please in free and willing exchange. Neither they nor coercionists in any other field can make the case against the Libyan decree or against holding children forever in kindergarten. They have disqualified themselves!” – Leonard E.Read, Having My Way, p.153/54. - coercers?

UNIONS: Most unionists would rather dictate terms to others than secede from a job or let the others secede from them. – JZ, 4.8.93, 20.8.12. – They do have this in common with the territorial statists. - JZ, 31.3.11. - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP & MONOPOLISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

UNIONS: No organization of men, not excepting the Ku Klux Klan, the Mafia, or the Black Hand Society (*), has ever produced such a record of barbarism as this so-called organized labor society, which through misdirected sympathy, apathy, and indifference, has been permitted to grow up to cripple our industries and to trample in the dust the national and constitutional rights of our citizens.” – John Kirby, jr., president of the National Association of Manufacturers, 11.1.1910, in Francis X. Sutton et al, The American Business Creed, 1956, p.389. - - (*) What about territorial States? – JZ, 23.9.07. – What about totalitarians States? – JZ, 19.4.09. - PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS & ASSOCIATIONS OF MANUFACTURERS, WITH THEIR PROTECTIONIST & LEGALIZED MONOPOLIES, TERRITORIALISM

UNIONS: No union is for me. I am for no union. - JZ, 9.3.80. – No trade union or union of professionals has the right to monopolize any kind of jobs for its own members. – JZ, 5.2.12.

UNIONS: No union should have the right to prevent anyone from working - under conditions acceptable to him her. - JZ, 29.2.84. – And no union has so far, to my knowledge, stood up for all the individual rights and liberties which would greatly improve the working conditions for all. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNIONS: On a voluntary basis and at their own expense and risk they should be free to do all their kinds of foolish things. – But anyone must remain free to secede from them, not to join their strikes and to make contracts with the same or other employers that are different from the collective bargaining contracts of the unionists. – They have no right to be coercive or monopolistic. - JZ, 16.6.85, 9.8.08, 31.3.11.

UNIONS: Self-employed people who have conscientious objections to unionism cannot be granted certificates exempting them from union membership, the Federal Court ruled yesterday.” – THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 3.11.78. - Why should any court have any powers to impose such “judgments” upon us? - JZ 4.6.82. - Federal Courts should have no jurisdiction over involuntary victims of it. - JZ, 31.3.11.

UNIONS: Should any worker by compelled, high-jacked, conned or conscripted into any union and then forced to stay in it? - JZ, 1.3.84. – Q.

UNIONS: The “organized antagonism” (A term coined by Hycinthe Dubreuil in his book “A Chance for Everybody”) of the hierarchical employer-employee relationship, cannot be made quite harmless and right by union, legal, police and court interventions any more than the organized antagonism can be, which is established by territorial sovereignty. – JZ, 11.6.93. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISTIC & COERCIVE COLLECTIVISM, INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS & STRUGGLES, STRIKES, DISSATISFACTIONS OF EMPLOYERS & OF EMPLOYEES

UNIONS: The attachment, both emotional and psychological, to trades unions continues amongst men of the left, to an organized group which increasingly bullies and cajoles its members rather than really representing them.” - Stephen Haseler, QUADRANT 7/77. – Like politicians and bureaucrats they are coercers and also managed to legalize their coercion. – JZ, 13.10.08. - STATISM, COERCION, PRIVILEGES, LEGALIZED CRIMES, TERRITORIALISM, POWER GAMES, REPRESENTATION

UNIONS: There is a right to give notice – but no right to strike. And both sides have the right to give notice – any time and for any reasons or motives. – JZ, 2.3.84, 9.8.08, 5.2.12. - VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, UNFAIR DISMISSAL LAWS? DISCRIMINATION?

UNIONS: There is no point in swapping the tyranny of unions for the tyranny of the government.” - Bob Howard, "free enterprise", 9/74. - And there is no point in swapping the tyranny of government for the tyranny of unions! - JZ, 1975. – TYRANNY, FREE ENTERPRISE

UNIONS: Unionists should no more be entitled to prescribe work contracts for others than they are entitled to prescribe religious beliefs, marriages, entertainments or diets for others. - JZ 29.2.84.

UNIONS: Why haven't the unionists learned as yet that no country can be "run", neither by a divine king, nor by a dictator, nor by a democratically elected prime minister, nor by a group of union functionaries? - How could a handful of people possibly run the affairs of all others successfully? Anyone, who presumes that he could, must be severely misinformed or mentally defective! Any “country” or population of a territory can only be mis-run, misled or mismanaged in this way. - JZ, 1.3.84, 20.8.12. - TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSION

UNIONS: Why should the unions or, for that matter, the government, run Australia? Why shouldn't every Australian be free to run his own life and do what he likes with whatever he owns, and together with whoever agrees with him? - JZ, 75. - VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE ENTERPRISE, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, FREEDOM OF EXCHANGE, TERRITORIALISM, FREE CHOICE AMONG JOBS, Q.

UNIONS: Workers of the world, secede from you unions and all other coercive bodies. You have only their chains to lose. - JZ, 1.3.84. – Well, the chains of monetary and financial despotism and that of territorial statism as well. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNIQUENESS: HERDED OR HEADED ONE’S OWN WAY? Let each pursue his creative uniqueness, rather than force him into a common mould.” – Leonard E. Read, Comes the Dawn, in summing up chapter XI.

UNIQUENESS: recognition that no one else is like oneself gives at once a unique value to the individual and at the same time demands that every individual recognize the uniqueness of others.” – Quoted by Leonard E. Read in NOTES FROM FEE, 11/76. – “… He at least acknowledges that “no one else is like oneself”, and asks “that every individual recognize the uniqueness of others.” - Leonard E. Read in NOTES FROM FEE, 11/76. – Each person is unique. - Leonard E. Read in Let Freedom Reign, p.36. - Everyone else is equally unique in some way at least. I look for those who are uniquely unique in their commitment to freedom, peace and justice. – Then they would become tolerant, even towards those, who wish to act quite differently, at their own expense and risk, together with other volunteers and under full exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 21.11.82, 9.8.08, 31.3.11. - INDIVIDUALISM

UNIQUENESS: When we discover that each individual is unique – not remotely like any other – each person being the best judge of the field in which his growth is most promising, we will all do our best to see that freedom of choice is maximized – liberty for one and all!” – Leonard E. Read, How Do We Know? p.112. – Alas, all too many people still share all too many and all too popular errors, myths, prejudices, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions, which are nowhere systematically collected, published and confronted with their best refutations. – JZ, 20.8.12. - CHOICE, FREEDOM OF CHOICE, MAN, INDIVIDUALISM, MAN, INEQUALITY OF MAN VS. EQUALITY NOTIONS & EGALITARIANISM, THAT ARE NOT CONFINED TO EQUAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, DIS.

UNITED NATIONS: Art. 20 (2) of the UN human rights declaration of 10.12.1948 is obviously relevant: "No one may be compelled to belong to an association." - Although this implies voluntary associationism, the UN has, to my knowledge, never clearly declared itself in favour of territorial or exterritorial individual and minority group secessionism and for full exterritorial autonomy for all communities of volunteers. But then - what else can one expect from the representatives of territorial governments, sometimes even of dictatorships, who are assembled there? - Obviously, the term "Disunited Territorial Governments" would be a more accurate term to describe the U.N. - JZ, 1.10.11, 20.8.12.

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA: Exterritorial cases, Florida, W. W. Gaunt, 1920, 2 vols.

UNITED STATES: Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-69. (In Millar's bibl.)

UNITED STATES: Foreign Relations, 1870-1914. (In Millar's bibl.)

UNITY: a state of general discord and mutual bullshitting.” – L. A. Rollins, Lucifer’s Lexicon, quoted in REASON, 1/81. – Just consider the fighting for power between the different political parties and the faction fighting within each party. Most people are so disgusted with them that they do not join any of them. – Unity is usually the same kind of fiction that illustrates political States by a single color on maps of political States. – Warfare has led to extremes and atrocities by taking such illustrations and notions serious and also the mere names given to supposedly united countries and their whole populations, just because they have become subjugated to and taxed by a single all-over government. – The map is not the territory. The territory is not the people. And the population does not constitute one people. – It is made up of unique individuals, split into thousands of different voluntary groups and relationships. Any seeming “unity” between them is either enforced or merely pretended or assumed. – Language unity? While there are official languages, there are also often numerous other languages and dialects in use. - JZ, 26.10.08. - TERRITORIALISM, PEOPLES, NATIONS, STATISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

UNITY: An enforced territorial unity amounts to the greatest treason against individual human rights and liberties. – JZ, 8.6.91, 12.8.08. – TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS AS USUAL, TREASON, HUMAN RIGHTS


UNITY: As if it were not bad enough to have one whole territorial State involved in a depression, inflation or stagflation, a civil war or a war with another territorial State, a unified bureaucracy, majority or other territorial despotism, a nation-wide corruption and high tax burden, loss-making national “enterprises” etc. No, it has to be all of them, which have “federated”. As if wrongs and mistakes had to be spread as widely as possible, without a way out for the victims, except, if they are lucky, through emigration. Usually only into a somewhat less mismanaged territory. – JZ, 20.1.90, 12.8.08. – Even the free emigration option is often closed for most through wrongful immigration barriers. – J.Z., 20.8.12. - FEDERALISM, WORLD FEDERATION, WORLD STATE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, EMIGRATION

UNITY: Bakunin insisted that real unity can only derive ‘from the freest development of all individuals and groups, and from a federal and absolutely voluntary alliances … of the workers’ associations in the communes and, beyond the communes, in the regions, beyond the regions, the nations.” The communes would remain absolutely autonomous.” – Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.628. – Did Bakunin, somewhere, demand full exterritorial autonomy – and this not only for workers associations and their communes, or was he still all too full of territorialist notions and of the supposedly ideal forms of communes that he had in mind? Was he authoritarian and territorialist enough to have become another Lenin or Stalin? I think it possible, if he had lived as long or had lived later, unless he would have rejected territorial and “regional” rule as well. – JZ, 12.8.08, 20.8.12. – VOLUNTARISM, AGREEMENT, CONSENT, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, FEDERALISM

UNITY: Besides, unified we would make a good nuclear target.” – Tom Ligon, The Devil and the Deep Black Void, in ANALOG, Jan. 86, p.135. - Unified territories make good nuclear targets for the masses of stockpiled nuclear “weapons” and the application of the immorality, ignorance, errors and prejudices of those relatively few people who have their fingers on nuclear war buttons. And their computers are almost as likely to play up as mine. But a flaw in my system or my mistakes in handling it, cannot lead to a nuclear war. – JZ, 12.8.08. - NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

UNITY: Dictators usually claim to have united the country over which they rule. In reality they introduce a fresh and deadly cause of division – the different treatment of first-class and second-class citizens. – G. P. Gooch, Dictatorship in Theory and Practice, p.37. - The same could be said about the “democratic” but still territorial party leaders ruling at any particular time in a country. – JZ, 10.8.08. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARISM, PARTIES, DEMOCRACY

UNITY: Divided we stand, united we fall! – The new slogan of the “nuclear age”. – JZ, 1.9.73. – Compare: “United we fall, divided we stand.” - Randall Garrett, Fighting Division, date of writing not noted by me, p.139 in International Relations through SF, ed. by Martin Harry Greenberg and Joseph D. Olander. - Date? – Either I had kept that remark in mind or the same simple idea occurred to both of us. – J.Z. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR DETERRENT, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

UNITY: Don’t unite coercively. Let them go apart. Let them go their own way. Let them have their schism, their faction, their separatism or their voluntary integration. “Let my people go!” - Let all peoples go their own way! - JZ, 8.9.75, 10.8.08. TOLERANCE, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

UNITY: Freedom for all rather than enforced unity. - JZ, 9.3.01. – Naturally, this means criminals with victims and other aggressors are excepted, since they do not respect the equal freedom and rights of others. – JZ, 20.8.12.  COERCION, COMPULSION, FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

UNITY: Government by force disunites people. - Aami Wisdore, "Free World", p.23.

UNITY: Have all the unity you want – but only on a voluntary and personal law basis! – JZ, 2/75. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, ASSOCIATIONISM, POLYARCHISM

UNITY: helped to waste five or ten thousand … million dollars and a million lives, more or less, to enforce unity … and uniformity on people who objected to it; …” - Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, 1907. - CIVIL WAR, SECESSION

UNITY: I also want unity together with all those who want unity, wherever they live on this earth. But I also want diversity – as much as it is desired by individuals. The fundamental uniting principle should be voluntarism – so that voluntary forms of unity would serve the individuals and not hinder them in their otherwise diverse activities and aspirations. – JZ, 19.10.81. – DIVERSITY, VOLUNTARISM

UNITY: I would rather like to see e.g. 100 different German societies, all of volunteers only, all as free or as un-free as they want to be, than a single and territorially, coercively and monopolistically “unified” one, which would thus be merely a more or less despotic and territorial German State. – It might lead us into WW3. - JZ, 5.10.92, 12.8.08, 31.3.11, 20.8.12.

UNITY: I’m all for the unity of friends, family members, collaborators, private contractors, Free Traders as well as Protectionists, all doing their own things among themselves, but do opposed the territorial unity of politicians and bureaucrats, doing their things at my and our expense in money, rights and liberties. – JZ, 29.12.90, 14.8.08, 20.8.12.

UNITY: If I joined you I would not grow stronger, but weaker. Alone, men can become geniuses or saints. Joined together they are only mobs and armies.” – Faraday Nelson, A Song on the Rising Wind, FANTASTIC, Nov. 74. – Here he underestimated the creative power and influence of voluntary associationism, although in our daily lives we are surrounded by numerous examples of it: Almost the goods and services we enjoy are its output. As Leonard E. Read often pointed out: No one can make a pencil. No one can make a can of beans. Both products depend upon the peaceful collaboration of thousands to millions. – No one can produce a science, or art or literature or music or technology. At most he can produce only a very small fraction of them. – But all of these activities of many people, for their greatest creativity and productivity, require also a maximum of individual liberty and voluntarism. – JZ, 10.8.08, 20.8.12. – INDIVIDUALISM, COMPETITION, COOPERATION, COMPETITION, INDEPENDENCE, FREEDOM, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, STRENGTH, ORGANIZATION, DIVISION OF LABOR, SPECIALIZATION, COLLABORATION, FREE EXCHANGE, VOLUNTARISM

UNITY: In short, a states' rights movement should take the form of the secession from Washington, not from the Union. ... It would be revolutionary in character but legal in form, because the autonomy of the state governments is inherent in the Constitution. Besides, there is no way for the federal government to indict the state governments, and revolution is always legal when it is successful." - Frank Chodorov (1950) - United we fall. -; - - FREE MARKET NET NEWS 20.12.02. – Geographical or State secessionism is not enough. It must come down to – or up to individual secessionism and secessionism for groups of volunteers – under personal laws or exterritorial autonomy. – JZ, 11.1.08, 20.8.12. - FEDERATIONS, IMPOSED VS. SECESSIONISM FOR INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS STATES & MINORITY GROUPS, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

UNITY: it being also certainly good and justifiable to divide for good, rather than to unite for evil.” – The English Soldier’s Standard, 1649, quoted in A. L. Morton: Freedom in Arms, p.240. – DIVISION, DECENTRALIZATION, SPLITTING UP, FRACTIONIZING, SCHISMS, SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT, SECESSIONISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, FREEDOM OF ACTION, TERRITORIALISM, DOMINATION, COMPULSION, CRIME, AGGRESSION, PLUNDER

UNITY: Love, friendship, respect do not unite people as much as common hatred for something.“ - Anton Chekhov – Have we bothered so far, to combine the best ideals in an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties? Or tried to unite in tolerance for all tolerant actions, like panarchism recommends? Territorialism and tyranny or majority despotism do, indeed, lead to much hatred and violence. – JZ, 8.8.08. - HATE, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM

UNITY: National “unity” is really a cover-up for disunity. Only consistent voluntarism and full exterritorial autonomy can represent genuine forms of unity and a genuine mandate for any administration, self-government, self-determination and self-responsible form of organization and achieve real self-reliance, independence and self-development. – JZ, 25.8.98, 12.8.08. – Already their taxation, conscription and money issue monopoly do indicate that a genuine unity is absent in territorial States. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNITY: No enforced unity is any rightful alternative to any form of voluntary separatism. No enforced separatism is any rightful alternative to any voluntary and individually chosen and practised form of unity. – JZ, 23.2.00. – EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION

UNITY: Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name of national. – Caroline Chisholm, 1808-1877, an Australian pioneer woman, 1850, in: “The ABC of colonization in a series of letters”, No.1.” – There are many references to her online – which I have not had the time and energy to peruse. – JZ, 28.4.09. Alas, I have never seen any writings by her in which she made this or similar statements. All I have got, relatively recently, is a small booklet of 30 pages: Wendy Sutherland, Caroline Chisholm, Oxford University Press, 1967. She provides there 4 references for further reading. – JZ, 20.8.12

UNITY: Now no one can pretend that this sacred union has really survived the War. The extraordinary contrast between the disunity with which we finish the war and the unity with which we begin it, is a disturbing thought when we recollect that the country cannot always be at war, if only because peace is necessary as a preparation for war, for the creation of things for war to destroy. It becomes still more disturbing when we add to this post-war change another even more remarkable, which will be dealt with presently: the objects for which at the beginning of a war we are ready to die – ideals like democracy, freedom from military regimentation and the suppression of military terrorism, the rights of small nations – are things about which at the end of the War we are utterly indifferent. It would seem either that these are not the things that really stirred us – that our feelings had some other unsuspected origin – or that war has destroyed our feeling for them.” - Norman Angell, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, 1925, p.57. - There existed really no comprehensive unity at the beginning of wars nor quite rightful war and peace aims only. Nowhere do most subjects get any say on such matter at all under territorial regimes. No wonder then, that there are still multiple strong disagreements - even after a war is won, among the victors as well as among the defeated peoples. If one side adopted panarchism and practised it in time and made it its only war and peace aim, if attacked, then wars caused by an aggressor against that side could be greatly shortened and much less bloody or an aggression might then even be altogether avoided and replaced by a popular revolution on the other side or a military uprising or a peaceful collapse of a territorial enemy regime. Under panarchism even military or popular uprisings would be much less bloody, if bloody at all. – For they do make even quiet and peaceful one person “revolutions” possible and a daily occurrence, hardly noticed by most people in a country. Under panarchism no borders and “united” people are to be defended but merely individual rights and liberties and the diverse uses that different people have made of these rights – for themselves and like-minded people. It would set an example that would be much more and faster “catching” than the English representative democracy was or the Swiss direct democracy, both still tied to territorialism and majority rule. – Liberating other people panarchistically, in accordance with their own preferences, rather than fighting them, would be the main aim. How difficult, wrongful and self-defeating all attempts are to impose a uniform and supposedly ideal democracy territorially upon a faction-ridden country and population - we can see presently in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighting against territorial despotism in any country should occur only together with them, with all the factions, races, religions and ideologies of volunteers against their territorial oppressors and exploiters. Panarchists would have everywhere secret or even open and active allies, mostly in form of diverse governments and societies in exile, all only for their present and future volunteers. They would thus minimize the number of their enemies. – Not merely: “Make love, rather than war!” Instead, rather: All kinds of panarchies for all kinds of communities, societies and governance systems of volunteers only, rather than war or civil war, revolutions or terrorism for territorial domination! Offer all the groupings on the other side genuine self-rule, in full accordance with their own ideals, however diverse, under full exterritorial autonomy, with membership individually chosen. This should be offered not only to your friends or sympathizers on the other side but even to your opponents and enemies, unless they are incurable territorialists, totalitarians and authoritarians, quite intolerant towards all dissenters. – For Afghanistan, a tolerant Taliban government in exile should be fully recognized for all its present voluntary followers in the USA and elsewhere and for its future voluntary followers in Afghanistan! – Not “divide and rule!” but, rather, let them divide themselves, one by one and realize among like-minded followers as many or as few liberties as they want for themselves! - JZ, 8.10.08, 31.3.11, 20.8.12. - PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIAL POWERS, QUITE RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS TOWARDS SECRET ALLIES & EVEN ENEMIES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL, WAR, PEACE, AFGHANISTAN, TALIBAN, TOLERANCE VS. INTOLERANCE, WAR

UNITY: One territorial government for all people in a country means many wrongs and evils for all of its population, the voluntary as well as the involuntary victims of such a government. – JZ, 28.12.92, 31.3.11. – This is true for the victimizers as well. Any leash has two ends. No tyrants are quite safe from tyrannicide, revolutions and military insurrections. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNITY: Reunite Gondwana.” - a bumper sticker mentioned by Carl Sagan, in NEWSWEEK, 5.9.77, using the name for the primordial land mass that is believed to have existed and then split up to form the earth’s present continents. – It could be used to ridicule all territorial nationalists. – JZ, 10.8.08, 20.812.

UNITY: Savagery is unity. Civilization is diversity. – D. Z., 12/77 – (Well, he wrote “diversion” instead, probably by mistake, for he was only 14 then. At about that stage he realized that he had diversified into over 20 different hobbies, realized that he could not carry on with all of them and about halved them. – JZ, 10.8.08.)

UNITY: Seeing how close and how manipulated election outcomes often are (usually, in Australia) one of my kids asked me, many years ago: “Why should the 49% rule the 51% or the 51% rule the 49%, rather than the 49% rule the 49%, while the 51% rule the 51%?” – JZ, 15.3.93. – Out of the mouths of children comes, sometimes, much sense. – JZ, 12.8.08. The same idea had occurred already to many people before him. I have not yet got around to pull all these statements together and order them by their date – and may never get around to it. Those mentioned in this compilation could be relatively easily found via the search command for e.g. 51% or 49%. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNITY: Some ask why mankind in general do not compose one nation, and are not contented to speak one language, to live under the same laws and agree among themselves to have the same customs and the same worship; whilst I, seeing how contrary are their minds, their tastes and their sentiments, wonder to see even seven or eight persons living within the same walls under the same roof and making a single family.” – Jean de La Bruyére, quoted in The Free Man’s Almanac, for Sept. 30. - DIVERSITY, WORLD STATE, WORLD FEDERATION, UN, NATIONALISM, FAMILIES

UNITY: Territorial collectivists are pulling in a thousand directions at once, each hindering the other - while crying “unity!” – because territorially they are all, willy-nilly tied together. Individualists, instead, advance unrestrained, in small groups of volunteers, towards any of a thousand directions, which these volunteers prefer for themselves. – Just look at the thousands of territorialist utopias the statists have produced between them. – All were imposed upon dissenters. - JZ, 11/78, 10.8.08. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

UNITY: The peoples who are territorially united are thereby always defeated right away, at least in all their best efforts, indicated by the creative ambitions and activities of their best individual but compulsory members, which are thereby put into territorial, constitutional, legal, juridical, bureaucratic and institutionalized straightjackets. The peoples are only free when their best and all dissenting members are freed to act exterritorially autonomous. For peoples are never uniform bodies. No two people are the same. They should not be uniformed by territorial politics but at most by the exterritorial politics of their own individual choices. - JZ, 16.1.90, 14.1.93. - It is party politics as usual that is not uniting but fragmentising and preparing the ground for permanent struggles, even for civil wars and revolutions and, indirectly, also for international wars. The unification of Germany led to two world wars. It may still lead to a third one, for the fundamental causes of wars remain under territorialism. - JZ, 11.12.03.

UNITY: The possibility of diversity is much more important than unity, for it means freedom, while unity is mostly merely a false pretence and requires compulsion to achieve and maintain it. The freedom required for diversity is that of individuals – to supply or choose for themselves different societal arrangements and relationships. The West-Germans becoming united with the East Germans under one government meant a greater territorial unity for Germans and a great improvement for most East Germans but not a sufficient or complete improvement of the political, economic and social conditions in East Germany and in West Germany. The irrational form of currency unification that took place, ignoring the market’s exchange rates, brought a burden to the West, and undeserved hand-out to the East, and also much voluntary and involuntary unemployment in the East. The East Germans, even when receiving mere unemployment benefits in DM were better off than they were before, while working in East Germany for East German Marks (Ostmark) and were unwilling to spend these DM for the relatively shoddy goods they had produced and were still producing in East Germany. Instead, they bought largely only the West German goods and thus made themselves unemployable in the East. This case should be closely studied and published as almost a textbook example of how not to engage in a currency reform. Moreover, the introduction of or continuance merely of majoritarian democracy for both sides was very far from introducing all individual liberties and rights. It merely brought equal democratic territorial laws to both sides merely at the level of West Germany, which was higher than that of East Germany under communist rule but still far from the recognition and realization of all individual rights and liberties. Territorial political unity does not represent full freedom and justice, as the Hitler Regime very well demonstrated and the Soviet Regime as well. – JZ, 25.9.90, 12.8.08, 31.3.11, 20.8.12.

UNITY: The union is only perfect when all the uniters are isolated.” – Emerson. – … when all the uniters have the option to separate or isolate themselves from all the other uniters or to unite with others. – JZ, 29.4.91, 6.1.93. - Just like the possibility of religious schisms unites but also peacefully separates all religions on the basis of religious liberty and tolerance, even for non-believers. – JZ, 12.8.08. – PANARCHISM, DIS.

UNITY: There is nothing so divisive as the State’s efforts to bring us together.” – DIAGONAL RELATIONSHIP 8, p.7. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, TOGETHERNESS, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, ONE LAW FOR ALL. – Togetherness antagonizes – unless it is voluntary. – JZ, 30.6.80. – Compare: “Fish and visitors stink after 5 days!” – Or even earlier, in many cases! – A voluntary association must be daily renewable – or daily dissolvable. - JZ, 10.8.08, 20.8.12.

UNITY: Those favoring unity are always ready to wage war against secessionists. – I would agree with them if they only opposed territorial secessions and would not try to preserve territorial “integrity” by force of arms. – JZ, 9/72. – I do oppose territorial secessionists, who try to enforce their own territorial rule by force of arms against a larger territorial regime and against their own dissenting minorities. – JZ, 12.8.08. – SECESSIONISM, TERRITORIAL

UNITY: True, it is said that in union there is strength, but what does this prove? It applies to evil-doing as well as good.” – Laurance Labadie, Selected Essays, p.63. - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

UNITY: Ulrich von Beckerath, for his friends, made some typewritten copies of some verses by Georg Herwegh, a largely forgotten German poet, which I will try to roughly translate here and then bring the German version: (1) Three Verses from “The Worst Enemy”, February 1871: “One anvil under one hammer, // United will Great-Germany stand, // The delirium of joy will be followed by a great hang-over, // so that your eyes will overflow. - - - We will have the whip and the cudgel // Renew the Holy Alliance: // Europe will “enjoy” // The insolence of victorious junkers. - - - Like children you let yourselves be deceived, // Until too late – alas – you will realize! - // The guard along the Rhine will not be sufficient, // The worst Enemy stands at the Spree.” … (A river going through Berlin. – JZ) - - - (2) Two Verses from: To those drunk with victory, February 1871: “You imagine yourself united, because the pestilence // Of servitude has been generalized, // While every day the small remnant // Of living souls becomes diminished; // You imagine yourself to be unified because one Man, //can now decide on war and peace // And lead you to the slaughter-bench // With the command: Shut up! - - - Uniformity of laws is not a shield // That protects us from oppression; Only where the Right counts as Justice // will it be a blessing and make us happy // For that alone was what we strove for, // the kind of unity which // Is baptized under the name of Freedom, // While yours originated with the devil! Amen!“ – HERE IS THE GERMAN VERSION: (1) Drei Verse aus “Der Schlimmste Feind”, Februar 1871: „EIN Amboss unter EINEM Hammer, // Geeinigt wird All-Deutschland stehn, // Dem Rausche folgt ein Katzenjammer, // Dass euch die Augen uebergehn. - - - Es wird die Fuchtel mit der Knute // Die heil’ge Allianz erneun: // Europa kann am Uebermute // Siegreicher Junker sich erfreun. - - - Gleich Kindern lasst ihr euch betruegen, // Bis ihr zu spaet erkennt, oh weh! - // Die Wacht am Rhein wird nicht genuegen, // Der schlimmste Feind steht an der Spree.“ - - - (2) Zwei Verse aus „Den Siegestrunkenen“, Februar 1871: „Ihr waehnt euch einige, weil die Pest // Der Knechtschaft sich verallgemeinert, // Weil taeglich noch der kleine Rest // Lebend’ger Seelen sich verkleinert; // Ihr waehnt euch einig, weil ein Mann, // Darf ueber Krieg und Frieden schalten // Und euch zur Schlachtbank fuehren kann // Mit der Parol’: Das Maul gehalten! - - - Einheit des Rechtes ist kein Schild, // Der uns bewahrt vor Unterdrueckung; // Nur wo als Recht das Rechte gilt, // Wird sie zum Segen, zur Beglueckung. // Nur diese war’s, die wir erstrebt, // Die Einheit, die man auf den Namen // Der Freiheit aus der Taufe hebt; // Doch eure stammt vom Teufel: Amen!“ – Do keep in mind the two world wars, which resulted, largely, from this compulsory unification. – JZ, 5.2.12.

UNITY: United we fall, divided we stand." - Randall Garrett, Fighting Division, p. 139 in International Relations through SF, ed. by Marin Harry Greenberg & Joseph D. Olander, 1978.

UNITY: united, though with chains.” – Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, p.51.

UNITY: Unity = perpetuation of the status quo = the compact herd. - One of the main fears of the social scientists is the break up of national unity. Balkanization is a relatively recent word invented by historians with the aim of scaring people about an uncertain and hostile future, in which the political geography of the world is characterized by the existence of many small units. For the most ambitious of the social scientists this might represent the end of grand designs, grand plans and especially grand opportunities for employment and earning. - Unity is favoured by the social scientists also because it might require their (paid) assistance in the integration (read: manipulation) of minorities into the common stream of conventional (national) thinking and behaving. - The dogma of Unity, for which all the minorities have paid a very dear price, leads to the second dogma. - Gian Piero de Bellis, Straightjackets and Superstitions of the Statist Age. - TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, STATISM

UNITY: Unity and diversity through freedom and justice, and free competition, e.g. free trade, free migration, free enterprise, not through a centralized common government, whether situated in Bonn or in Berlin. – JZ, 22.9.90. – The authoritarian and even totalitarian traits on both sides, in East Germany and in West Germany, both territorial, and all too monopolistic, e.g. regarding central banking and other economic interventionism, should have been done away with. – JZ, 22.9.90, on Germany’s “unification”. Economic freedom and all other liberties and human rights are much more important than territorial political unification under one government. That the usual democratic party politics was extended to East Germany. While this was an improvement upon a one-party State and totalitarian despotism, it was not a complete and thus sufficient liberation. – JZ, 12.8.08. – Those who still wanted any form of statist Kindergarten, at their own expense and risk, should have been allowed to organize it among themselves. No group should have been forced to subscribe to and practise all liberties among its voluntary members, but all should have been free to do so, once they are ready for them. – JZ, 20.8.12.

UNITY: Unity has no value by itself. It can merely be based upon errors, prejudices or coercion. Every error, each prejudice, all use of coercion against dissenters can also be realized or imposed despotically by a majority or a minority upon a whole population. What is important is not more unity but more freedom and rights, ultimately all of them for all and, in the meantime, as many or as few liberties and rights as free people choose for themselves, even while they still do renounce some liberties, e.g. like monks and nuns renounce sexual liberties or even conventional sexual arrangements do, like marriages and family life. At least all adults and all responsible teenagers should be free to make use of all the individual rights and liberties they have learnt to know and to appreciate at their own expense and risk. “To each the State of his dreams!” as Kurt H. Zube (K. H. Z. Solneman) formulated it in a chapter of his Manifesto for Freedom and Peace. - I changed this into: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams. Gian Piero de Bellis replaced the last word by “choice”. For mere dreams can be all “too far-out”. - Each thought of “one people”, “one federation”, “one government”, in the usual exclusive and enforced territorial way, even when sanctioned by a constitution, laws and jurisdiction for a whole territory and all of its population, is still all too much related to the totalitarian Nazi notion of “one people, one empire, one leader!” - - What we really should insist upon is the realization of all genuine human rights and liberties, to the extent that we have understood and learnt to appreciate them and want to realize them for ourselves and like-minded volunteers, in exterritorially autonomous and decentralized communities of volunteers only, under personal laws, whose members, like members of churches or sects, do not possess any monopoly, except their private or common (contracted) property rights, their self-ownership, all their individual rights and liberties. Among themselves they should be free to apply their personal laws and their international treaties and self-chosen international law systems. For this there are many historical precedents, however limited and localized and largely forgotten or ignored today, even though some remnants of the old traditions have remained, like personal law in civil relationships and the exemptions of diplomats and of occupation armies from local territorial laws. Territorialism with its national or religious intolerance has largely suppressed these ancient rights and liberties and did not allow them to become fully developed. It has even made them, largely, forgotten, even among the modern decentralists, anarchists and libertarians. But this ancient personal law tradition, once it is fully understood, developed and applied, offers the only realistic and lasting solution to the problems posed by political despotism, economic and social interventionism, religious intolerance, fundamentalism and fanaticism, to civil wars, violent revolutions and international war threats, a sound foundation for peace based on rights and liberties, for unlimited progress, prosperity and enlightenment. Parasitism, repression and subjection would thereby be confined to voluntary victims, i.e. to minorities, with the tendency to gradually disappear, like most child sacrifices did and the burning of widows and open slavery and serfdom. There are many steps which would lead us in this direction. I listed and somewhat described them in my two peace books: & - but they do certainly not yet offer a complete program, fully developed in all details and defended against all possible and likely objections and quite correct and above criticism in every respect. - - Probably only in this way can the nuclear war threat be abolished. Among the important steps towards that ideal are (1) the replacement of territorial membership by voluntary membership – through individual and group secessionism. (2) The replacement of territorial States by exterritorially autonomous communities, societies and competing governments of volunteers only. (3) Complete experimental freedom for all such associations in the political, economic and social spheres. (4) Thereby also and largely the replacement of compulsory taxation by voluntary taxation, subscription and financing systems. (5) The replacement of conscripted or mercenary standing armies by voluntary citizen forces for the protection of individual rights and liberties. (6) The compilation, discussion and publication of an ideal declaration of all individual rights and liberties. (7) Decision on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties by the diverse people themselves, instead of merely by a few rulers. (8) Nuclear disarmament, even unilateral, by the people themselves, since they are the main targets on all sides. (9) The replacement of monetary despotism by full monetary freedom, including free choice of value standards and free clearing. (10) A cosmopolitan “unity” through freedom, rights, voluntarism and diversity, which could very well mean a peaceful coexistence and competition between several world-wide communities, all of volunteers only, like it exists, to some extent, already for some of the world religions. Free Trade would be confined to Free Traders, Protectionism to its volunteers. (Whereby the latter would tend to die out fast, when full economic freedom is optional.) Emigration and immigration barriers would disappear with national territorial monopolies. Globalization would be an option as well as the retention of old traditions, however prejudiced and primitive, all confined to volunteers only. – If you think that you can describe the “exterritorial imperative” more concisely and clearly, please, do give it a try and send me your draft. – My own knowledge, wisdom and writing skills are all too limited. - JZ, 12.8.08. - – Territorial monopoly claims have only some survival value for the subsistence economy of hunters, food gatherers, nomadic herders and primitive agriculturalists - for whom not obesity but recurring starvation periods were a common experience. In the USA there lived once ca. 300 000 Red Indians, always all too close to starvation. Now there are ca. 300 million people living there at a much increased standard of living, without famines. Their standard of living would even be much higher still if their governments had not meddled so much with the economy. – And the USA agriculturalists produce food not only for all the USA population but also for much of the rest of the world, although they are probably down to ca. 2 to 3 % of the population. - A rough translation of some old and undated German notes, probably from 1991: - JZ, 26.10.08.

UNITY: Unity is no substitute for freedom. - JZ, 9.3.01. Nation-wide fetters, all uniform, are not substitute for individual rights and liberties. Who benefits from them? - JZ, 2.2.02. - UNIFORMITY, ONE LAW FOR ALL, COMPULSION, COERCION, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, TERRITORIALISM

UNITY: Unity is not everything. Freedom is.” – Source?

UNITY: Unity is not worthwhile fighting for – unless it is voluntary – but diversity is, because it implies voluntarism and individualism, - JZ, 19.2.73. - No one has the right to suppress or destroy or prevent those voluntary associations of others, which merely do their own things for or to themselves, at their own expense and risk, in any sphere selected by themselves, even when “public opinion” and the supposed “experts” are all against them. – We ought to grant experimental freedom in the economic, social and political spheres just as much as we have already realized it in the religious, scientific and technical spheres, and in the arts, for private hobbies, crafts, sports and entertainment. Do you know any sphere where it does not or could not work, under this condition? – Well, like most moral and rational people I do oppose e.g. further experiments with nuclear power production and with nuclear “weapons”, regardless of their possible and likely consequences in the long run. – JZ, 10.8.08. - DIVERSITY

UNITY: Unity is now self-destructive. We can’t face the future “united”. If we try, there will not be a future for us. - - JZ, 26.1.79. – Territorially pretended or assumed “unity” is a pre-condition for the “modern” and “scientific” mass murder devices, quite wrongly called “weapons”. Without territories – there are no targets for them. No motives, or finance either, or keeping them “safe” from the targeted peoples. – JZ, 10.8.08. – Who will sit in the safest shelters when it comes to the crunch? The people, who have no say on the subject or the guilty governments, who prepared and finally carried out the general nuclear holocaust! – JZ, 26.10.08. - NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, MASS MURDER DEVICES, MASS DESTRUCTION DEVICES

UNITY: War is, of course, the time-honoured national unifier.” – Edmund A. Opitz, in the Ideas on Liberty section of an issue of THE FREEMAN. – Date? –– Are all issues of THE FREEMAN already digitized? (YES! By now! - JZ, 31.3.11.) Then further good extracts from it and dating this one should be relatively easy. –– To the extent that any texts are already online one should be able to find the source of any quotation simply by putting part of a quote into quotation marks and then searching for it online. – But I haven’t got the time and energy left to thus make up for my omissions. However, whoever is really interested in a particular quote … - JZ, 14.8.08. - WAR

UNITY: We do not have too little but too much unity. Our times are ripe not for further unification but for separation.” – Leopold Kohr, Weniger Staat, S.142. – Did he anywhere speak up or write for exterritorial autonomy? I did not notice any hint of such thoughts in any of the three books of his in my possession. – He seems concerned only with territorial decentralization. - JZ, 13.8.08. - UNIFICATION, TERRITORIALISM, DECENTRALIZATION.

UNITY: We need secessionists, dissenters, non-conformists, resistance members, rebels, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, separatists, rather than unity addicts, yes-men, conformists, obedient subjects, taxpayers and soldiers. – To each his own system, not one that is territorially imposed. - JZ, 8.1.98, 12.8.08.

UNITY: When people in voluntary organizations speak of unity they refer often already to degrees of an exterritorial autonomy of some, their own voluntary members, under their own personal rules. – Unfortunately, they neglect to ponder the expansion of this principle and practice to all of the present territorial politics and organizations, which they take all too quietly, without any protest, for granted and justified, natural or necessary or useful rather than quite wrongful and harmful. – JZ, 3/77, 12.8.08.

UNITY: You don’t need it for trade, culture, civilization, technology, science, art,1 for progress in every sphere. But you do need it for aggressive wars, oppression, also for large-scale exploitation and deception. – JZ, 9.11.93., 12.8.08.

UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE: We suffer under national universal suffrage. Let individuals opt out from under it - to form their own political voting or non-voting schemes among themselves, at their own expense and risk, anywhere (except on the private property of others) and limited to exterritorial autonomy. - JZ 10.12.92. - Individual secessionism constitutes the most important vote. Without it we are largely disfranchised. - JZ, 8.12.03. -FRANCHISE, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, SECESSIONISM

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: And the adjective “good” could be used only if one could apply the principle of universality to his maxims. If that line comes through easy to you, I am disappointed in me. I did not know what it meant. But I have learned that if I lean up against a door long enough it will cave in, and I leaned up against that door long enough to clear it of its obscurity. - Let me give you a sample maxim: I have a moral right to my life, my livelihood, my liberty. Is that good? According to Kant, that is good only if you can concede that same right to every other human being universally. Can I? Yes, I can. Therefore, it is good. – Let me reverse the maxim and watch it come through. I have a moral right to take the life, the livelihood, the liberty of another. Is that good? According to Kant, that is good only if you can rationally concede the right of murder, theft, enslavement to every other person on earth. Can I? I cannot. Therefore it is not good.” – Leonard E. Read, “The Miracle of the Market”, in “Champions of Freedom”, p.53. - The passage that I underlined is also good for my intended collection of “Redensarten” persuasive wordings, which I do, usually, indicate with RED. – JZ, 14.8.08. – Another and very similar version: “Or test what is good and just by applying the principle of universality to one’s maxims. A sample maxim: I have a moral right to my life, livelihood, liberty. Is this just? Yes, if one can concede a similar right to every other individual. I can! Try it in reverse: I have a moral right to take the life, livelihood, liberty of another. Just? Only if I can rationally concede the right of murder, theft, enslavement to everyone else. I cannot concede this right to anyone; thus, it is neither good nor just.” – Leonard Read, Who’s Listening? p.5, referring to Kant, The Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals. – Compare also the practical test that Kant recommends towards the end of his “Eternal Peace”, on maxims that require publicity to succeed and maxims that cannot stand publicity - if they are to be successfully applied. – JZ, 14.8.08. – TOLERANCE, GOLDEN RULE, PANARCHISM, EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL LIBERTIES, ETHICS, MORALITY, HARMONY, GOLDEN RULE, FREEDOM, LIBERTY RIGHTS, TOLERANCE, SPONTANEOUS ORDER, RED, PUBLICITY, PRINCIPLES, MAXIMS

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: Here is an “I owe others” rule that appeals to me: to abstain from that type of conduct which, were it practiced by everyone, would bring everyone to ruin.” – Leonard E. Read, Talking to Myself, p.101. - CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE, MORALITY, ETHICS, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES,

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: Immanuel Kant had a yardstick for measuring moral heights, one that all of us might well adopt: “In every case I must so act that I can at the same time will that the maxim behind my act should become a general law.”(*) – In a word, behave in a manner that would be agreeable to you were everyone else to so behave. Here we have a rational morality. – Leonard E. Read, The Love of Liberty, p.110/11. – Would or “should” or “could” be agreeable? – JZ - (*) Immanuel Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, I, 1785. - CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: No one can be perfectly free till all are free; no one can be perfectly moral till all are moral; no one can be perfectly happy till all are happy.” – Herbert Spencer, Social Statics, 1850, Pt. iv, ch. 30, sec.16. – Nevertheless, the degrees of freedom, morality and happiness that volunteers could already realize among themselves are, firstly, worthwhile and are, secondly, the fastest possible way to almost universally achieve the same. - JZ, 6.7.82. - But a close approximation is possible via his “The Right to Ignore the State”, as he expounded it in the first edition of this work in chapter 19. – Each in his own and self-selected spheres and together with like-minded people, could then be as free, moral and happy as they want to be and can make themselves, largely independent of what outsiders would continue to do to themselves. – JZ, 12.11.82. – PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: R. M. Hare, for example, offers a theory of moral universalization that is often regarded as Kantian in character. According to Hare, the fundamental principle of morality is the principle that whatever rule any agent applies to other persons he must also apply to himself, and conversely. This is, according to Hare, simply the demand that moral judgments must, as a requirement of rationality, be universalisable. - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right, p.65.

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: The Golden Rule. The principle of universality; that is, avoid any action that would bring ruin and chaos if universally practised.” – Leonard E. Read, ABC’s of Freedom. – Also in: NOTES FROM FEE, 1/82. – Also in: The Path of Duty, p.37. – GOLDEN RULE, MUTUAL TOLERANCE

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: We should bear ourselves toward others as we would desire they should bear themselves toward us.” – Aristotle

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE: you should act on no maxim which is incapable of being a universal principle. …” - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right, p.65.

UNIVERSALITY: a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another? – Samyutta Nikaya, v.353. – BUDDHISM

UNIVERSALITY: And as ye would that men do unto you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31, K. J. version of Bible. - CHRISTIANITY

UNIVERSALITY: Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” – The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109-110; original is from 1970 to 1640 B; transl. R. B. Parkinson. - Egyptian

UNIVERSALITY: Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.” – Socrates, 5th c. BCE.

UNIVERSALITY: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” – Analects, 15:23, CONFUCIANISM – Another version from the school of Confucius: Tsze-kung said, ‘What I do not wish men to do to me, I also wish not to do to men. – Chapter 5, KUNK-YEY CH’ANG, point 30, p.27, in The Wisdom of Confucius, translated and interpreted by James Legge, Axiom Publishing, 2002.

UNIVERSALITY: Don’t do things you wouldn’t want to have done to you.” – British Humanist Society - HUMANISM

UNIVERSALITY: May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” – Plato, 4th c. BCE.

UNIVERSALITY: None of you (truly) believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” – Number 13 of Iman ‘Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths. – Typically, not for his sister! – J.Z., 20.8.12. - ISLAM

UNIVERSALITY: One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself and feel how it hurts.”- YORUBA

UNIVERSALITY: One should be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow against himself.” – Thomas Hobbes – content instead of contented? - JZ

UNIVERSALITY: Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss.” – T’ai ShangKanYoing P’ien, - TAOISM.

UNIVERSALITY: The law imprinted on the hears of all men is to love the members of society as themselves.” – Roman Pagan – Are all worthy of that love? Can all be considered as fit members of human society? Were e.g. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao? – JZ, 20.8.12. – Q.

UNIVERSALITY: This is the sum of the duty; do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” – Mhabharata 5:1517. – HINDUISM

UNIVERSALITY: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors.” - Seneca, Epistle 47:11, 1st c. BCE. - That could be nasty, in both cases! – He was finally ordered by his emperor to commit suicide! – But he offered better advice to his friends. - JZ, 31.3.09.

UNIVERSALITY: We should bear ourselves toward others as we would desire they should bear themselves toward us.” – Aristotle

UNIVERSALITY: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law; all the rest is commentary.” – Talmud, Shabbat 31a. - JUDAISM

UNIVERSALITY: What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others. – Epictetus, ca. 100 C.E. – How many other versions and related maxims do exist? Have all of them been sufficiently published together, with all the criticism they do require? – JZ, 20.8.12. – Q.

UNIVERSITIES, EXTERRITORIAL ONES: The universities were long considered to possess extraterritoriality and autonomy. - JZ, n.d. - They lost them under government subsidies. "Whoever pays the piper calls the tune." - If their training produces self-supporting people, then credit should be able to cover the costs of their training. - To the extent that they produce more parasites - they should not be supported via compulsory taxation. - Without government subsidies and under full monetary and financial freedom - they would soon learn to stand on their own feet. - JZ, 23.9.04.

UNKNOWN: Yet the unknown may be better than the known. It often is.” – From film: Duel in the Jungle, Channel 7, 25.10.76. – How many of the genuine medical as well economic, social and political remedies are still known only to a few instead of being generally known and applied? And this in spite of the fact that they could all become described on a few discs! – JZ, 26.10.08. – Perhaps even a single large one! – JZ, 20.8.12. - IDEAS ARCHIVE, REFORMS, INNOVATIONS, INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES, MEDICINES, LIBERTIES, RIGHTS, ANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM, PANARCHISM

UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT: It seems clear that unlimited government is tyranny.” – Leonard E. Read, The Love of Liberty, p.5. – But to the extent that even his supposedly ideal “limited government” is still a territorial one, with involuntary subjects, it is still a tyranny. Kant even went so far to declare that every government, which still has the right to decide on war and peace, is already thereby really a despotism. – JZ, 11.8.08. –  Nevertheless, this dangerous monopoly is rarely questioned and criticized even today. – JZ, 20.8.12. - TYRANNY, DESPOTISM, DECISION ON WAR & PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

UNLIMITED GOVERNMENTS & LIMITED GOVERNMENTS: We are convinced that the term unlimited government is a redundancy. It is enough to say government. In point of fact, all governments are unlimited. They have to be. For them to be otherwise is for them to stop being governments." - August 21, 1961 – Carl Watner: LeFevre, Ch. 19, motto, probably by Robert LeFevre. - This ignores the possibility of voluntary, competitive, autonomous and exterritorial governments, which existed in the past and which have to be established in the near future - if there is to be a future for us. – JZ, 5.8.92. - There are some worthwhile differences between totalitarian governments and e.g. democratic cantonal governments like that of the Swiss. They are sometimes even worth fighting and dying for. However, the best present governments and the worst ones have the essentially totalitarian features of compulsory subjects, hierarchical structures with monopolized decision-making, collectivist and extensive (even for proposed limited governments) sovereignty and exclusive and uniform territorial constitutional, legal, administrative, juridical, policing and penal rule in common. With these characteristics removed, governments might be still powerful, within the possibly large and world-wide circle of their members, like e.g. the Catholic Church is, but they would be relatively harmless for non-members and, through competition with others, even relatively harmless for their own members. Any sound judgment requires sufficient distinctions, which are significant. - JZ 4.1.93.


UNPOPULARITY: My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." Adlai Stevenson. – Those who are unpopular should not only be safe but free enough – to do their own things for or to themselves. – JZ, 26.12.07. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM UNDER EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

UNTAX: Untax everything and everyone! – JZ, 31.12.97. – At least as far as involuntary victims are concerned. If others want to play some sadistic and masochistic games in this way, among themselves only, I would not object. – JZ, 14.8.08.

URQUART, MR: Mr Urquhart cites, in his "Turkey and her Resources", … See under OTTOMAN EMPIRE. - Reference by RCBJ in his review of the book by SHI SHUN LIU.

US AGAINST THEM: This book specifically rejects the short-term, irrational “us-against-them” philosophy. As long as people, in pursuit of freedom and well-being, see themselves as laborers versus businessmen, blacks versus whites, environmentalists versus polluters, or liberals vs. conservatives, to list but a few examples, the destructive cycle will not only continue, but get worse.” – Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.26. – Panarchies for all the diverse groups, so that they can no longer blame each other but merely themselves for their failures. – JZ, 11.8.08. – What would happen to the present financial crisis if all the freedom lovers were free to accept full monetary and financial freedom for their own affairs while the forced and exclusive currency of governments, all kinds of other statist interventionism and “service charges” or tributes would all be confined to the remaining faithful statists? – JZ, 26.10.08, 20.8.12. - PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, CLASS WARFARE

US GOVERNMENT: I say one evil empire down … one to go.” – Michael Moore, The Big One. - To some extent all territorial governments, even merely local ones, are imperialistic by their nature, aims and practices. - JZ, 23. 11. 06. - IMPERIALISM

USA: The United States of America should be renamed: The oppressed States and minorities of America. – But it has also oppressed and exploited majorities and is oppressing and exploiting minorities. How can one fully express these realities in a short name? Start a prize competition? For me it is all summed up in the terms “territorialism” and intolerance for tolerant actions, which should be replaced by panarchism or tolerance for all tolerant actions and exterritorial autonomy or experimental freedom for all dissenters. - JZ, 25.11.94, 14.8.08, 1.4.11.

USA: we eventually became a nation of the government, by the government and for the government.” - Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do ‘til the Revolution, Breakout Productions, Port Townsend, Washington, 1999, rev. ed., ISBN 1-89.3626-13-X, p.80. - TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENT, NATIONALISM

USER PAYS PRINCIPLE IN POLITICS: The "user pays" principle should be applied to all politician and bureaucrats, to all their "services" and disservices. They must not be granted any territorial monopoly and other privileges may be granted to them only through unanimous consent of their voluntary victims. - JZ, 27.2.89, 3.4.89.

USSR: The totalitarian Russia (*), like the totalitarian Hitler regime and e.g. the Roman Empire, as well as many other dictatorship and even the English Empire and the American Empire - with their constitutional monarchism or representative but still authoritarian and all too legalistic democracies or republics, are excellent study cases for what should have been done, to achieve full liberties and rights in them, instead of the actions and laws that were passed and the institutions that were established and maintained. Thus although some of them have disappeared in the meantime, there are still others and liberation options for them ought to be considered, as long as they do not involved another invasive war. What should have been done, in the case of the Soviet Union, will have to be thoroughly discussed for a considerable time. Likewise what should be done now, towards its remaining territorial power and the abuse of that power, e.g. in the most recent case of a war with Georgia. Here only some hints towards my personal opinion of what should have been done to end the Soviet Union long before it collapsed because of its numerous flaws. (1) Denationalizing and privatizing all their government assets, in advance through the issue of suitable capital certificates, which would also finance the enlightenment process and the actual revolution or military insurrection or simply the collapse of such a regime, in all its totalitarian aspects. Some details on this are set out in my by now digitized and enlarge PEACE PLANS 19 C. - - (2) Full monetary freedom and free banking, as opposed to its and the Western Central Banking system, and the benefits of this change towards freedom, should be demonstrated in the West, which has so far also subscribed to the central banking system recommended by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and is to that extent also communistic and State socialistic. What has been wrongly described as flaws of capitalism are actually the flaws of State socialism existing in the mixed economies, which are far from being fully developed free market economies. - - (3) Secession of dissenters from the territorial State and their free re-association in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, including even various communistic and State socialistic ones, should be freely practised in the West, to provide an attractive model for almost every kind of dissenters in States like the Soviet Union was. It misruled over 120 ethnic minorities, no to speak of all the religions and other dissenting groups. Only the incurable territorial totalitarians, a small minority, would not be pleased by and attracted to such a model. - - (4) Recognizing exterritorially autonomous governments and societies in exile for all refugees and deserters from the USSR – in the West, giving them there and now already all the rights and liberties that they do want for themselves and setting thus also examples of how they would rule or administer their voluntary subjects in the populations of the territory of the USSR, after it has been liberated from the Soviet Regime. Any infighting among opponents of this empire – or any other - could and should thus be avoided. All would get the government or society of their own individual choice. There exist not any more anti-totalitarian model and practice than that of panarchism. Advocacy for individual secessionism was at one stage, when it was somewhat popular in the Soviet Union, punished with the death penalty. - - (5) Preparation and publication of an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties, including all economic rights as well and that means also all monetary and financial rights and liberties. - - (6) A proclamation of quite rightful peace aims towards the Soviet Regime and also quite rightful war aims and methods, as well as peace aims, should a country be attacked by that regime or any comparable one. Such a proclamation, like that of individual rights and liberties, could be more valuable than many well armed, trained and motivated divisions of soldiers. While it would recognize e.g. anarchies for anarchists, libertarian limited government societies for volunteers, it would also recognized Welfare State societies and mixed economies for their adherents, majority democratic direct or representative democracies for their followers and even various communist and State socialist societies, with their own centralized planning and controls - for all their various remaining true believers. “Freedom” to control and victimize their volunteers as long as these are individually prepared to put up with this. None of these ideologues should be forced into desperate fighting for their supposed ideal. They could have it, without fighting and without internal resistance – for their own remaining volunteers, i.e. under the best possible conditions for the realization of their “ideal”. Experimental freedom, at their own cost and risk (panarchism) is no longer to be denied to any group of dissenters. With the exception of the true believers in nuclear strength and nuclear power! They are a large threat to everybody. They might be confined to use the nuclear reactor and power of the sun alone or to emigrate to the Moon or Mars, to use their supposedly ideal power source there. All nuclear weapons are to be destroyed – even one-sidedly, as anti-people “weapons”, and this by the people themselves, suitably organized and trained for this purpose. Based on a complete liberation and revolution program the West could have afforded to go ahead unilaterally with nuclear disarmament. Here these few hints must suffice. Many more can be found in my two libertarian peace books: - JZ, n.d. & 15.8.08, 1.4.11, 20.8.12. – (*) Russia was not totalitarian, even when its government was. – J.Z., 20.8.12. – DIS., LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTION PROGRAM, LIBERATION PLATFORM, HOW TO OVERTHROW TOTALITARIAN OR DICTATORIAL REGIMES, A HANDBOOK FOR LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTIONARIES & LIBERATORS?

UST, DANIEL: 60, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. -  65-66, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.

USURPATION: All present legislation is usurpation. – JZ, 3.12.76, free after Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland. – Full title of his letter: “A Letter to Grover Cleveland on His False Inaugural Address, The Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and the Consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People.” – Spooner, Works I. - LEGISLATION, LAWS, TERRITORIALISM.

USURPATION: I may do what you may not do.” – Quoted by Kurt H. Zube in his letter to Augstein.

USURPATION: We should not forget, that government is, abstractly taken, an evil, an usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind.” – William Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. - TERRITORIALISM

UTILITARIANISM: Could the greatest happiness for the largest number justify cannibalism towards the few? – JZ, 10.9.88. – Perhaps only if we sacrificed our great mis-leaders – by eating them. – But I think it to be much more civilized and peaceful to secede from them and their establishments. And to redistribute the public assets that they hold in our names - and mismanage also all too much - among their former and their remaining subjects, - JZ, 14.8.08, 20.8.12. – JOKES, Q.

UTOPIA: Earth would tread the path Utopia had trod. She too would weave law, duty and education into a larger sanity than man had ever known. Men also would presently laugh at the things they had feared, and brush aside the impostures that had overawed them and the absurdities that had tormented and crippled their lives.” – H. G. Wells, Men Like Goods, first paperback issue, 1970, p.129/130. First published 1922. – Alas, H. G. Wells remained a State socialist and world statists. He could not imagine that people might wish to approach their own and very diverse ideals in a decentralized and competitive way, like they do as free entrepreneurs and free consumers on a free market. Secretly, he, too, saw himself as a lawmaker and ruler for the whole world and all its people, instead of aiming at setting them free to do their own things for or to themselves. – JZ, 13.9.07, 20.8.12. - TERRITORIALISM VS. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & FREE CHOICES.

UTOPIA: Of course, he hadn't found any Utopia, but he hadn't been so naive as to expect that. It was enough to have found hope." - Poul Anderson, "Past Times", 64. - Few can find but most can make their own utopia - if it is practicable at all, if they can afford it and are willing to pay its price - and accept its risks. Each should have to make or choose his or her own utopia like the own marriage partner, job or hobby, meat, fruit or clothing, in order to maximize his or her happiness. - JZ, 6.14.92, 20.8.12. - And they should become quite free to do so. It would only require individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. - JZ, 10.12.03, 20.8.12.

UTOPIA: One utopia for all is the worst utopia. - JZ 23.3.91. - Any utopia is a rightful utopia only for those who agreed with it - and as long as they do, individually. - JZ 10.3.93.

UTOPIA: We are not going to have utopia on earth." - Walter Williams. - Who is we? What is wrong to let some volunteers have the utopia they want for themselves, whether it really is an ideal utopia or not? Not one collectivist and territorial and centralistic and coercive utopia for all, on a territorial basis, but rather xyz different kinds of utopias, each only for its believers - as long as they believe in it. - JZ, 1990/1.

UTOPIA: Yet, as I showed in my first novel, The Probability Broach, all that’s necessary to achieve a kind of practical open-ended utopia is to understand that civilization is a machine whose purpose, like that of any machine, is to give back just a bit more than we put into it. In a technological society, that would be possible a thousand times over if it weren’t for groups like the IRS whose function is to deny the average individual the benefits of the industrial revolution.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.72. – - Territorial monopolism and coercion is even worse in its results than taxation and it includes all the wrongs and harms of compulsory taxation. – JZ, 27.9.07. - & CIVILIZATION AS A PRODUCTIVE TOOL OR MACHINE, INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, TAXATION & GOVERNMENT

UTOPIAN APPROACHES, TOLERANT & INTOLERANT ONES, POPPER, NOZICK, FLEW:  Compare the Meta-Utopia described by Nozick. "It is sufficient, and perhaps necessary, to add that what Popper is against, and what he believes that we do not and are never likely to have sufficient social science to do, is wholesale utopian social engineering, involving total transformation in accordance with some blueprint for the universal good; whereas what he unreservedly favours are strenuous but piecemeal attempts to remove particular recognised evils - attempts whose results are continually monitored, and whose effectiveness is thus continually improved. Popper is well aware also that the road to Utopia has in fact too often led to Hell; ... - Anthony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, p. 177.  Panarchy means: Instead of radical or gradualist reforms for all, consenters and dissenters alike, all schemes are simultaneously realized in the same territory but all only for and by those who want them. Thus the consequences of failures would be reduced to their supporters and the framework would be a moral because voluntaristic one, instead of a coercive one, based on compulsory membership, territorial monopoly and sovereignty and the consequent overriding of the wills of all the dissenting minorities. How can so many people remain so blind, so long, towards such distinctions? JZ 18.6.92, 5.1.93, 9.12.03, 20.8.12. – Q.

UTOPIANISM, TOLERANT: To each reformer his own utopia - at his or her own expense and risk and that of like-minded volunteers. No territorial privileges and powers to anyone. – How many better utopias has the women’s liberation movement so far produced? - JZ, Feb. 89, 20.8.12. – Q.

UTOPIANISM: A club of utopists and an electronic information exchange for them should seriously discuss only those utopias, which subscribe to tolerance for tolerant actions and are intolerant only towards intolerant actions, laws and institutions. This would require that they have freed themselves from territorialist notions and “models” and rather subscribe to the “meta-utopia” concept of Robert Nozick or the idea of “panarchy” first proclaimed by de Puydt in 1860 and to the individual secessionism advocated e.g. by Herbert Spencer in his 1850 “Social Statics” book, chapter 19. (Left out in some later editions!) – “To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!” – JZ, n.d. & 13.8.08, 5.2.12. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

UTOPIANISM: All utopias should be optional. – JZ, 7.12.90. – Then all utopias would be tolerable, for outsiders as well as insiders. – JZ, 11.8.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM

UTOPIANISM: And anarchists, too, see themselves as realists; even Kropotkin claims that the anarchist ideal is ‘not a utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived … from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already …’ – One man’s realism is another man’s utopia. Indeed history may show the utopian to have been a realist. – Arblaster/Lukes, The Good Society, p.10. – Alas, one can be sufficiently tolerant towards the utopias of others only if one’s mind is no longer stuck in the model of territorialism but one has realized the possibilities of personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. – JZ, 13.8.08. - REALISM, ANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

UTOPIANISM: And Utopias fall flat because they depend on the false notion that every person would want the imaginary good state if only he understood it – the hell he would: he wants his own dream-country, maybe one that includes slavery and whips.” – Edgar Pangborn, The Company of Glory, p.57, in GALAXY Aug. 74. – In the book edition on p.36. - Why should he not get it – in his kind of club, society or community of volunteers? There are already some sadistic and masochistic clubs and also numerous altruistic ones, which, rather than trying to make something out of their own lives, try only to improve the lives of others. – Admittedly, but only out of egoistic motives, I, too, belong, somewhat, with the latter mob, too. - JZ, 13.8.08. - DIS., PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, META-UTOPIA, TOLERANCE TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM. - Compare: “To everyone the government of his dreams!” – K. H. Z. Solneman (K. H. Zube ), in his Manifesto for Freedom & Peace:

UTOPIANISM: another and better world, than the one already existing for my eyes, brings about that I desire this better world, embrace it with all my instincts, strive for it and live only in it and become satisfied only through it.” – J. G. Fichte, Die Bestimmung des Menschen, Drittes Buch. Glaube, S.125. – (“… aber eine andere und bessere Welt, als die fuer mein sinnliches Auge vorhandene; es macht, dass ich diese bessere Welt begehre, sie mit allen meinen Trieben umfasse, und ersehne, nur in ihr lebe, und nur an ihr mich befriedige.”) – It does not have to be another or better world for all its population. It is enough if each group of dissenters has the choice to get the kind of society for its members, which its members do prefer, whether it is objectively a better or a worse one does not matter, at least not for them. There is neither a moral nor a utilitarian reason why any kind of society, any system or belief should get a territorial monopoly for its practice for this whole planet or for a whole country and all its popullation. - JZ, 1.4.11, 20.8.12. - FREE SOCIETY, PANARCHISM, META-UTOPIA, POLYARCHY, DIS.

UTOPIANISM: But today the “utopians” are mostly the realists, while those, who call themselves realists simply do not have enough imagination.” - E. W. in a letter to DER TAGESSPIEGEL, 11.1.56. – The wrongful assumption here is that there is only one utopia, instead of a multitude of very diverse ones. Each could be optimally experimented with only among its volunteers. – JZ, 12.8.08, 20.8.12. – To each his own utopia - at his own risk and expense. - JZ, 1.4.11. - PANARCHISM, REALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, IDEALISM, IDEOLOGIES

UTOPIANISM: Comrade: Watch out for the utopian magician – he has an axe up his sleeve.” – Dagobert D. Runes, A Book of Contemplation, p.23. – Also in his “A Dictionary of Thought”, under “Comrade”. – Also in his “Treasury of Thought”, p.22. - Is that true for the liberty lovers among the utopians? Only the tyrants and authoritarians, the intolerant people, would have to be afraid of them. – Naturally, many of their surviving victims would also be thirsty for revenge. – However, their energies might be, largely, taken up by the great efforts required for their attempts to finally establish their kinds of utopias among themselves, as soon as they are free to do so. To the extent that they are moral and rational beings, such efforts should have the highest priority for them, their families and friends. – Mere acts of revenge or retaliation would not help them to improve their condition. - JZ, 12.8.08, 1.4.11. – INTOLERANCE, TOTALITARIANISM, DIS., TERRITORIALISM

UTOPIANISM: I don’t want a Utopia, just a chance.” – Joe Fulks, quoted by Pyrrho, p.5 of THE CONNECTION 109. - The greatest utopia is the meta-utopia of Nozick or the panarchism of de Puydt, in which everybody will have the experimental freedom to try to put his principles, beliefs or ideology into practice among their like-minded volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy. It might differ from others only by a single step or rule, which is significant to its volunteers. - JZ, 1.4.11.

UTOPIANISM: I view science fiction as a treasury of models - models of alternative political and social systems, sexual relationships, forms of technology, and so on. The more alternative models of which we are aware, the more flexible our responses can be to present-day situations.” - Alvin Toffler. - He left out alternative economic systems. – From the viewpoint of free market economics there is only one genuine economics and economic system, that of the free market. The others are, largely, only political and social utopias. However, just think of how many different business organizations and self-management schemes have been proposed and practised, likewise, how many varieties of monetary, value standard, clearing, insurance and savings and investment or credit systems, and how many varieties of capital securities there are. - JZ, 20.4.09. - IDEAS, MODELS, ALTERNATIVES, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SCIENCE FICTION

UTOPIANISM: inventors of utopia have no right to play with the lives and fruits of the labour of human beings just to be able to remake the Word according to their weird notions.” – D. M. Kulkarni, INDIAN LIBERTARIAN, 5/75. – VISIONARIES, RIGHTS, INTOLERANCE

UTOPIANISM: It is the beauty and the terror of a revolutionary age such as ours that theories are probably the most important “facts” altogether.” – Prof. Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, 1942-1949, p.49. – IDEAS, FACTS, OPINIONS, THEORIES, BELIEFS, IDEOLOGIES, IDEAS ARCHIVE

UTOPIANISM: It is, indeed, sweet, to ponder State constitutions which correspond to the demands of reason, especially with regard to rights, but impudent to propose them and punishable to rouse the people to abolish the existing one. Plato’s Atlantica, Morus’ Utopia, Harrington’s Oceana and Allais’ Severambia, have by and by been published, but never (excepting Cromwell’s perished miscarriage of a despotic republic) even attempted. These State-creations had the same fate as the creation of the world: No human being was present, nor could he be present in them, because then he would have had to be his own creator. To imagine a State as a product, as one thinks of it here, as being realized, at some time, however late it may be, as being completed, is a sweet dream. However, to always approach it, is not only thinkable, but, to the extent that it can coexist with the moral law, a duty, not of the citizens of the State but of the head of the State.” - Immanuel Kant, Anmerkung zu “Der Streit der Fakultaeten”, Abschnitt 9, S.229/30 in Populaere Schriften, Deutsche Bibliothek in Berlin, herausgegeben von E. Von Aster, n.d., written 1794. - I did not find an English translation in my library nor a hint to one in my still all too incomplete list of electronically offered libertarian books: - thus I had to try a rough translation myself. – He wrote under censorship and thus had to express himself very carefully and diplomatically. – He was really in favor of rightful revolutions but could not say this openly. – His own utopia was “Zum ewigen Frieden” (“Towards Eternal Peace”), 1795 - JZ, 13.8.08: - - (“Es ist doch suess, sich Staatsverfassungen auszudenken, die den Forderungen der Vernunft {vornehmlich in rechlicher Absicht}) entsprechen: aber vermessen, sie vorzuschlagen, und strafbar, das Volk zur Abschaffung der jetzt betehenden aufzuwiegeln. - - Plato’s Atlantica, Morus’ Utopia, Harrington’s Oceana und Allais’ Severambia sind nach und nach auf die Buehne gebracht, aber nie {Cromwell’s verunglueckte Missgeburt einer despotischen Republik ausgenommen} auch nur versucht worden. – Es ist mit diesen Staatsschoepfungen wie mit der Weltschoepfung zugegangen: kein Mensch war dabei zugegen, not konnte er bei einer solchen gegenwaertig sein, weil er sonst sein eigener Schoepfer haette sein muessen. Ein Statsprodukt, wie man es hier denkt, als dereinst, so spaet es auch sei, vollendet zu hoffen, ist ein suesser Traum, aber sich ihm immer zu naehern, nicht allein denkbar, sondern, soweit es mit dem morlischen Gesetze betehen kann, Pflicht, nicht der Staatsburger, sondern des Staatsoberhauptes.“) - Panarchism allows each rational being the choice of his own kind of utopia for himself. - It does not grant any territorial monopoly to anyone. - JZ, 1.4.11. – DIS., KANT, INTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES, IDEAL SOCIETIES

UTOPIANISM: Life is rough, life is tough. We are not here to promote a utopia.” – B. C., 21.11.75. - Aren’t we? – Kant considered the establishment of a free, just and peaceful society not only to be a right but a supreme duty for all rational beings. – Contrary to his opinion, when some of B. C.’s children were assaulted and the offenders remained immune to legal prosecution, he came close to try to execute these criminals with victims. I helped to talk him out of it, saying, that thereby his children would be likely to lose their father and their mother her husband, for all too many years. These realities should outweigh the feeling of achieved revenge, which he could gain by such an action. – Much later at least some of these offenders were caught and convicted. – Alas, I didn’t succeed either, in persuading my children and grand-children to learn enough about effective unarmed self-defence. - JZ, 13.8.08. – Compare the motto of a former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser: “Life wasn’t meant to be easy!” Whereupon some of his opponents said: “Nor was it his job to make it any harder.” – M. F. was a fan of Ayn Rand but that did not make him an effective and classical liberal leader for Australia towards liberty. – JZ, n.d. – He, too, as a “modern liberal”, played all too “liberally” with genuine individual rights and liberties of his subjects. – JZ, 5.2.12. - POVERTY, MISERY, NEED, SUPPRESSION

UTOPIANISM: Nobody has the right to leave this world in as bad a condition as he found it.” – Edward Bok, Publisher of “The Ladies’ Home Journal”. – (JZ retr. of: “Niemand hat ein Recht, die Welt so schlecht zu verlassen, wie er sie vorgefunden hat.”) - There is something like a duty, already stressed by Immanuel Kant, to work towards a free, peaceful and just society. - JZ, 1.4.11.

UTOPIANISM: Oh century! Oh sciences! – It is a pleasure to live, although not yet time to retire. – The studies are flourishing, the minds are active. You, barbarism, take a stick and prepare for your banishment.” – Ulrich von Hutten, 1488-1523. – He was a bit too optimistic. – Should we once again repeat all the mistakes made in the intervening centuries? – JZ, 13.8.08.

UTOPIANISM: Only then, Sir, when you have made your kingdom into the happiest in the World – does it become your duty to subdue the world. – Friedrich Schiller, Don Carlos, III/10. – JZ tr. of: “Dann, Sire, wenn Sie zum gluecklichsten der Welt Ihr eignes Koenigreich gemacht – dann ist es Ihre Pflicht, die Welt zu unterwerfen.” – Even if that were achieved, the conquest of the rest of the world, to make it, likewise, happy, would neither be justified nor rational. – Anyhow, really ideal examples would tend to spread, peacefully, by voluntary acceptance. - Ulrich von Beckerath mentioned the story of King Wen in China, who ruled so well that subjects of neighboring kingdoms petitioned him to rule them as well. He was wise and realistic enough to reply that he was so busy to rule or, rather avoid misruling his own kingdom, that he could not spare the time and energy to thus rule them as well. He rather advised them to seek another ruler, willing and able to provide the same service – to them. King Wen also “defeated” armies sent to conquer his kingdom by welcoming the foreign conscripts, who defected to him as liberated citizens, because he was not treating them as enemies and prisoners of war. Thereby he largely dissolved these armies, rather than slaughtering them. Mere legend or is there some real history behind such stories? The full story of desertions may still have to be written. – U. v. B. also described the rapid growth of the tribe of Abraham in a similar way: After A. had abolished child sacrifices and family feuds, many people from other tribes simply defected to him. - Who of our present rulers knows his own limitations, that of his ministers, his bureaucrats, his party, his ideology, his laws and institutions - sufficiently? Who would, like this real or mythical King Wen, similarly decline a territorial expansion of his power? Who has been militarily as clever? Alas, in my time, only a totalitarian like Mao Tse Tung! And this system was never applied against him! – To be able to do so, one should, naturally, be able and willing to offer something very much better than he did and that quite obviously. This should not have been difficult. – In our time the ideal of “panarchism” has at least the potential to “conquer” the world, quite peacefully. - JZ, 13.8.08. – PANARCHISM, DESERTION, Q.

UTOPIANISM: Panarchies call for negative as well as positive utopias. – JZ, 20.6.92. – Not only in science, technology and the arts can one learn much from one’s prejudices, mistakes, errors, wrong assumptions and conclusions, if one applies them quite freely, in a tolerant practice among volunteers. Both the insiders as well as the outside observers would benefit from them, although not as much as from quite successful experiments. – JZ, 12.8.08. – PANARCHISM, DISTOPIAS

UTOPIANISM: People are willing to devise and praise Utopias but not to live in them.” – David Pryce-Jones, THE TIMES, 20.3.72. – All people are different. It takes all kinds to make a world. Mostly those, who do want to join or establish one for themselves, going beyond mere private life-style changes, are simply not legally allowed to do so. – E.g., those, who do not want to pay taxes but are willing to pay their own way, or those cosmopolitans, who favor free migration, free trade and free investments. - Let those, who wish to do so, establish or join them. If, really, almost nobody would wish to join them, then governments would not have to be afraid of them and would have thus no motive to outlaw them. But they do have good reasons to be afraid of competition. They might lose many, most or even all of their subjects to one or the other utopia, as soon as they lose their territorial monopoly or at least not too far away in the future. On the other hand, their own kind of statist utopia, for their remaining volunteers, could then be continued by them, indefinitely, without opposition, as a sinecure for their rulers – as long as they still do have or can gain some followers. Why does that model, so far, have not sufficient attractiveness for them? Obviously, they still want to rule over dissenters, not only aggressors and criminals. Why? Because they are power addicts and as such power-mad. – JZ, 21.9.85, 14.1.93. 12.8.08, 20.8.12. – If all such statements were exposed to the world, electronically and all kinds of criticism and restatements were made by many people, then some really worthwhile formulas might, gradually, result. As long as they are only developed by lone individuals like me, in sporadic efforts, not much is to be expected from them. – We should, quite seriously, try to mobilize the wisdom of all of mankind, in all spheres. Only thus would there be a real chance to turn man, very gradually, into superman or some kind of worthwhile God – very gradually, over a very long development period, or only with external technological aids. E.g., we have now had radios, telephones and television already for a long time and now the Internet for many years. – But man’s nature is still largely the same. – However, already some of us, obviously, survived only with the aid of modern science and technology. - JZ, 12.8.08, 26.10.08. – On the other hand, there are the additional diseases and deaths due to excess manipulation and pollution of foods and our environment, in peace and in wartime, also due less than perfect medicines and medical practices as well as food- and drink intakes. – Only a few days ago I found a hint on Facebook that most of the supposedly pure and virgin olive oil is not what it is advertised at. – XYZ radiation hazards are also still largely ignored or declared to be “insignificant”. – J.Z., 20.8.12. - DIS.

UTOPIANISM: Popper argues similarly that ‘the Utopian method, which chooses an ideal state of society as the aim which all our political actions should serve, is likely to produce violence’ and that ‘the Utopian engineers who design and execute the Utopian blueprint’ must ‘become omniscient as well as omnipotent. They become gods’.“ – Arblaster/Lukes, The Good Society, on Karl Popper. – While this is largely true for territorial utopias, it is not true for most exterritorial ones of volunteers. – JZ, 13.8.08, 1.4.11. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE VS. INTOLERANCE

UTOPIANISM: Pound … does not believe, like most Utopians, that reform of the world is merely a matter of getting his own politico-economic ideas generally accepted.” – Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminati Papers, p.108. – If utopians do not subscribe to the “meta-utopia” as proposed by Nozick, they subscribe to a war against the rest of the human race, in favor of their particular utopia. – JZ, 7.4.84. - Most utopians, are realistic enough not to want any more than the right to demonstrate their utopia among themselves, and, thereby, hopefully, become successful and convert the world to accept their kind of utopia. That is a tolerant and tolerable approach, in accordance with panarchistic ideas. It allows all kinds of utopias for the diverse utopians. – 12.8.08. – META-UTOPIA, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, INTOLERANCE, FANATICISM, FUNDAMENTALISM

UTOPIANISM: Should really only stupidity, the lazy thoughtlessness, which patiently suffers the present, because it resembles the past, should it be the only justified force in history of mankind?” – Theodor Hertzka, Reise nach Freiland, S.133. - (JZ tr. of: ‘Soll wirklich nur die Dummheit, die traege Gedankenlosigkeit, die geduldig das Heute traegt, weil es dem Gestern gleicht, soll sie die einzig berechtigte Kraft in der menschlichen Geschichte sein?“) - TRADITION, CUSTOM, LAW & ORDER, THE ESTABLISHMENT, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUALISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS. – While I micro-fiched both the German and the English editions, also of his prior work “Freiland” (Freeland & Travel to Freeland), I have not yet got around to digitize them. Did anyone else do this job? Hertzka’s writings cured a 16 year old Ulrich von Beckerath of his initial Marxism. It showed him that the best of socialism, namely cooperative of voluntary socialism, could also be realized without coercion. B., as a later anarchist developed the Hertzka system further, made it even more voluntaristic. – Alas, these two libertarian utopias remain largely forgotten. - JZ, 13.8.08.

UTOPIANISM: Such a lively throng I would like to see. Standing upon free ground, with a free people. To this moment I could say: Please stay, you are so beautiful! The trace of my earthly endeavors would then not go under for ages. In anticipation of such a high fortune, I now appreciate my greatest moment.“ – Goethe, Faust II, in my rough translation of: “Solch ein Gewimmel moecht is sehn, // Auf freiem Grund mit freiem Volke stehn. // Zum Augenblicke duerft ich sagen: // Verweile doch, du bist so schoen! // Es kann die Spur von meinen Erdentagen // Nicht in Aeonen untergehn. - // Im Vorgefuehl von solchem hohen Glueck // Geniess ich jetzt den hoechsten Augenblick.“)

UTOPIANISM: Technology and domination will bring about social and ecological disaster. Technology and freedom can provide the basis for a post-scarcity abundance in which human society can flourish undistorted by the age-old anxiety of survival. Utopia is necessary. – Times change and with them their possibilities. - TIMES CHANGE AND WITH THEM THEIR DEMANDS.” – RED & BLACK, 4/73. - Underlining by JZ

UTOPIANISM: The idea that there is … one best society for everyone to live in seems to me to be an incredible one … No one should attempt to describe a Utopia unless he’s recently re-read, for example, the works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Jane Austen, Rabelais and Dostoyevsky to remind himself of how different people are.” – Robert Nozick, “Anarchy, State and Utopia.”

UTOPIANISM: The most awful tyranny is that of the proximate Utopia where the last sins are currently being eliminated and where, tomorrow, there will be no more sins because all the sinners will have been wiped out.” – Thomas Merton, introduction to selected texts from Mohandas K. Gandhi’s Non-Violence in Peace and War, 1948. – Did Gandhi ever write in favor of total non-violent resistance against totalitarians? – Or did he have only the English territorial authoritarianism in mind? – JZ, 12.8.08. – NON-VIOLENCE, RESISTANCE

UTOPIANISM: The opposite of civilization is not barbarism but Utopia. Utopia can let no man be his own worst enemy, take the risk of going uninsured, gamble on the horses, or on his own future, go to hell in his own way. It has to concern itself more with the connection of the parts than with the separateness of the parts. It has to know where everyone is; it has to bunch us up to keep track of us. It can’t protect us unless it directs us.” – Robert Frost, Interviews, July 1954, p.146. - Apparently, he knew only territorial and intolerant utopias and not any freedom and justice-loving tolerant ones, although e.g. in the U.S.A. thousands of peaceful utopias and intentional communities were realized, for a while, by volunteers, at their own expense and risk. Is it not terrible when a freedom-loving man like him never came across the pro-freedom utopias, because they were and are not sufficiently published, abstracted and reviewed? – JZ, 13.8.08.

UTOPIANISM: The pace of events is so fast that unless we can find some way to keep our sights on tomorrow, we can not expect to be in touch with today.” – Dean Rusk, quoted in L. J. Peter, The Peter Plan, p. IX. – Another famous territorialist, who did not realize how much his territorialism prevented him from realizing the present and future potentials, demonstrated by free experimentation for all – among volunteers and at their risk and expense, thus exploring xyz possibilities at the same time in the same country and even more world-wide. – No one should even try to keep in touch with and to try to understand and control everything and every development, like territorial rulers are inclined to do and pretend that they would be able and willing to do this. They have still to realize their natural limitations and to stop putting their limits on the free, rightful and tolerant activities of numerous others. – JZ, 13.8.08, 20.8.12.

UTOPIANISM: The philosophers have merely differently interpreted the world. But our task is to change it.” – Karl Marx, in Spring 1845, in his theses on Feuerbach, according to Reiche, Freiheit, S.144. (“Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu veraendern.“) - Alas, he did not understand the world, especially economics and its free market relationships, sufficiently, to be able to change it in a rightful and positive way. His statist and authoritarian way cost more than 200 million lives and many more largely wasted lives and enormous suffering, destruction and misery. – His utopianism was mass-murderous and impoverishing. - JZ, 13.8.08. - Largely, because it, too, was territorial rather than exterritorial and for volunteers only. - JZ, 1.4.11.

UTOPIANISM: The Utopia: One Utopia for all is the worst utopia. – JZ, 23.3.91. –– Any utopia is a rightful utopia only for those, who do agree with it and as long as they do, individually. – JZ, 10.1.93. - Even if, objectively, it would be the best of all utopias so far proposed or experimented with. It, too, should not be imposed upon dissenters. – To my knowledge, the liberty lovers have not even bothered, so far, to list together, abstract, review and permanently publish all pro-freedom utopias. Why not? There are, after all, not very many of them. - JZ, 12.8.08. - PANARCHISM

UTOPIANISM: the well-known French development specialist René Dumont. After many years of experience he wrote his book L’Utopie ou la mort (Utopia or Death; Paris, 1973), in which he concludes: ‘Yes, the Chinese experiment seems the society most likely to offer an assured future.’ It is based on the Cultural Revolution principle of ‘independent industrial systems’ (kung-yeh-ti-hsi). Numerous small and medium-sized local factories were started after 1959, and more particularly after 1966. They are proud to model themselves on the much admired workers of Tachai, to stand on their own feet, and to be wholly or almost wholly independent of outside help.” – Robert Jungk, The Everyman Project, p.116. - They practised, perhaps, all but free enterprise, free exchange, free pricing, free trade, free banking and free migration and private property rights, free contracts and free markets and free investments and freedom from taxes! - What kind of „development specialist“ Dumont was can be seen from the immense failure of that „great experiment“, one territorially imposed upon all Chinese people. - Some people live all their lives in already somewhat free markets and still do not recognize the nature of a free market and of free market economic developments, e.g., the interdependence of free markets and all their free enterprises and free traders, blinded by their territorial supposed “ideals”. – The Red Chinese “Great Step Forward” was really just another step backwards, territorially enforced! – However, Jungk’s book makes at least some good points. – But here he misinformed terribly. - JZ, 13.8.08, 1.4.11.

UTOPIANISM: The whole world lies before us like a great quarry before a builder. Everything except us is merely an element. I may even say that even all that is in us. However, deep within us lies this creative force, that is able to create what should be and does not let us rest and delay until we have realized it outside of our selves, or within our lives, in one or the other way.” – Goethe. – JZ tr. attempt of: “Das ganze Weltenwesen liegt vor uns wie ein grosser Steinbruch vor dem Baumeister. Alles ausser uns it nur Element, ja ich darf wohl sage, auch alles an uns. Aber tief in us liegt diese schoepferische Kraft, die das zu schaffen vermag, was sein soll nd uns nicht ruhen und rasten laesst, bis wir es ausser uns oder an uns auf eine oder die andere Weise dargestellt haben.“ – However, we ought to be tolerant towards all others, who do work, quite tolerantly, on their own and different "building" projects. - JZ, 1.4.11, 20.8.12. - CREATIVITY, REFORM URGE, WORKING TOWARDS CHANGE FOR THE BETTER, WORLD IMPROVEMENT ATTEMPTS

UTOPIANISM: There exists no more unrealistic blindness towards facts than the neglect of ideas.” – Dr. G. Blume, an editorial writer for DER TAGESSPIEGEL, 1950. – (“Es gibt keine unrealistischere Tatsachenblindheit als die Vernachlaessigung der Idee.”) – Alas, this large West Berlin newspaper was very great in this kind of neglect. – Probably, it still is. No article or letter to the editor was accepted for publication that did not agree with the limited knowledge, prejudices and ideology of the editors. As the main newspaper with some intellectual aspirations in West Berlin, it thus shut up some of the best West-Berlin minds. - For new just, freedom- and peace- promoting ideas, practised only among volunteers, one cannot rely on the mass media. – JZ, 13.8.08. – So far not even on the Internet. It, too, is still swamped by flawed and false ideas and opinions, still all too popular and not yet systematically listed and refuted as such. – JZ, 20.8.12. - IDEAS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, SUPER-COMPUTER PROJECT, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS, OF ALL DEFINITIONS OF SIGNIFICANT WORDS, DES., RED., ARGUMENT MAPPING

UTOPIANISM: Too many utopias are based on the own needs and wants, to be fulfilled at the expense of others, rather than on the own genuine and wanted services, freely traded for those of others. – JZ, 5.7.92.

UTOPIANISM: Utopia is necessary.” – BLACK & RED, No. 5. – As if there could be only one utopia, instead of the multitude that does exist or has been proposed. – Each of them is rightful and “necessary”, at least for a while, but only for the believers in it and thus anyone should be quite free to engage in any of them, while others remain free to abstain from it, ignore it or free to merely observe it and to argue against it. – However, to speed up progress, we do need free experimentation with many utopias or other innovations, but always only at the expense and risk of voluntary experimenters. Only to that extent can utopias be rightful and necessary. – JZ, 12.8.08.

UTOPIANISM: Utopia is the only place to be. This world is not yet good enough. – JZ, 16.11.76. – To each his own, naturally! – JZ, 7.12.76.

UTOPIANISM: Utopia is where you find it.” – Edmund Cooper, Tomorrow Came, Panther Books, 1963, p.59. – Or where you establish it. – JZ, 13.8.08, 1.4.11. – CHOICE, FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

UTOPIANISM: Utopia: 1985 wages, 1932 prices, 1910 taxes. – Quoted in THE CONNECTION. - JOKES

UTOPIANISM: Utopia: A more or less complete alternative to the present State and society, described as existing somewhere or at some time, either as a supposed or proposed ideal or as an anti-utopia (distopia), a dangerous possibility to be warned against. The ideal for some people is considered to be a disaster or trivial for many other people. Very few utopists, so far, envisioned a panarchy or meta-utopia with opportunities for all kinds of utopias, all only among volunteers. – JZ, 13.5.82. – And this in spite of the long experience with e.g. monasteries, private clubs like sports clubs, nudist clubs, numerous diverse enterprises and forms or organizing trading, the great variety of hobbies, crafts and entertainments, arts, literature, movies, theatres, operas, life-style preferences, etc., all peacefully coexisting. Widely ignored in this connection are still the great precedent of religious liberty, that of historical personal law societies and of numerous utopian colonies and intentional communities in many countries, especially the U.S.A. Also the largely panarchistic diverse activities that we daily engage in in our private lives, to the extent that they are not yet territorially interfered with. None so blind as he who will not see. – Or who cannot even distinguish between territorial and exterritorial utopias, compulsory and voluntary ones, competing and monopolistic ones. - JZ, 13.8.08, 20.8.12.

UTOPIANISM: Utopia: No promise or hope of tomorrow’s better world is worth the price of today’s liberty.” – Dagobert D. Runes, A Book of Contemplation, p.137. – Also in his A Dictionary of Thought. - No map guide is complete without containing maps of all utopias as well. – At least one ought to learn from them what to stay clear of. – JZ, 26.7.92. - Today’s remaining liberty is still all too small – but all the more precious because of this fact. It is also fully needed to achieve, finally, full freedom, justice and peace as well as rapid progress. – If one considers the exterritorial autonomy options for voluntary communities under personal laws, instead of merely the limited territorialist monopoly options, then no liberty would have to be sacrificed. Alas, most people still think only in the intolerant terms of territorialism, - JZ, 13.8.08, 1.4.11. - LIBERTY, PANARCHISM, PARADISE PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE, TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE

UTOPIANISM: Utopian alternatives will not stand up to analysis. – Prof. Coray. – As if he had read and understood all of them. – To my knowledge he has not considered e.g. the libertarian aspects of Theodor Hertzka’s “Freeland” and “Travel to Freeland”, de Puydt’s essay on Panarchy and a few others. I only admit that pro-freedom utopias, displaying significant economic knowledge, are still all too rare and flooded by statist and territorialist ones. – Serious thinking about utopias is, according to Immanuel Kant, what provides dignity to any philosophy. - JZ, 13.7.08.

UTOPIANISM: utopianism, as Anatole France said, is the principle of all progress. It is the poeticization of all practicalities, the idealization of everyday activities. It is not a rational process: it is an imaginative process. The Utopia fades the moment we attempt to actualize it. But it is necessary; it is even a biological necessity, an antidote to societal lethargy. Society exists to transcend itself, …” - Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, p.23. - Underlining by me. – JZ

UTOPIANISM: Utopias as impositions should always be distinguished from utopias representing voluntary actions, institutions and proposals, i.e. those, meant only for volunteers. And this requires personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. – JZ, 3.12.81, 13.8.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, VOLUNTARISM

UTOPIANISM: Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think. We are now faced with a very different new worry: How to prevent their realization!” - Nicholas Berdiaeff, quoted in: ANALOG, 6/87, p.163. - Rather, how to confine them to volunteers only. What is territorially close to impossible is exterritorially quite naturally and inevitable. - JZ 23. 9. 02. - IDEALS, REFORMS, DIS., VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, FREE COMPETITION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY & COMPULSION.

UTOPIANISM: We are not going to have utopia on earth.” – Walter Williams. – Certainly not a single, centralist, collectivist and territorial utopia for all people but, rather, xyz utopias for all the numerous different kinds of faiths and convictions, as long as there are any believers for them left. – JZ, 19.10.91. – At present most of us are stuck in the territorialist statist utopia, at best merely a democratic one. – JZ, 26.10.08. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, TOLERANCE FOR TOLERANT ACTIONS & EXPERIMENTS, DIS.

UTOPIANISM: What in the human world creates the new realities was always the impossible.” – Gustav Landauer, Die Revolution. – (JZ tr. of: “Was in der Menschenwelt die neuen Wirklichkeiten schafft, ist immer das Unmoegliche gewesen.”) – What was supposed to be impossible or impracticable or too idealistic. - JZ, 1.4.11. - IDEAS ARCHIVE, TALENT CENTRE

UTOPIANISM: When such minds are not active – what a loss for my State!” – Friedrich Schiller, Don Carlos, III/10. - (“Wenn solche Koepfe feiern, wie viel Verlust fuer meinen Staat!“) – „One stroke of the pen – and newly created is this world.” – (“Ein Federzug von dieser Hand und neu erschaffen wird die Erde.”) – F. S., ibid.

UTOPIANISM: Which one of thousands of utopias? All of them! But each only for its volunteers! – JZ, 11.2.94. - PANARCHISM

UTOPIANISM: You can’t get along without Eden.” – Mallarmé, Prose, p.314. – Well, according to the Bible, we had to get along without it, since we were thrown out of it. – However, the dreams of and thoughts about a better world are one of the best characteristics of mankind, as long as the believers remain tolerant and are tolerated in all their tolerant actions towards the realization of their ideals. – JZ, 12.8.08. – PARADISE, EDEN, CASTLES IN THE AIR

UTOPIAS & OPTIONS, VOLUNTARISM: All utopias should be optional. - JZ, 7.12.90.

UTOPIAS: Panarchies cater to negative as well as positive utopias, to reactionary, petrified, conservative as well as progressive, radical and revolutionary ones. JZ 20.6.92, 5.1.93. – PANARCHIES, POLYARCHIES

UTOPIAS: People are willing to devise and praise Utopias but not (JZ: allowed to construct or choose them for themselves and) to live in them." - David Pryce-Jones, THE TIMES, 20 Mar. 1972. - JZ 12.9.85, 14.1.93.

UTOPISM, EXTERRITORIAL: All kinds of utopias for all kinds of utopists, all at their own expense and risk and all in the same country and at the same time. - JZ 19.7.87.

UTOPISM, VOLUNTARY VS. COERCIVE, EXTERRITORIAL VS. TERRITORIAL, COMPETING VS. MONOPOLISTIC FORMS: Is panarchism a completely utopian and impractical approach? Just consider the number of individual and panarchistic (exterritorial, autonomous and voluntary) choices we do already or still enjoy as Australians, in our private lives, compared with the relatively few extra ones, in the so-called public affairs, we would need to achieve the full freedom of panarchism. In other words, the remaining "public affairs" should become denationalized, privatized, individualized, collectivised, co-operatized options and choices for individuals and their voluntary groupings and communities. No longer any imposed package deals. Each to fill his "shopping cart" only with the goods and services that he really wants and is willing to pay for. - JZ to Joe Toscana, March 96. - We live in a time where even territorial governments, mostly for financial rather than moral or ideological reasons, have been in the forefront of privatization. Naturally, they did not go far enough with their efforts in this direction and have not yet privatized themselves. But other than the ruling politicians could also be given a strong incentive to work in this direction. For as leaders over voluntary followers they could come and stay in office even when they cannot obtain or can no longer get the support of the majority of people in a territory. Their true believers will remain faithful to them - unless they make quite stupid mistakes and these all too publicly. - JZ, 29.8.04.


[Home] [Top]