John Zube

An Anthology of

Wisdom & Common Sense

Index - C

(1973 - 2012)



CADZOW, JANE: Prince and the Pawpaws, At the Court of Prince Kevin, GOOD WEEKEND, Feb. 20, 1993, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD MAGAZINE, on the official (by secessionist standards) representative of Hutt River Province, successor to Prince Len Casley, appointed by Len Casley, Prince of Hutt River Province, as Prince Regent of Hutt River Province., 6pp: 148 – 153 , in PP 1540. – Kevin Gale has moved the principality's head office to the Gold Coast, granted Hutt River citizenship to some 200 Queenslanders etc. and is looking for an island. - For me dressing up, fancy names and medals seem to play too large a role, apart from publicity. But these secessionists have also acted more seriously, with their own passports, stamps and note issues, at least playing up to tourist interests and that of collectors. Australian territorialism still suppresses their exterritorial autonomy and so they seek to buy an island and to achieve autonomy territorially. – J.Z., 9.2.1999.

CALEB, R.: Die Konsulargerichtsbarkeit in Bulgarien auf Grund der Capitulationen mit der Tuerkei, Strassburgie, 1903.

CALLAHAN, GENE, The Right to Walk Away, 2003. - Note: This is a lucidly constructed and beautifully presented essay on why we should allow everyone the freedom to chose the government of his/her liking, irrespective of territorial location, if every individual is to be and remain a moral and rational human being. Moreover, this coexistence of different governments and systems of law on the same territory would be the best solution against all sorts of impositions and exploitation committed by any power, usually in the name of the people and for a pretended general welfare. - Full text: - Gene Callahan, The Right to Walk Away (2003) [English] Gene Callahan is author of Economics for Real People. He delivered this talk as the Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture at the Austrian Scholars Conference 9, March 13, 2003.

CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, SIR HENRY: Self-government is better than good government." - Alas, like most he did probably remain unaware of all the radical implications of such a general statement. - J.Z.

CAMPBELL, JOHN W., TERRITORIALISM VS. INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY AUTONOMY: A territorial statist society is one "where the individual can't withdraw and start his own system." - John W. Campbell, Letters, Vol. I, p. 118. - Alas, like most SF writers, even the famous ones, he did not fully develop this idea into panarchism and describe it in one of his own books or stories or favoured such writings as an editor, although his choices had a strong libertarian flavour. - Are there more such utterances by him? All back issues of ASTOUNDING & ANALOG appeared on microfilm but I failed to obtain a copy of the set. - Probably only a selection of his correspondence was published. - J.Z., 22.9.04.

CAN DO: The only ones who can do anything rightfully and constructively are individuals and voluntary associations of individuals. - J.Z., 8.12.76, 10.12.11. – Provided they are free to act on their insights. – J.Z., 13.11.08. - STATE, STATISM, BUREAUCRACY, GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CAN’T BE DONE: People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” – Jack Canfield and Mark Vicor Hansen [1993], 149. Quoted as motto to part 6 in: Geoff Davies, Economia. New economic systems to empower people and support the living world, ABC Books, Sydney, 2004. Always assuming that they are already free to do so or do it anyhow, in a revolutionary way, also protecting their free alternative actions and associations in a revolutionary way. – Territorial States are, obviously, unable to end involuntary mass unemployment, inflations and deflations, wars and the remaining obvious territorial despotisms – and yet they prevent private associations of volunteers from tackling these jobs under full exterritorial autonomy. – 6.11.10. - PANARCHISM, MILITIA, DEFENCE, SECESSIONISM


CANTONAL VS. NON-GEOGRAPHICAL DECENTRALIZATION: Only one-man and family cantons come close enough to panarchism. Cantons are still geographical institutions, the way they are practised now and thus amount merely to smaller territorial despotism. In some respects local governments are often more despotic than State and federal governments, even on quite trivial issues. Individual secessionism ought to be applied to all of them and all of them ought to be subjected to competition from exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 30.8.04. - Compare the concept of "virtual cantons" advocated by the Free Nations Foundation and that of "ethical enclaves" mentioned in INNOVATOR.

CANTONS, SWISS TYPE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: To some extent they are autonomous, on the community level of a large village or village cluster or small township, which tended to predominate until the large scale territorial nations and cities arose, mostly out of conquests and usurpations. By now their considerable uniformity of origin and traditions has largely disappeared, making them unfit for territorial decentralization but fit for exterritorial reorganization. In their ways, within and beyond their authority, local territorial governments have been, are and are likely to be just as intolerant and oppressive as large territorial governments and, in some cases even more so. For instances read the daily press or listen to and watch the daily news. - J.Z., 14.1.93. - A Swiss informed me recently that there are practically no limits on subjects that can be dealt with by referendum in Switzerland. True or false? One limit that I would like to impose would be: While any referendum may widen the scope of individual righs and liberties, none of them may infringe them further than they are already. - J.Z., 12.9.04.

CANTZEN, ROLF: Freiheit unter saurem Regen. Ueberlegungen zu einem libertaer-oekologischen Gesellschaftskonzept, Editions Ahrens im Verlag Clemens Zerling, 1984, 79 S., JZL. - Panarchistic notions can here be found at least on pages 20, 21, 27, 31, 33-35 & 38. E.g., S. 38: "Der auf 'Mutualismus' und Foederalismus beruhende Anarchismus Proudhons soll u.a. Folgendes garantieren: 1. Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung der Individuen und der aus Individuen bestehenden Gruppen, 2. Eine von den Betroffenen und deren Interessen ausgehende Politik und Verwaltung, 3. Keine Unterwerfung des Einzelnen under die Abstimmungsmehrheit gewaehlter Repraesentanten, d.h. unter parlamentarische Mehrheiten, 4. Eine weitgehende Pazifizierung der Gesellschaft. - Bakunin greift auf das Proudhonsche foederalistische Organisationsprinzip zurueck, vernachlaessigt jedoch den Aspekt der uneingeschraenkten und freien Selbstorganisation der Individuen und Gruppen und konzentriert sich auf das Konzept eines weltweiten Organisationsaufbaus 'von unten nach oben'."   - MUTUALISM, PROUDHON, FEDERALISM

CAPITALISM: A spirit of exaltation of active and inventive power, of the dynamic energies of man and of individual enterprise." - Jaques Maritain. – Held down by monetary despotism, protectionism, uncounted laws, taxes, regulations and other restrictions imposed by territorialism. – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPITALISM: Allow free market- or laissez-faire- or anarcho-capitalism to enrich everybody. – J.Z., 22.7.04, 10.12.11. – In free competition with all other systems! – J.Z., 12.11.08. RICHES, WEALTH, PROSPERITY

CAPITALISM: As the economic derivative of libertarianism, laissez-faire capitalism is an economics of life, of rationality. Like libertarianism in general, it is founded on a belief in the ultimate ability of the individual to engage in enterprises and exchanges of mutual benefit. Like libertarianism, it represents man's aspiration for freedom. And, like libertarianism, it is the only viable solution to the catastrophe of statism in the modern age." - Stan Lehr and Louis Rosetto, Jr., THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, 10.1.71. - Capitalists who paint capitalism as the only possible ideal do have, under present conditions, no more chance to see it realised than anarchists have, who do the same for anarchism or limited government libertarians who aim at limited governments for all. Only panarchism fully mobilises the powers of attraction, voluntarism and tolerance and minimises frictions and antagonisms, and only it corresponds fully to the diversity of man and his ideas, including his errors. Thus capitalists, anarchists, libertarians and other idealists should finally stand up for fully free experimentation among volunteers, which is possible only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy, introduced by individual secessionism and exterritorial associationism, i.e. on the foundation of panarchism. - J.Z., 24.4.94.

CAPITALISM: Big money and big business, corporations and commerce, are again the undisputed overlords of politics and government. The White House, the Congress and, increasingly, the judiciary, reflect their interests. We appear to have a government run by remote control from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute. To hell with everyone else.” - Bill Moyers - PBS Commentator. – Sent by C. B. - A popular leftist prejudice and misunderstanding due to an anti-capitalist mentality. Where would most of the big and oversized businesses be without government granted monopolies, privileges, tax exemptions and even subsidies? They are certainly not efficient enough to do away without such help at the expense of the taxpayers and consumers, not informed enough to do away with monetary despotism and have mostly to put up with taxation, inflations, deflations and mass unemployment and sales difficulties caused by monetary despotism. Anyhow, when it comes to a choice between big business and big government, I would always choose rather big business. – I am not forced to invest in it, buy its product and work in it. If I ever did, I would be free to sell my shares, discontinue buying any of its output and could quit my job. One cannot disconnect oneself as easily, if at all, from territorial governments. I favor complete exterritorial autonomy for corporations which desire it and freedom for them to compete with governments in every sphere. I am sure they would supply much better services than present governments do. But then they should not be the only organizations with that option. Every minority should have the right to so rule itself. – That would be a sound foundation for all the diverse groups among human beings to come to coexist peacefully on this planet, in all countries. Each group could at worst only mistreat its own members and they would remain free to secede from it. – J.Z., 27.12.07. - GOVERNMENT, MONOPOLIES & PRIVILEGES, BIGNESS, DIS. LOBBIES, PRESSURE GROUPS, VESTED INTERESTS HAVING ACCESS TO THE POWER LEVERS IN PARLIAMENTS

CAPITALISM: But in order to get the best out of capitalism the burdens of the state have to be not merely equitable – they have to be light.” - Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft, 2002, HarperCollins, – p.422. - - Not merely light but absent – unless quite voluntary communities decide to impose them upon themselves. – J.Z., 8.7.07. Volunteers will, generally, be careful not to impose too great burdens upon themselves. – J.Z., 9.10.07. - THE STATE, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM

CAPITALISM: Capitalism created the possibility of employment. It created the conditions wherein people who have not been endowed by their parents with the tools and land needed to maintain themselves and their offspring, could be so equipped by others, to their mutual benefit. For the process enabled people to live poorly, and to have children, who otherwise, without the opportunity for productive work, could hardly even have grown to maturity and multiplied: it brought into being and kept millions alive who otherwise would not have lived at all and who, if they had lived for a time, could not have afforded to procreate. In this way the poor benefited more from the process. Karl Marx was thus right to claim that 'capitalism' created the proletariat: it gave and gives them life. - Thus the whole idea that the rich wrested away from the poor what, without such acts of violence would, or at least might, belong to them, is absurd." - Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.123/24. - What is not absurd is that, under the rule of an exclusive and all too scarce currency, much of the capital tends to accumulate in a few hands and all too many people remain all too often unemployed or can sell their labour only at emergency sales prices, or at lower prices than they could readily get on a completely liberated market. - J.Z., 25.4.94, 30.9.02. – All the numerous advocates and practitioners of the presently still all too incomplete capitalism have not yet managed to advocate and introduce full monetary and financial freedom, fully Free Trade and full free enterprise and consumer sovereignty, freedom of association and freedom of contract when it comes to whole economic, political and social systems. Here, they, too, do mostly still wear blinders – and are not even aware of this. – J.Z., 6.11.10.

CAPITALISM: capitalism is a profoundly permissive society, permitting human beings to do anything they wish, anything they choose, so long as they accept the consequences and do not violate the rights of others." - D. Shapiro, LIBERTARIAN REVIEW, 3/79, 21. – As if it included already panarchism or full experimental freedom for all political, economic and social systems for all of their volunteers! Only few of the anarcho-capitalists are in favor of that and then, usually, not explicitly so, that they remain favorite hate objects for most statists. Since most statists strongly disagree with each other – just see the continuing party struggles, they could be turned into allies of libertarians, if libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, advocated full experimental freedom for all varieties of statists, too, but also only on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy for like-minded volunteers. – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is based on individual rights - not on the sacrifice of the individual to the 'public good' of the collective..." - Ayn Rand, quoted in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 23.3.76. – Even she did not realize how far a fully developed capitalism could and should go. For instance, she attacked as absurd the notion of “competing governments” or voluntary governments and societies, all exterritorially autonomous, because the completely misunderstood it. – Was it a sufficient excuse for her that many other libertarians and laissez-faire advocates do also and still not understand this extension of our liberties and rights? – Roy Childs and myself tried in vain to correct her views on this. She stuck by them and never bothers to reply to our criticism, either. Have most of the Objectivists changed their position on this, by now? I very much doubt it but would welcome every exception. – Have all the remaining significant errors of Ayn Rand in the meantime been collected, thoroughly refuted and made sufficiently accessible to anyone interested? Those, who really love all of her many good points (I am still one of them, so was Childs) should be among the first to provide such a service, rather than merely adhere to her views like religious people do to the views of their prophets. - J.Z., 6.11.10.

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is color-blind. Black, brown, yellow, red and white are alike in the market place. A person is regarded for his ability rather than his race. Economic rewards in the market place, like honor and acclaim on the playing field, are proportionate to performance. The person who has the most skill, ability and ingenuity to produce is paid accordingly by the people who value and need his goods and services." - Perry E. Gresham, THE FREEMAN, 3/77, p.54. – That ideal cannot be fully realized as long as production and exchange remain organized largely in hierarchical forms only. – Very much remains to be done in the sphere of “organization development” – just like it remains to be done in order to replace territorial organizations by exterritorially autonomous ones, all only freely chosen by volunteers for themselves. – J.Z., 14.11.08. – HIERARCHIES, TERRITORIALISM, SELF-MANAGEMENT & PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is merely a name for freedom in the economic sphere." – Henry Hazlitt, Time Will Run Back, V. – How many are aware and thus demand that it would have to included full monetary and financial freedom, e.g. free banking, freedom in clearing and voluntary taxation or contribution schemes only? Also that it ought to be extended to the enterprise of providing the option of different economic, social and political systems – for their remaining volunteers. – J.Z., 14.11.08. – FREE BANKING, PANARCHISM.

CAPITALISM: capitalism is not the cause of the world's woes - government is - and laissez - faire capitalism is the only solution to those problems.” - Mark Tier, in THE AUSTRALIAN, 12.10.74. - The panarchistic option of voluntary and exterritorial autonomy for all individuals does offer them liberties or “social reforms” to any degrees which they are ready to adopt for themselves and their own affairs, among like-minded volunteers, as long as they to not attempt to impose them upon any dissenters by anything but merely attempts to persuade others while demonstrating the own supposed truths to them, at the own risk and expense. - J.Z., 24.4.94, 14.11.08, 6.11.10.

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future - if mankind is to have a future." - Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p.33. - In a truly free future everybody can have the future which he himself has chosen for himself, at his own risk and expense, not only any of those futures which some praise and others attack as capitalist futures. Individual FREE choice, that's where it's at! - J.Z., 24.4.94.

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is superior to socialism by a very simple test: It has room for all kinds of socialist experiments while socialism cannot stand the free competition by capitalistic minded groups and thus has to outlaw them. - J.Z., 73. – Alas, most capitalists, free market, laissez-faire, freedom of contract, freedom of association, freedom to experiment and free enterprise advocates do not yet advocate quite explicitly, fully free enterprise or experimental freedom even for the systems of their opponents. If they did so, they would have many less opponents and could achieve a fully free capitalism among themselves much sooner. – J.Z., 6.11.10.

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is the enemy of enforced homogeneity. It thrives on and also promotes difference and individuality.” - Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft, 2002, HarperCollins, – p.421. – But not under e.g. taxation, any degree of protectionism, central banking or in the employer-employee-relationship, neither of which are essential features of free enterprise and free exchange capitalism or laissez-faire, laissez-passer economics. – It has not yet clearly advocated: Any degree of capitalism and any degree of statism – but all only for their volunteers! - J.Z., 8.10.07, 6.11.10. - DIVERSITY, INDIVIDUALISM

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is the only economic system respecting individual economic rights. – Source? – Alas, even the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism do not yet, as a rule, recognize all individual rights and liberties, e.g. the monetary ones and those, individual rights and individual secessionism, combined with individual sovereignty and complete consumer sovereignty, that would lead to panarchism. – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPITALISM: capitalism is the only politico-economic system consonant with man's nature." - Mark Tier, THE AUSTRALIAN, 12.10.74. – Alas, so far, in spite of their common human nature, most people are still statists and anti-capitalists in their ideology. The business of trying to spread free enterprise and free exchange capitalism should take this fact sufficiently into consideration with all its realization platforms and proposals. – Anarcho-capitalists have so far also failed to at least attempt to provide an ideal declaration of all genuine human rights and liberties, corresponding to human nature and including all economic rights as well, and a handbook on full monetary and financial freedom (including voluntary taxation), which has not helped them in their struggles with the territorial statists. – If they clearly took the position: To each the government or non-governmental system of its own choice and used the effectiveness of capitalist advertising and publicity for such ideas, then and thus they could almost disarm and dissolve the resistance and institutions of territorial statists, actually by releasing the numerous strong centrifugal forces among them and letting all of them mind their own business, as well as they can, quite freely, until their own failures and mistakes would, finally, free them of their remaining errors and prejudices. Then they could be easily signed up as new members by capitalist communities and societies. But not before! - J.Z., 6.11.10. – ANARCHO CAPITALISM, FREE MARKET, FREE ENTERPRISE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, SOCIALISM, STATISM

CAPITALISM: Capitalism is the only politico-economic system consonant with man's nature." - Mark Tier, THE AUSTRALIAN, 12.10.74. - Panarchies do not only allow for man's basic nature but also for his diverse faiths, convictions, myths, errors, customs etc., all at his expense and all with the tendency to become educational experiments, and as such to be as much progress promoting as experiments were in natural science and technology. Even the most just and efficient system should not be forced upon any peaceful dissenter. People aware of how much hatred religious differences and ideological ones e.g. on "capitalism" or wrong notions on capitalism, have inspired, should become at last aware of that. - J.Z., 24.4.94. – If it were as much in agreement with man’s nature then it would have been generally realized long ago. – But even the participants in many free exchanges, using one or the other kind of money or clearing, have in most cases not yet fully understood money, clearing and the free market but still hold many wrong views, on pricing, wages, profits, interest, credit, money and clearing and remain unaware of all too many genuine individual rights and liberties. A perfect declaration of individual rights and liberties does not come natural to them, does not even interest most people. I do not even know of a single person among anarchists and libertarians, to whom this would be an attractive project! – So where is Mark Tier’s assumed human nature in this respect? - J.Z., 14.11.08. – For most of mankind’s existence primitive communist notions and practices prevailed and were taken for granted or considered to be quite natural, although they held our development back for uncounted centuries. - The present collectivist and compulsory territorial statism is just a modern form of this communism and it is largely armed with mass extermination devices, facilitating and cheapening mass murders. The best in human nature has still largely to be recognized or developed and finally realized. Human nature at present is still all too unenlightened and also insufficiently interested in its own affairs, in all too many cases, letting “God”, “George”,  “Big Brother” or territorially, i.e. by the majority elected “representatives”, i.e. mere politicians and bureaucrats do it, i.e. regulate and mismanage all too much of the lives of whole populations, not permitting dissenting individual and minorities to run their own lives and affairs. – They even put up with the nuclear threat, all too quietly. -  J.Z., 10.12.11. - DIS.

CAPITALISM: Capitalism, at least in the way it is usually advocated, is as intolerant as socialism and for this only the philosophers of capitalism are to blame. There should only be a tolerant advocacy, ideal and free practice of genuine laissez-faire or free market or free enterprise, free trade capitalism, also characterized by full monetary and financial freedom, in order to assure its final victory for most people, and this in the speediest way possible and with complete justice. - No matter how just and economically efficient it is, it should not be forced upon the anti-capitalists and statists of all kinds. Only free choice of it - and any other ism, should be forced upon the territorialists. - J.Z., in pamphlet Tolerance & 17.10.11.

CAPITALISM: Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn’t do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the nonexistent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.” - Walter E. Williams, More Liberty Means Less Government. Our Founders Knew This Well, Hoover Institution Press, 1999, – p.248. - - We ought to allow it to provide all “public services” as well, competitively, i.e., without any territorial monopoly. Then some real utopias might finally become developed. – J.Z., 8.10.07.

CAPITALISM: each step away from capitalism (individualism, private ownership, and limited government) is a descent into barbarism, degradation, and irrationality." - Morgan O. Reynolds, THE FREEMAN, May 89. - Limited government is NOT a precondition for free enterprise capitalism. It can function very well without a limited government, too, with all "functions" of a limited government supplied by competing free market agencies or competing governments, or other communities - with none of them possessing a territorial monopoly. The territorial monopoly of any supposedly "limited" government is actually a totalitarian feature. - J.Z., 25.4.94. – LIMITED GOVERNMENT, FREE ENTERPRISE, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

CAPITALISM: Give capitalism a chance." - Peter Robinson, NATIONAL TIMES, 23.9.78.Only for its volunteers. It is bound to spread from them. In the meantime also any kind of statism for its volunteers!J.Z., 14.11.08. – PANARCHISM.

CAPITALISM: History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” – Milton Friedman. – Territorial political freedom is a quite insufficient political freedom. It does not include free choice for individuals of political, economic and social systems but at most free choice for the majority of territorial masters over the population. – J.Z., 3.1.08. & POLITICAL FREEDOM

CAPITALISM: History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly, it is not a sufficient condition." - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom. - It would be - if it were extended to all workers and to all government services. - J.Z., 20.6.92. – Only under panarchism would also the latter be quite competitively supplied – in whatever package deals are wanted by the volunteers of exterritorially autonomous communities, societies and voluntary and competing governments. – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPITALISM: How many different kinds of capitalism are there? There is e.g. a legalized monopoly capitalism, the capitalism of a few vs. the capitalism of the many (In one form also called “pension-fund socialism” and in another “voluntary socialism” or “cooperative socialism”.). There is the free enterprise or laissez-faire capitalism of relatively many entrepreneurs (In the USA may be by now 20 million – if what is left there of free enterprise and laissez-faire still deserves such terms!) as opposed to the monopoly or State capitalism of a few political and bureaucratic leaders. There are the forms of supposedly free market capitalism that are still lacking e.g. full monetary and financial freedom vs. the still only proposed and imagined forms of free market capitalism which include these liberties as well. There is the State capitalism based upon part to 100% nationalization vs. the State socialism that uses controls and regulations, taxes, central planning, quotas etc., while nominally still leaving private owners in charge. There is pure capitalism, as an unknown ideal (Ayn Rand’s description of it), vs. the all too limited capitalism of the mixed economy of the welfare State. (Usually being accused of causing all the wrongs and evils actually caused by its mostly not freely chosen but imposed partner, the territorial government.) There is capitalism with legal privileges, subsidies and official incentives and capitalism which relies merely on the natural incentives of truly economic activities. There is capitalism still based upon the ancient employer-employee relationships and capitalism which utilizes all the self-management options. There is capitalism territorial practised voluntarily or imposed territorially, just like statism can be imposed territorially - and capitalism that is tolerantly and panarchistically practised only by its own voluntary followers under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy, i.e. under full experimental freedom. How many other or derived forms are there? Have they as yet been sufficiently tabulated and described? Perhaps they should be listed as capitalism (1) to capitalism (n) and the term should always be used in connection with such a well published list?- J.Z., 22.9.08.

CAPITALISM: In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their judgements, convictions and interests dictate." - Ayn Rand, quoted in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 23.3.76. – Alas, she failed to apply this idea to competing governments of voluntary governments: exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, under personal laws. – If she had, then to what extent would panarchism have been advanced by now? – J.Z., 6.11.10. - VOLUNTARISM

CAPITALISM: It is easier to blame and curse capitalism than to be as rightful and productive as it already is. - J.Z., 25.4.94. It could be still much more prosperity promoting for all willing to work and invest, if it were fully free and competitive. Free from all counter-productive inventions of territorial governments. As such it would also include exterritorially autonomous national and international corporations. Seemingly very powerful as such. But they would also have numerous competitors. – J.Z., 6.11.10.

CAPITALISM: it is still not widely understood that capitalism (*) contains within itself the means by which society as a whole progresses. It does not need a touch of socialism (**) on the tiller to help it along.” - Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft, 2002, HarperCollins, – p.427. - - (*) If it is quite unrestricted free enterprise capitalism, which would also allow for all kinds of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, free to do their own things for and to themselves, just like its businesses or cooperatives are free to succeed or to fail on their own merits or demerits. – Alas, M. T. did not include all kinds of States, societies and communities of volunteers as free enterprises, too. – What would have happened, if she had, e.g. to prevent the Falkland war? - - (**) Here she meant, I believe, only state socialism. Was she aware of voluntary and cooperative socialism? - J.Z., 8.10.07. - PROGRESS

CAPITALISM: Put your capital into capitalism.” – D.Z., 1.8.75. - Especially your labour capital. - J.Z., 29.9.02. – If only it did already exist anywhere, in its pure and consistent form, in all spheres! Everywhere it is still subjected to territorialism, its laws, regulations and confiscations. – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPITALISM: Release all creative energies!" - Leonard E. Read. – Creative people have their failures, too and should be allowed to make them, at their own risk and expense, learning from their mistakes. A genuinely free market and economy would allow people to attempt to realize flawed systems and ideas among themselves. It would even give State socialists their best chance to realize their plans among themselves, at their own risk and expense. – J.Z., 14.11.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAWS

CAPITALISM: Smith called the market order “the simple system of natural liberty.” Modern libertarians have similarly said that “capitalism is what happens when you let people alone. - David Boaz, ed., The Libertarian Reader, The Free Press, 1997. (Claiming copyrights even to the writings of Paine, Madison, Tocqueville, Mill, etc.! – J.Z.), p.250. - - Alas, they failed to apply such ideas to communities, societies, States and governments and their central banking despotism – because they had only territorial organizations in mind in this sphere. One could similarly say: Panarchism or Polyarchism is what happens when you leave people alone, i.e., do not territorially impose any system upon them. – J.Z., 3.10.07.

CAPITALISM: The fateful error that frustrated all the endeavors to safeguard peace was precisely that people did not grasp the fact that only within a world of pure, perfect and unhampered capitalism are there no incentives for aggression and conquest." - Mises, Omnipotent Government, p.5. – Peace requires that the adherents of all systems, all ideologies, are free to practise them among themselves, at their own risk and expense, i.e. quite tolerantly, without attempting to territorially dominate and suppress other systems. Experimental freedom for all – but not with dissenters as victims. – J.Z., 14.11.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, IMPOSED LAWS & INSTITUTIONS, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE ENTERPRISE, FREE TRADE

CAPITALISM: The only alternative to statism (in all its forms) is capitalism, which is defined as: private ownership AND private control of the means of production." - Mark Tier in TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDUMMY, p.6. - The true alternatives to all the despotic impositions of territorial States are all the voluntary alternatives made possible by voluntary memberships in exterritorially autonomous communities or "competing governments". In these the voluntary members might practise, as they please, and as long as they can stand them, any kind of ism, including any of hundreds of forms of socialism and communism. Why are the voluntary alternatives so often overlooked, even among libertarians and anarchists? See my ON PANARCHY series. - J.Z., 22.4.94. -

CAPITALISM: The real question is not: Can capitalism survive? - but: Can we survive without capitalism? - J.Z., 12.6.80. – A comprehensive capitalism requires also the free enterprise competition between exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers: panarchies of polyarchies, which, by their very nature, are peacefully coexisting rather than constituting continuing territorial warfare States. – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPITALISM: There is no State in a truly capitalistic society. - J.Z., 74.

CAPITALISM: To the extent that various countries adopted capitalism, the rule of brute force vanished from men's lives. Capitalism abolished slavery and serfdom in all the civilized nations. Trade, not violence, became the ruling principle of human relationships. Intellectual freedom and economic freedom rose and flourished together. Men had discovered the concept of individual rights." - Mrs. Young in a paper on Ayn Rand, p.12. – The populations of whole countries, individuals and minorities were, under territorialism, given no free choice in this sphere. Thus capitalism was realized at best only to the extent that it was comprehended and tolerated by the territorial rulers, whose economic knowledge, as a rule, is woefully lacking, just like it is lacking among the average voters. – The interest in individual rights and liberties is still so small that I cannot find anyone interested in helping to produce an ideal and complete declaration of all these rights! – See my efforts in this direction in PEACE PLANS 589/590, offering over 130 private drafts, as opposed to governmental ones. So far only available from me, until this anthology appears online or on a CD, as a large email attachment. - J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPITALISM: undiluted capitalism ... the only basis for liberty." - View ascribed to William L. O'Neill, in REASON, 8/79. - Like most other libertarians, he fails to include in "liberty" a condition of restriction or even slavery that is voluntarily and individually chosen. But freedom includes the choice not to be free - and that is the choice most people have made today. For them and their own affairs it is a rightful choice and it is a form of territorial authoritarianism and even of totalitarianism to want to force a full and individualistic - capitalistic or anarchistic - freedom upon them. Neither sexual nor capitalistic freedom should be forced upon anybody. Dissenters can rightfully only claim the opportunity to opt out and to do their own thing undisturbed, the capitalistic or anarchist way, whether in the so-called Free Western World or in totalitarian States. In the latter this would require and facilitate a liberating revolution. - J.Z., 20.7.84, 22.4.94, 6.6.94

CAPITULATIONS & CHARLES THE GREAT: In the Capitularies of Charlemagne and of Louis I, recognition was given to the applicability of Roman and other foreign laws to cases involving the respective foreign subjects.4 -(4 Savigny, op. cit., vol. i, p. 127.) – LIU, Extraterritoriality, page 29.

CAPITULATIONS FOR ALL WHO DESIRE THEM: Unless we "capitulate" in an exterritorial, autonomous, personal law and individualist-secessionist sense, we are lost. - J.Z. 12.2.88. (Compare the history of the "capitulations", e.g. in Encyclopaedia Britannica.) See: BIN ABBUD IMHAMMAD: Markaz al-ajanib fi Marrakish, 1950, 135pp, on capitulations in Marocco. - The "capitulations" in the panarchistic sense refer to the historical "capitulations", international treaties with many capital inscriptions or chapters in which powers mutually granted each other exterritorial status at least for their diplomants and traders while they resides in foreign countries. Later, under nationalist wars and imperialism, the name "capitulation" became associated, in most cases, rather with unconditional surrender of a defeated enemy. Capitulations in the panarchistic sense have nothing to do with the latter interpretation and usage. - J.Z. 13.9.04. - RAUSAS, G. PELISSIE DU: Le Regime des Capitulations dans I'Empire Ottoman, 2d., Paris, 1910-11. - HOMSY, BASILE: Les Capitulations & la protection de chretiens au Proche-Orient aux XVIe, XVIIe et XVIIIe Siecles, Harrissa, Libean (Libeau, Lileau?), 1956, 420pp. - KEUN, YEN-TSINE: Le Regime des Capitulations jusqu'a la Conference de la Paix de 1919 et la Reforme Judiciaire en Chine, Paris, 1920.  - - LA DIMORA DELLA PACE: Considerazioni Sulle Capitolazioni Tra I Paesi Islamici E L’Europe, Venezia,  Cafoscarina, 1996. – Here only an abstract from the IN, 1p, in English, About the capitulations between Islamic countries and Europe: 94, in PP 1539. - - CAPITULATIONS OF 1675, THE: Reproduced from: “Man, State, & Society in East European History, ed. by Stephen FISCHER-GALATI,  Praeger Publishers, N.Y., Washington, London, 1970, 6pp: 96, in PP 1539. - - CAPITULATIONS:  For all Dissatisfied Minorities, ibid, plan 155, by John Zube, page 31, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. - They do supply numerous and long-lasting precedents for panarchism & its form of "peaceful coexistence: 11, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLAMS 505.  - - CAPITULATIONS: See 1539. FABRIS, MARIA PIA PEDANI: La Dimora Della Pace, Considerazioni Sulla Capitolazioni Tra I Paesi Islamici e L'Europa. A book on the capitulations, on which an abstract, 1/2 page, in English, can be found online and is reproduced in PP 1539. - - GARNETT, L.M.J.:  Turkey of the Ottomans, 1911. - Public Libr. of NSW. Page 156:  Description of the capitulations in the Turkey of the Ottoman Empire. - - KANDELAFTE, J.S.: L'avenir reserve au regime de capitulations en Turqui, Paris, E. Larose, 1911, 212pp. (Capitulations, consular jurisdiction.) (Ann Arbor) - - MAZARD, JEAN ALBERT: Le regime des Capitulations en Turquie pendant la guerre de 1914, Alger, 1923, 258pp. (Ann Arbor). -- NASIM, SUSA: Capitulary Regime of Turkey: Its History, Origin &  Nature, John Hopkins Univ., 1933. Reproduction of this edition, by AMS Pr, $ 31. - - OVERBECK, ALFRED: Freiherr von, 1877-, Die Kapitulationen des Osmanischen Reiches, Breslau, Korn (C. Mueller), 1917, 34pp. (Ann Arbor) - QUANG, ROLAND HIAO-HI: 1904-, Essai sur le regime des capitulations en Chine, Paris, Librarie du Rucueil Sirey, 1933, 419pp. (Ann Arbor)  - SAINT-PRIEST, FRANCOIS EMMANUEL GUIGNARD, COMTE DE, 1735-1821: Memoirs sur l'embassade de France en Turquie, 1525-1770, ... avec appendices contenant le texte de traductions originales des capitulations, 1528-1740, et des traites conclus avec la Sublime Porte Ottoman, Amsterdam, Philo Press, 1974, 542pp, reprint of the 1877 ed. - - SCHOPOFF, A.: Les reformes et la protection des chretiens en Turquie, 1673-1904; firmans, berats, protocoles, traites, capitulations, conventions, arrangements, notes, circulaires, reglements, lois, memorandums, etc., Paris, Plon-Nourritt, 1904, 645pp. (Ann Arbor). -- TIMURI, IBRAHIM: Asr-I bi-khabari, 1953/54, 411pp, on capitulations and exterritoriality. (Ann Arbor) - - TOYNBEE, A.J. & KIRKWOOD, P.: Turkey, N.Y., 1927, has information on capitulations. - - TRITTON, A.S.: The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects: A Critical Study of the Covenant of 'Umar, 1930, reprint, London, Frank Cass, 1970. -- UN ANCIEN DIPLOMATE: Le Regime des Capitulations, son Histoire, son Application, ses Modifications, Paris, 1898. - - VAN  DYCK, E. A.: Reports on the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire. Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 3. 46. Cong., Special Session, and Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 87. 47. Cong., 1 sess.

CAPITULATIONS OF 1675, THE: Reproduced from: “Man, State, & Society in East European History”, ed. by Stephen FISCHER-GALATI, Praeger Publishers, N.Y., Washington, London, 1970, 6pp: 96, in PP 1539.


CAPITULATIONS: an Italian article, by FABRIS, MARIA PIA PEDANI, abstract only, 1p, in PEACE PLANS 1539. - La Dimora Della Pace. Considerazioni Sulle Capitolazioni Tra I Paesi Islamici E L’Europe, Venezia, Cafoscarina, 1996. – Here only an abstract from the IN, 1p, in English, About the capitulations between Islamic countries and Europe: 94, in PEACE PLANS 1539. – See the digitized ON PANARCHY subseries of PEACE PLANS.

CAPITULATIONS: Capitulations - for all Dissatisfied Minorities, plan 155, page 31, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. (The sub-series ON PANARCHY has been digitized by me. - J.Z.)

CAPITULATIONS: CREASY, SIR E. SH., HISTORY OF THE OTTOMAN TURKS, Beirut, 1961, found in the Public Library of NSW: From pages 207 & 208: SOLYMAN I., A.D. 1520-1566. File: Pan Capitulations, report by Creasy His O Turks: “… Whatever the political economists of the present time may think of the legislation of Solyman Kanouni as to wages, manufactures, and retail trade, their highest praises are due to the enlightened liberality with which the foreign merchant was welcomed in his empire. The earliest of the contracts, called capitulations, which guarantee to the foreign merchant in Turkey full protection for person and property, the free exercise of his religion, and the safeguard of his own laws administered by functionaries of his own nation, was granted by Solyman to France in 1535. (1) An extremely moderate custom duty was the only impost on foreign merchandise; and the costly and vexatious system of prohibitive and protective duties has been utterly unknown among the Otto­mans. No stipulation for reciprocity ever clogged the wise liberality of Turkey in her treatment of the foreign merchant who became her resident, or in her admission of his ships and his goods. - - - (1) There is a remarkable State paper published by the Ottoman government, 1832, in the Moniteur Ottoman, justly claiming credit for their nation on this important subject. Mr. Urquhart cites, in his "Turkey and her Resources”, the following passages from this official declaration of Turkish commercial principles: "It has often been repeated, that the Turks are encamped in Europe; it is certainly not their treatment of strangers that has given rise to this idea of precarious occupancy; the hospitality they offer their guest is not that of the tent, nor is it that of the Turkish laws; for the Mussulman code, in its double civil and religious character, is inapplicable to those professing another religion; but they have done more, they have granted to the stranger the safeguard of his own laws, exercised by functionaries of his own nation. In this privilege, so vast in benefits and in consequences, shines forth the admirable spirit of true and lofty hospitality. - - "In Turkey, and there alone, does hospitality present itself, great, noble, and worthy of its honourable name; not the shelter of a stormy day, but that hospitality which, elevating itself from a simple movement of humanity to the dignity of a political reception, combines the future with the present. When the stranger has placed his foot on the land of the Sultan, he is saluted guest (mussafir !). To the children of the West who have confided themselves to the care of the Mussulman, hospitality has been granted, with those two companions, civil liberty according to the laws, commercial liberty according to the laws of nature and of reason. - - "Good sense, tolerance, and hospitality, have long ago done for the Ottoman Empire what the other states of Europe are endeavouring to effect by more or less happy political combinations. Since the throne of the Sultans has been elevated at Constantinople, commercial prohibitions have been unknown; they opened all the ports of their empire to the commerce, to the manufacturer, to the territorial produce of the Occident, or, to say better, of the whole world. Liberty of commerce has reigned here without limits, as large, as extended, as it was possible to be. Never has the Divan dreamed, under any pretext of national interest, or even of reciprocity, of restricting that facility, which has been exercised, and is to this day in the most unlimited sense, by all the nations who wish to furnish a portion of the consumption of this vast empire, and to share in the produce of its territory. - - "Here every object of exchange is admitted and circulates without meeting other obstacle than the payment of an infinitely small portion of the value to the Custom-house. - - "The extreme moderation of the duties is the complement of this régime of commercial liberty; and in no portion of the globe are the officers charged with the collection of more confiding facility for the valuations, and of so decidedly conciliatory a spirit in every transaction regarding commerce. - - "Away with the supposition that these facilities granted to strangers are concessions extorted from weakness! The dates of the contracts termed capitulations, which establish the rights actually enjoyed by foreign merchants, recall periods at which the Mussulman power was altogether predominant in Europe. The first capitulation which France obtained was in 1535, from Solyman the Canonist (the Magnificent). - - "The dispositions of these contracts have become antiquated, the fundamental principles remain. Thus, three hundred years ago, the Sultans, by an act of munificence and of reason, anticipated the most ardent desires of civilised Europe, and proclaimed unlimited freedom of commerce." - - The remarks of Ubicini (vol. i p. 393) on this subject, are also well worth consulting.” - Here ends my photocopy of this passage. If that tradition had been preserved and expanded, in the Middle East, would e.g. the civil war in Lebanon and the fights between Arabs and Israelis have occurred? – J.Z., 8.12.04.

CAPITULATIONS: GARNETT, L. M. J., Turkey of the Ottomans, page: 156: „THE CAPITULATIONS." - - In European States generally a foreigner therein resident is amenable to the laws of the country and enjoys no greater privileges or immunities than its natives, foreign embassies and consulates only being exempt from this rule. In Turkey, however, all European foreigners enjoy the same immunities as diplomatists in other countries. Their dwellings or business premises cannot be entered by the Ottoman police without the consent of their respective consuls, to whom notice must immediately be given in case of the arrest of one of their subjects, nor can a foreigner be tried for any offence before a native court unless represented by his consul, who is entitled to appeal against the sentence and its execution should he consider it unjust. - - All suits in which foreigners are alone the litigants are tried in their own consular courts, and between foreigners and Ottoman subjects in mixed courts at the sittings of which a representative of the consul must be present. - - The taxes and dues which may be levied upon foreigners are also regulated by treaty, and can only be increased with the consent of their Ambassadors. And as the postal system of Turkey falls so far short of European requirements, each European power has during the last half century been permitted to establish in the capital and the chief cities of the Empire its own independent post office. - - The origin of this somewhat peculiar state of affairs dates back, it would seem, to Byzantine times, and has not arisen from the circumstance of Christians living in Moslem lands. During the ninth and tenth centuries many Latins settled in Constantinople, and in the 11th century the Comneni and Angeli, in order to secure the alliance of the great Italian States, encouraged the Italians of Amalfi, Venice, Genoa, Pisa and other cities to form settlements there, gave them commercial privileges, and allowed them to pay lower dues and taxes than the subjects of the Empire. Each of these mercantile communities was placed under an official sent out from the …” - Here ends my photocopy. – J.Z.

CAPITULATIONS: POLITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE 20TH CENTURY, Revised and Updated Edition, Edited by Jaacov Shimoni and Evyatar Levine, Supplement edited by Itamar Rabinovich and Haim Sheked, NYT, Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 10 East 53rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10022, ISBN 0-8129-082-6. First published 1972, Copyright 1972, 1974 by G.A. The Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, Israel. All rights reserved. - Note, that it also contains an interesting article on the Millet System. But these two are the only relevant entries that I could find. The rest is filled with an abundance of political details that do not go to the root of the problems of the Middle East. For most of the supposed experts the details of these two articles probably appear to be irrelevant or trivial. They do not see the connection, because they are basically territorialists and blind to the rightful and peace-promoting alternatives to it. But at least the editors of this volume did not censor out this interesting information, as others might have done. For this I am grateful to them. – Recognition and development of these old practices would offer the best hope for a rapid peace settlement in the Middle East. Thus, by their publication of these details, the writers, publishers and editors did give peace a chance.  - J.Z., 17.12.04. From Pages 86/87: CAPITULATIONS. Foreigners living in the East were exempted from local jurisdiction by the C. The C. were set out in contractual chapters (Latin: capitula). (The word is not derived from capitulare: to capitulate.) - - The great mediaeval merchant powers Genoa, Pisa, Venice — were first granted the right to exercise jurisdiction over their nationals in the ME by the Crusader princes in the nth and 12th centuries, and later also by the Byzantine emperors. - - - (Note by J.Z.: The Koran and its jurisdiction was supposed to be applied only to the Islamic faithful. But it also recommended tolerance of all people with a holy book. The capitulations were a practical application of this tolerance. - - These other and faith-based communities were subjected by the Ottoman Empire to a head tax of about 1 gold piece per head. For its time this was a very high tax. But its advantage was that it gave the Turkish overlords a financial interest in maintaining this tolerance. - - Many persecutions followed, nevertheless and the Islamic sects still have their own infighting and not all have become sufficiently tolerant towards people of others faiths. Religious wars and civil wars between Islamic people and Christians continue in some countries, e.g. in Indonesia and in the Sudan. - - Today some Islamic fanatics believe that such a tolerance is not enough but that all people of different faiths or no faith at all deserve to be killed and some even act upon such “faith”. - - Well, these people have no monopoly on murder and mass murder. More people were murdered by those who are nominally Christians, although their faith orders them to love their neighbours, even their enemies. - - Alas, this old tradition of tolerance has lost constitutional and legal backing and is by now almost forgotten. In Morocco it lasted to 1955. – But there are still some traces of personal law jurisdiction left in the Middle Each, referring mainly to civil matters. – J.Z., 23.11.04.) - - With the consolidation of the new Ottoman[>] Empire the C. were renegotiated and treaties were made with Genoa 1453, Venice 1454, France 1535, and England 1583. Newly-formed Western states (USA, Belgium and Greece) were granted similar treaty rights as late as the 19th century. C. were also negotiated with countries from Morocco to Persia, south to Zanzibar and Madagascar and in the Far East (Siam, China and Japan). - - The C. covered matters of personal status, penal jurisdiction, commerce, navigation, postal services, and educational, charitable and religious establishments. - They included in most cases consular jurisdiction or Mixed Tribunals. - - (J.Z.: In the Mixed Tribunals of Egypt the different groups involved were equally represented. – J.Z., 23.11.04.) - - For a long time the C, backed by foreign political power, gave foreigners a very necessary protection against the arbitrariness, corruption or xenophobia of local administrators and judges. - - Furthermore, as domestic law, through the Millet[>] system, granted non-Muslim communities the right to set up their own judiciary in matters of personal status, foreigners and minorities had a con­siderable degree of autonomy in religious matters, including the protection of Christian holy places, the running of charitable, educational and religious establishments (mainly by France for Roman Catholics, and Russia for the Orthodox). - - The C. encouraged development, as they implied an "open door" approach. They also stimulated education and research (archaeology). - - Gradually, with the growth of strong nationalist movements (initiated by the Young Turks[>], the C. came to be resented as the result of illicit pressure by "imperialist" powers. This attitude was shared by the Soviet government, which was the first voluntarily to renounce, 1921, its rights over the "weak". - - (J.Z.: As others have pointed out, the C. were concluded when the Ottoman Empire was strong, not when it was weak! – J.Z., 23.11.04.) - - And yet, the disintegration of the C. originated in the West. As Western countries extended their own administrative responsibilities to the area covered by C. they abolished them — Rumania 1877; Bosnia-Herzegovina (Austria-Hungary) 1880; Serbia 1882; Tri-politania (Italy) 1913; Crete and certain Greek provinces 1914; Morocco (France) 1920; Palestine (including Transjordan) (Britain) 1922; Lebanon and Syria (France) 1922. - - The renunciation of capitulatory rights was also imposed in the Peace Treaties of 1919 on the Central Powers. - - Thus, the C. were generally terminated because other guarantees of protection were now available; where they were not, the C. were revived (as in the abortive Peace Treaty with Turkey, signed at Sèvrest[>] in 1919). - - Otherwise, the C. were suspended under the mandates[>] or maintained under other contractual forms - mainly juridical reforms (Iran 1928; Iraq 1931; Egypt 1937). - - Unilaterial acts to terminate the C. (such as that made by Turkey in 1914) were repudiated. But agreement was reached to conclude treaties for the abolition (Turkey, the Treaty of Lausanne[<], 1923) or phasing out (Egypt, 1937) of the then already modernized forms of C, i.e., the jurisdiction of Mixed Tribunals and/or Consular Courts. The Montreux[>] Convention with Egypt, 1937, provided for a transitional period of twelve years; thus in Egypt the remnants of the C. were abolished only in 1949. - - The mandates, too, served as a kind of gradual termination of the C. in the countries concerned. - - The disappearance of C. left a void which it was difficult to fill. The process of protecting foreigners and minorities either came to a complete halt or was substantially slowed down and the protection of human rights in general remained underdeveloped. Moreover, formerly important minorities atrophied economically and were often forced to leave their countries of residence. - (JL.) - (The abbreviation J.L. stands for: Joseph Lador-Lederer, Ph.D., Dir., Treaty Section, Legal Advisor’s Office, Min. for For. Affairs, Jerusalem.) - - - J.Z.: Middle Eastern and Western powers renounced the rights they had under capitulations when they were still powerful. - And they have not replaced this old personal law protection sufficiently by diplomatic representation. Being prejudiced in favour of territorial powers they only too readily recognized exclusive territorial powers of other governments and considered all too many crimes they committed, against all too many dissenting people, as “internal affairs”. - - Now they try to intervene sometimes, as “peace-makers”, but with the usual clumsiness of territorial regimes, which were so far unable to cope with the own minority problems. Territorially imposed “solutions” are part of the problem, not of the solution. - - - I found the articles in this book on the Millet System, on Minorities and on Iraq also interesting but have not explored them further. - - I found no entries on e.g. panarchism, militias, collective responsibility, individual secessionism, human rights and free banking. I copied the interesting article on the Millet system that I also found in this book. - My old Encyclopaedia Britannica has also a good chapter on the “capitulations”. - PIOT, John Zube, 23.11.04.)

CAPLAN, BRYAN, The Economics of Non-state Legal Systems -

CAPTIVE NATIONS: For every captive nation we should recognize a government-in-exile for all its voluntary members who have joined it already, as refugees and deserters, and for all who would, if they could. We should concede to them full exterritorial autonomy - and ally ourselves, defensively, with all of them. Moreover, we should honor their liberating war and peace aims and their appeals to the conscripts of enemy regimes to desert and join them. But we should also offer deserters and refugees the chance to declare themselves as neutrals. Never should we hold any of them automatically and collectively responsible for the actions of enemy regimes. - J.Z., 26.4.94.

CAPTIVE NATIONS: Hutt River Province in W.A. is also a "captive nation", as its secession has not yet been recognized. - J.Z., 9/72. - Let us recognize this one first. It may be in our power. - J.Z., 9/72.

CAPTIVE NATIONS: The conventionally conceived captive nations have little chance to see their liberation through revolution or nuclear war or even to survive them. They must be redefined as minority groups which have the right to exterritorial autonomy on a voluntaristic and personal law basis but no right at all to territorially rule dissenters. Only thus would they cease to be nuclear targets and begin to act disarmingly for most of their opponents. - J.Z., 1974, 30.7.1978.

CAPTIVE NATIONS: The Russians are just as much captive as the other captive people in the Soviet Union." - Mr. Michael Darby, MLA, 9/72. - One of the ironies of the newly "liberated" nations is that they have treated Russians and other nationalities and ethnic and religious and ideological communities as newly captive nations. As long as the totalitarian principle of exclusive territorial rule prevails in their minds this was almost inevitable. - J.Z., 26.4.94.

CAPTIVE NATIONS: We must keep the flame of freedom burning strong and bright - as a beacon of hope to those struggling against the powers of totalitarian darkness. If we should falter, if we should succumb, all hope would be extinguished. Mankind as a whole would descend to the Gulag." - Winston S. Churchill, Speech to National Association for Freedom. - Typical oratorical remarks. He didn't state that this does involve e.g.: a) recognizing governments in exile by and for volunteers. b) Just peace and war aims. c) The publication of a program deserving the name for a just liberation and self-liberation struggle. d) Full realization of individual rights and liberties in the West. e) Especially: Monetary Freedom, Free Trade, Free Immigration and Free Experimentation for Exterritorially Autonomous Communities of Volunteers, and, naturally, full property rights in the West (at least among all propertarians), rather than coercive payments to politicians and bureaucrats and coercive controls by them. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 6.6.94. – How many concrete and genuine individual rights and liberties did Churchill really stand up for? – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CAPTIVE NATIONS: We need diplomatic and popular ties with the captive nations, not with their oppressors. - J.Z., revised 26.4.94. – DIPLOMACY, RECOGNITION, CAPTIVE NATIONS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE AS FREELY COMPETING PANARCHIES

CAPTIVE NATIONS: Which country is the most neutral country in the world? The answer: It's Latvia, because here we don't even intervene in our own internal affairs." - Anon. - Two of the many mistakes of the newly liberated Baltic and other countries were: Not to grant exterritorial autonomy to voluntary communities of Russians and other foreign residents and to retain the communist system of central banking, sometimes even upon the advice of some "free banking" advocates. Even the latter do sometimes lack the courage of their convictions and bow to what they consider to be political expedience. These expedient "solutions" then merely serve to prolong and sharpen crisis situations and give totalitarians a chance to gain the upper hand, again, just like Marx and Engels predicted and planned, in their Communist Manifesto. Individuals ought to have the right, and the chance to practise it any degree of freedom or subordination among their kind of volunteers, to secede from any old coercive and privileged system, especially the territorial State and the central banking system. Otherwise not enough is achieved and often things can even go from bad to worse, via new civil wars and revolutions, both rather aimless and valueless but bloody. - J.Z., 26.4.94. – JOKES, NON-INTERVENTION

CAPTIVE NATIONS: You cannot have freedom until the captive nations are free." - Mr. Michael Darby, Mosman Debate, 9/72. - While captive nations are merely territorially defined the problem of captive nations will continue. - J.Z., 26.4.94. - TERRITORIALISM

CARELESSNESS: Carelessness about our security is dangerous; carelessness about our freedom is also dangerous." - Adlai Stevenson, Speech, Detroit, 7 Oct. 1952. - As far as I know he only cared in the conventional way of the territorial and statist politician - and thereby tended to make matters worse. - J.Z., 26.4.94.

CARNOT, HIPPOLYTE:  1801-1888, Memoirs sur Lazare Carnot, 1753-1823, Nouvelle Edition etc. Paris, 1907, deux volumes, pp. 608 & 646, tome I, page 306: He favored individual secession.

CARRARA, CHRIS, Has anyone on this list heard of the term "Panarchy". It's a new one to me, but it sounds quite interesting and more appealing to the general population. I find it rather impossible (possibly not even practical) to turn an entire society over to anarchy, no matter how long and patient you may be willing to wait for that transformation. Panarchy on the other hand ... - "Panarchy" is the name for a society made up of a multitude of diverse but peacefully coexisting forms of social relations. The theory of panarchy is that people have different ideas and preferences about how to organize themselves. Instead of each group trying to achieve the power to impose its ideas and preferences on everyone, each group organizes itself and allows other groups to do likewise. One variant even has people sharing the same geographic space, with each individual acting according to his or her own conscience, in much the same way that different religions coexist in societies that allow some religious freedom. The difference would be the absence of a supreme authority setting rules that all must obey. Of course this would require everyone to respect the choices of others, and to refrain from using coercion or violence. Anarchists would do their thing, and those who wanted to continue to voluntarily submit to a particular type of government could do so. Why won't the statists allow us this same freedom today? Panarchy should appeal to everyone, because as it is now, no one really gets what they want. We all must live undera mish-mash of strictly enforced rules that come out of battles fought of the elite turf of the official political process. Panarchy is letting people "do their own thing". Ciao, Chris - (, January 13, 1998 - : LUSENET : Anarchy : One Thread

CARSON, CLARENCE B.: The Flight from Reality, 18. The Origins of Reform Methods, in THE FREEMAN, March 1966, 14pp. JZL. Pages 14 & 15, section: "The Perversion of Voluntarism" concludes: "In perspective, it looks as if the vaunted 'social invention" of reformers has been restricted largely to inventing arguments why government should perform services that were already being performed." - Panarchism demands experimental freedom for all, everywhere, in all spheres of action that are not a threat to the individual rights and liberties of others, as e.g. a nuclear "weapon" or reactor in a neighbour's backyard would be. - All social reforms are to be confined to volunteers and to be undertaken at their expense and risk only. I do not know whether Carson did ever come out quite clearly for this. - J.Z., 1.2.99.

CARSON, CLARENCE B.: The Flight from Reality, 6. An American Dream, 15pp, in THE FREEMAN, 3/1965, JZL. Pages 44 & 45: " ... The American agreement, as I have pointed out elsewhere, was an agreement to disagree. American unity was not fashioned by the crushing of diversity but by providing a framework in which each man could have his own vision, dream his own dream, make his own way. If a man had visions of utopia, and some did, he was free to pursue it alone or in the company of others, so long as the others joined him voluntarily and could leave when they were ready. The American way was the voluntary way. It was, in essence, individualistic." - He writes here as if the U.S. Constitution, laws and jurisdiction were already panarchistic. But it is so ONLY in the sphere of private associations subject to the territorial state and federation monopolies. -  " ... Puritans. They drove out dissenters from among them, proclaiming that those who disagreed with them were free - free to go!" American territorial "patriots" generalized this by saying: "America, love it or leave it!" - Panarchism demands that the dissenters become free, free to stay, wherever they are and to live under their own laws and institutions. The territorial democratic and republican systems exist under delusions of experimental freedom, individual choice, consent, dissent and voting options in most important matters. - J.Z., 1.2.1999. – Carson, too, was here involved in a “flight from reality” or blindness towards its main feature, territorialism instead of self-chose exterritorial autonomy, which would offer all the diversity options in spheres so far monopolized or regulated by territorial governments, even down to volunteers, mowing grass in a village to keep it tidy, when they are not sufficiently insured according to government regulations, as I just read in a local paper. The job is back to the local government – and it hasn’t done it for 3 months. – J.Z., 27.11.11. - EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM. VOLUNTARISM

CARSON, CLARENCE B.: The New Feudalism, THE FREEMAN, July 1967, pp 432 - 444. On pages 440/41 he writes disapprovingly: "There are many parallels between the Middle Ages and present developments and tendencies. In feudal times, there were different courts and different laws governing the various bodies, classes and orders. There were courts for the nobility, for the clergy, for townsmen, for guilds, and for such things as trading fairs. These have their modern counterparts: the numerous boards and commissions with their special rules (with the effect of law) and their court proceedings. There is the Interstate Commerce Commission with its regulations and its hearings, the National Labor Relations Board with its investigations and its rulings, the Securities and Exchange Commission with its rulings and supervision, and so on. Men in the Middle Ages would not have considered such organizations nearly so strange as would our great-great grandfathers. ..." - Typically, the author does not examine the old and the new organizations by 2 basic standards like voluntarism and personal law or exterritorial autonomy. In the Middle Ages the different groups were, to some extent, still voluntarily sorted out. Modern territorial bureaucratic empires have mostly only involuntary subjects (apart from the unions of the professionals). Both would be very different in their behaviour and powers if they had only voluntary members and had merely exterritorial autonomy, which would have opened up competition against them. Carson engages in wholesale or indiscriminate condemnations, even of coops, and ignores e.g. somewhat free and republican cities, which were often even started by run-away slaves, according to some reports. I find it easy to avoid his writings. They turn me off. - J.Z., 26.1.99.

CASELLA, A. & FREY, BRUNO S., Federalism and Clubs: Toward an Economic Theory of Overlapping Political Jurisdictions.  1992, EUROPEAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 36: 39-46. Mentioned by Frey.

CASEY, DOUG, On Phyles. On Phyles [English] (2011)

CASINO SHIPS: An anchored casino ship is different from shipboard communities. It may be excepted from the gambling laws on land but still has to make its agreement with the territorial lords regarding its anchorage and its exception from anti-gambling laws. Its extraterritoriality status does not go very far. – But many casinos on land operate underground or via bribery independent of legal prohibitions. - J.Z. -

CASLEY, LEN, Hutt River Province, to J.Z., 16.6.1971, page 10, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.  - Secession of his "Hutt River Province", ibid, in PEACE PLANS 510.

CASLEY, LEN: Hutt River Province, to J.Z., 16.6.1971, page 10, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.

CASLY, LEN: Hutt River Province. Secessionist, book by R. C. HYSLOP, title: "The Man, His Royal Highness Prince Leonard …,  95pp, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PEACE PLANS 832.

CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA COMPARED WITH PANARCHISM: FUERER-HAIMENDORF, CHRISTOPH VON: in his "Man, Myth and Magic", No. 15, p. 416, is an article on "caste": He describes the Indian caste system as a system of peaceful coexistence of many different groups - however stagnant and unequal. - Obviously, individual sovereignty and individual secessionism and free associationism are not realized within this system. - J.Z., 15.9.04.  The different castes are obviously not exterritorially autonomous but part of an over-all and territorial hierarchical system that keeps the lower castes down. Individuals are not free to opt out of their caste, establish a new one, at any higher level or join a higher one. However, they are separated by customs although they live territorially together. They are also in their private homes segregated and may not even touch each other. I know of no large-scale in-fighting between them. - J.Z., 9.10.04.

CASTELLS, MANUEL, The Rise of the Network Society. The Rise of the Network Society  - Manuel Castells 2000. - Abstracts are wanted and review hints, as well as links to the full texts, if they are relevant to this collection. - Titles can be so deceptive. - J.Z., 13.10.11. – However, network societies are, obviously, not territorial. They are also, not sufficiently autonomous, at least not yet. – J.Z., 11.12.11.

CASTLES IN THE AIR: Thoughts which dwell in castles in the air do no longer work." - Gerhard Uhlenbruck. – As if e.g. the utopism of territorial statism were not still all too much in control and effectively depriving us of many of our important rights and liberties! – J.Z., 14.11.08. – The despotism or even totalitarianism inherent in territorial States, is, alas, still operating in all countries, victimizing all to many sections of their population and by taxes, inflations, deflations, everybody in every country.– Let us imagine all kinds of castles in the air – in accordance with out individual preferences – and then build the required exterritorial autonomy foundations under them, for all those, who freely made their individual choices among them. – J.Z., 7.11.10. - STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, THOUGHTS, IDEAS, IDEOLOGIES, UTOPIAS, ILLUSIONS, MYTHS, BELIEFS, FAITH, HEAVEN, PLANNING, WELFARE STATE

CASTRO, Colleçcão de tradados (Lisbon, 1856-58), vol. i, p. 53. – Quoted by LIU.

CATALAXY: The market order or spontaneous order.” – Sudha Shenoy, 24.7.04, ISIL conference Rotarua. – Who, among the supporters of catallaxy has as yet subscribed to the spontaneous and natural order of panarchism, which offers to each the governmental or non-governmental panarchy of his own individual choice, on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws for such communities or societies of volunteers, even statists ones, but none with any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 7.11.10.

CATALINA DECLARATION: THE, from RAP, ed. by Robert LeFevre, Fall 1970, l page, 51, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PEACE PLANS 869. Also in PP 689? RAP, in PP 176-177. - THE CATALINA DECLARATION - - Human fulfilment requires individual freedom. In rededicating ourselves to this belief, we declare: The conscious human process is choice, the consequence of reason. Individual identity derives from a human being's choices. From the recognition by each individual of responsibility for his choices comes creative fulfillment and chosen accomplishment. - - -            Coercion involves the initiation of force by a person or social structure in an effort to compel choices of value or action onto an individual without his willing consent. It enforces punishment for the coerced individual whose choices do not accommodate the will of the coercer. We believe, with Cardoza, that where punishment is one of the two alternatives of a choice, no choice may be considered to exist; thus we declare that coercion inherently limits individual choice, usurps individual responsibility, and constitutes an unreasonable threat to individual identity and fulfillment. - - - Society, we believe, helps fulfill individuals only through systems of voluntary association. Structures relying on coercion are in all cases injurious to individual creative fulfillment and ultimately destructive to cooperative social cohesion; any "social contract" implied by such a structure is held by us to be voided, in the nature of contracts, by the fact that it was obtained and maintained under coercion. - - -            The most fulfilling pattern of voluntary association historically has been that of the Agora, the marketplace. Its system, free enterprise, encourages individuals to deal with themselves and with others without coercion and with a maximum of free choice. Such free enterprise stimulates productivity, creativity, and accomplishment. - - - Structures relying on coercion, on the other hand, have tended to discourage productive creativity. They generate non-productive elites, the only role of which involves manipulation of the means of coercion. In seeking their identity, members of the elite precipitate an ongoing identity crisis in any society they seek to rule. Such elites, parasitic in nature, serve no useful function that could not be undertaken more productively by vol­untary associations within the free enterprise system. - - - Our rededication to individual freedom recognizes the need to eliminate structures of coercion in society and the usefulness of building systems of free enterprise. We denounce coercive structures as enemies of human fulfilment - individual and social. - - - We commit ourselves to work to expand free voluntary systems of association, the purpose of which is to replace completely the practical functions now undertaken by coercive social structures. - - -  There are about 30 signatures attached to this document, which I found in RAP, published by Robert LeFevre, in the Fall 19270 issue. In PEACE PLANS 689 (ON PANARCHY No. XIII) it is reproduced on sheet 51. - - Among the signatures I recognize only a few and I might not even have got these correctly: Lowell Ponte, Patrick M. Dowd, Barbra T. Luce, Don Ernsberger, Wm. B. Steel, Natalee Hall, Jarret B. Wollstein, Alan W. Bock, Leon C. Ronald, Phillip Abbott Luce, Dana Rohrabacher, John C. Schureman. - If you have a copy of this edition of RAP (I microfiched all the issues I could obtain) or of my PP 689, you could, perhaps, read a few more of these signatures. – J.Z., 16.12.04.

CATALLACTICS: In 1838 Archbishop Whately suggested 'catallactics' as a name for the theoretical science explaining the market order, and his suggestion has been revived from time to time, most recently by Ludwig von Mises. The adjective 'catallactic' is readily derived from Whately's coinage, and has already been used fairly widely. These terms are particularly attractive because the classical Greek word from which they stem, KATALLATTEIN or KATALASSEIN, meant not only 'to exchange' but also 'to receive into the community' and 'to turn from enemy into friend', further evidence of the profound insight of the ancient Greeks in such matters (Liddell and Scott, 1940, s.v. KATALLASSO). - This led me to suggest that we form the term CATALLAXY to describe the object of the science we generally call economics, which then, following Whately, itself ought to be called catallactics." – F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.111/12. – Alas, Hayek and most other subscribers to this term seem to have only economic systems in mind and not political and social ones as well, as panarchism does. – J.Z., 7.11.10. - ECONOMICS, MARKET ORDER, LAISSEZ FAIRE

CATALLAXY: The chief aim of this neologism is to emphasise that a CATALLAXY neither ought nor can be made to serve a particular hierarchy of concrete ends, and that therefore its performance cannot be judged in terms of a sum of particular results. Yet all the aims of socialism, all attempts to enforce 'social' or' distributive' justice, and the whole of so-called 'welfare economics', are directed towards turning the COSMOS of the spontaneous order of the market into an arrangement or TAXIS, or the CATALLAXY into an economy proper. Apparently, the belief that the catallaxy ought to be made to behave as if it were an economy seems so obvious and unquestionable to many economists that they never examine its validity. They treat it as the indisputable presupposition for rational examination of the desirability of any order, an assumption without which no judgement of the expediency or worth of alternative institutions is possible." – F. A. Hayek, The Confusion of Language in Political Thought, p, 29/30. – I would say that panarchism permits the “Cosmos of the spontaneous order of the market” to come into existence as far as the divers political, economic and social systems are concerned, all only for volunteers, none with a territorial monopoly. To each his own system – as long as he wants it! – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: 1. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature. - 2. So act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means. - 3. All maxims which spring from your own making of laws ought to accord with a possible kingdom of ends as a kingdom of nature." – Immanuel Kant, in Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy of Right, p.89. – I hold that panarchism, with its confinement to individual sovereignty, voluntary associationism, exterritorial autonomy and avoidance of territorial monopolies does correspond to the categorical imperative of Kant. – J.Z., 7.11.10.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: 1. Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time rationally intend to become a general law. 2. Act as if the maxim of your action could become through your will a general law of nature. 3. Act thus that you treat mankind in your own person as well as in the person of everyone else, at any time also as an end and never merely as a means. – Immanuel Kant. - - (1. “Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde. 2. Handle so, als ob die Maxime deiner Handlung durch deinen Willen zum allgemeinen Naturgesetz werden sollte. 3. Handle so, dass du die Menschheit sowohl in deiner Person als in der Person jedes anderen jederzeit zugleich als Zweck, niemals bloss als Mittel brauchst.") – Immanuel Kant

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." - Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, 1788, in another translation. - UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE, MORALITY, NATURAL LAW, ETHICS, HUMAN RIGHTS –

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: Act so that you can will that the maxim of your actions should be followed by all rational beings." - William Stoddard, in REASON, 3/74.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.” - Immanuel Kant - MORALITY, ETHICS, ACTIONS, DUTY

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: Any personal action is of questionable merit which would prove disastrous if it became common practice." - Leonard E. Read, Meditations on Freedom, p.18. – Freedom to act includes the right to make mistakes at the own risk and expense. These mistakes and failures do also provide valuable lessons. Due to individual secessionism and voluntary membership, freedom of expression and information, and the costs and risks for the participants in failed experiments, these failures will tend to decline in numbers rather than spread. Only successes will tend to be widely imitated. – J.Z., 7.11.10.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: But the only practical law that seems directly derivable from the Categorical Imperative is the following: One ought never to interfere with the freedom of any rational being." - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy of Right, p.87. - I would add: "while any being IS rational". - J.Z.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." (Ich soll niemals anders verfahren, als so, dass ich auch  wollen koenne, meine Maxime solle ein allgemeines Gesetz werden.) - Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Abschnitt 1. As translated by T. K. Abbott, Kant's Theory of Ethics, p. 18. - It has been more freely rendered, "Make the maxim of thy conduct such that it might become a universal law."

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world." - I. Kant, worded by L. E. Read, The Path of Duty, p.94. – That is also a general rule for all genuine individual rights and liberties. However, no community of volunteers, which does not recognize all these rights, should be forced to apply all of them among their members. – J.Z., 11.12.11.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: There is but one categorical imperative: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." - I. Kant, Fundamental Principles, tr. by A.D. Lindsay.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: There is, therefore only a single categorical imperative and it is this: act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785, in Cambridge edition of the works, 1996, p. 73. , MORALITY, ETHICS

CATHOLIC CHURCH: It enjoys, world-wide, a degree of exterritorial autonomy, not only the extraterritoriality autonomy in the small territory of the Vatican.

CATHOLIC CHURCH: While the Pope has not got any military divisions, he does have a political commissar in every parish. But at least each individual is by now free to opt out from his empire. That makes it peaceful and tolerable. - J.Z., 28.7.93. One might consider the Catholic Church to be the largest religious panarchy on Earth. – By all means, establish better ones, also non-religious ones! - J.Z., 7.11.10. - POPE, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE



CD's & PANARCHISM: At least my first CD is out, on monetary freedom and panarchism. A rough compilation of various files, not yet indexed. – I do need much help and input form others to produce an attractive CD or DVD on panarchism and related subjects. I others tackle the job, I would gladly make my files available for this. – J.Z., 11.12.11. – CD PROJECT.

CEASE FIRE: History has seen wars that used up less ammunition than a cease-fire does today." - Morrie Brickman, R.D. - Almost all respect for the peace making efforts of territorial governments and for their treaties and promises has been lost, due to their numerous wrong and irrational actions. – But then how much justice and rationality can one expect of territorial governments or warfare States? - J.Z., 26.4.94, 14.11.08. - ARMISTICES, PEACE, TREATIES, WARS, DIPLOMACY, NEGOTIATIONS, SUMMIT CONFERENCES

CENSORSHIP: Censorship, too, implies territorial power and is wrong as such. – Censorship among volunteers only, like that of the Catholic Church, is quite another matter. Thereby the volunteers victimize only themselves. They have a right to do so. – J.Z., 7.11.10.

CENSORSHIP: It is not the function of government to keep the citizens from error; the function of the citizens is to keep the government from error." - Source? Paine? Mill? – As long as governments are not territorially enforced upon whole populations they should be free to persist with their errors, mistakes, prejudices and wrongful actions – at the expense and risk of their remaining volunteers. – J.Z., 14.11.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CENSORSHIP: Let each man his own censor be." - quoted in AUSTRALASIAN POST, 23.3.78 – You do have the right to be very selective in your own reading – for you cannot read everything that is offered. – J.Z., 7.11.10.

CENSORSHIP: The ideal, quite just, rational and harmless censor is a myth. Each rational adult should be his own censor or selector of his own reading matter. – J.Z., 14.11.08.


CENSORSHIP: Those freedom lovers, who would rather see the whole case for liberty remain largely unpublished or out of print than resort to microfiche, disc or online self-publishing and reading options, do also practise a kind of unconscious self-censorship. In its effects it may be the most disastrous of them all. - J.Z., 6.6.94. – It keeps more texts out of circulation than the censors do – and the victims, potential publishers and readers of these alternative media, impose this restriction upon themselves! – J.Z., 14.11.08. – Panarchism also for all kinds of reading and publishing, freedom of expression and information. However, I for one believe that no one has the right to access of information on mass extermination devices, e.g. how to build and use them, for they can only threaten or destroy the genuine individual rights and liberties of others. They cannot be used to go after the real and main culprits. – Otherwise: Censor the censors! – J.Z., 7.11.10, 11.12.11.

CENSUS: Information coercively gathered for wrongful purposes, like the coercive and centralized "planning" of other people's lives for them, without their permission and consent. - J.Z., 5.8.91, 3.9.91. – Keep governments ignorant and confined to their voluntary victims. – J.Z., 11.12.11.

CENTRAL BANKING, BETTER TERMED: MONETARY DESPOTISM, AS PART OF TERRITORIAL DESPOTISM: Centralisation, exterritorial & voluntaristic vs. territorial and compulsory. - Some details on free banking vs. central banking and monetary freedom vs. monetary despotism are contained in my first CD. Only territorialism makes central banking constitutionally, legally and juridically possible – and maintains it. Panarchism in this sphere means: Central banking only for central banking advocates and free banking only for free banking advocates. Their voluntary, exterritorial experiments, always undertaken at the own risk and expense, will soon make the case for the better, the quite free systems. – J.Z., 25.1.05.

CENTRALISATION: Centralisation not merely endangers the liberty of individuals and associations, but is not particularly efficient. 'Avec la centralisation', Lamennais had declared, 'vous avez l'apoplexie ou centre et la paralysie aux extremites.'" - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, 27. – TERRITORIALISM VS. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & INITIATIVE

CENTRALISATION: Centralisation of Power. Real division of power between national, state, and local governments is dangerous to our system. When local politicians have real autonomy, even in limited spheres, they can do much to enable upstarts to challenge our power. Our program is to bring all levels of government under our sway through innovations as federal aid, revenue sharing, high federal taxation, and regional government." - The Occult Technology of Power. - I can understand the motives of federal politicians and bureaucrats but not the mentality of those who are ready to submit to any government level, however divided. Real autonomy ought to remain with individuals unless they really want to become rather puppets in the hands of others, who are far from being enlightened and responsible individual human beings. - J.Z., 26.4.94, 30.9.02.

CENTRALISATION: Centralisation, beautified as 'united action', is nothing but the unity of the puppet theatre, says Rocker and points to the sorry example of the Social Democrats before WW I. As long as the centre commanded it, thousands of anti-war meetings were held. Once the centre had reconsidered, the defence of the fatherland was turned into a socialist duty and the same masses that a week before had protested against war, were now for the war." - Ulrike Heider, Die Narren der Freiheit, p.32, on Rocker, Arbeiterselbstverwaltung, Raete, Syndicalismus, Berlin, 1979, S. 25. – TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

CENTRALISATION: Consistent centralisation creates an attitude of mind that all wisdom resides in a few. It's not only insulting, but also untrue." - Mr. Malcolm Fraser, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 7.2.76. – While he was prime minister of Australia he did not do away with it or even seriously tried! – J.Z., 14.11.08.

CENTRALISATION: ever since the formation of the big European national States, every one of these new powers at first attempted to do away with the local liberties and federative ties which had sprung up from the very life of those nations. This was done by means of violent interference and centralisation of all authority, and, after this aim had been attained, they proceeded to extend the influence thus secured upon neighbouring countries and to force them to submit to the interests of their foreign policy. Power politics does not know any other limits but those set by a stronger power or those which it cannot overcome at one blow. But the urge to achieve political and economic hegemony does not permit any dominant power to call a halt, and its effects are all the more pernicious the better it has succeeded in enslaving its own people. The degree of despotism in any country has always been the best measure for the danger with which it kept threatening other countries. The entire history of the dominant European powers has for centuries been an almost uninterrupted struggle for hegemony on the Continent; a struggle which always meant a temporary success for the stronger power, until sooner or later new power combinations or other circumstances set limits to their ambitions. However, the same attempts were always soon taken up by another dominant state - with the same sinister results leading to very new disasters. - This struggle for hegemony is at the root of the ever spreading political centralisation which has been continually striving to throttle all local rights and liberties and to reduce the entire life of a people to certain definite norms, because this was most useful to the domestic and foreign ambitions of its rulers." – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p. 540. – TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUALSM, SECESSIONISM

CENTRALISATION: Has sufficient thought been given to the fact that praise of centralism is praise of force as the final arbiter in human affairs?" - Donald M. Dozer, History as Force, in Templeton, The Politicisation of Society, p. 370. - That applies only to compulsory, not to voluntary centralization, e.g. to territorial States. - J.Z., 4.6.92. - FORCE, VIOLENCE, COMPULSION, COERCION, POLITICS, STATES

CENTRALISATION: In Proudhon's view of things, it was the ultimate political settlement that emerged from the Revolution in France that is primarily the cause of the modern age's crisis in organisation. For when, in the aftermath of the Revolution of 1789, the Committee of Public Safety chose to honor the principle of political centralisation rather than the principle of social order springing spontaneously from the natural social rhythms of people, Proudhon held, the Jacobin dogma of rule through terror was forged, later to be transmitted to the Empire and the governments that succeeded it. 'When the Revolution proclaimed liberty of the people, equality before the law, the sovereignty of the people, the subordination of power to the country, it set up two incompatible things, society and government; and it is this incompatibility which has been the cause or the pretext of this overwhelming, liberty-destroying concentration, called CENTRALISATION, which the parliamentary democracy admires and praises, because it is its nature to tend toward despotism.' (14) Politics thus dominating everyone's mind to the exclusion of any social thought that might possibly have led towards freedom, 'it necessarily followed that the new society, scarcely conceived, should remain in embryo; that instead of developing according to economic or social laws, it should languish in constitutionalism..., and should find itself continually in the position of fighting with the people and the people in continual need of attacking power.' (15) And, thus the social order that should have been created by the Revolution was stillborn and the modern age was consequently hobbled in its quest for freedom and justice by the doctrine of states that has prevailed everywhere since. And this has been as true of the socialists as it has been of the capitalists, Proudhon maintained." - W. O. Reichert on Proudhon, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p. 142: (14) & (15), quoting Proudhon, General Idea of Revolution, pp 72 & 87. – TERRITORIALISM, CONSTITUTIONALISM

CENTRALISATION: Like Anarchism, Syndicalism prepares the workers along direct economic lines, as conscious factors in the great struggles of today, as well as conscious factors in the task of reconstructing society along autonomous industrial lines, as against the paralysing spirit of centralisation with its bureaucratic machinery of corruption, inherent in all political parties." - Emma Goldman, in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.508. - In the process it becomes violent against "scabs", subject to union bosses, involved in violent industrial struggles, rather than in peaceful purchases of enterprises, and in a kind of centralization of its own, embracing whole branches of industry, so that the autonomy of individual enterprises and individual contracts largely disappears. Syndicalism is merely a collectivist compromise between totalitarian territorial centralism and the ultimate decentralization arising out of individual sovereignty. It amounts to the centralization of the power of trade unionist functionaries under the pretence of representing their members, the same kind of pretence that the territorial politicians in parliaments uphold. It is rightful only for all those who voluntarily choose it for themselves and those who do not coercively appropriate factories or other capital - but wrong for anybody else. - J.Z., 26.4.94, 15.11.08.

CENTRALISATION: mistrust the machinations of highly centralised government." - Charles Goodman, All These Rights, THE FREEEMAN, 1/78. - Mistrust and the territorial vote are not enough. Individual secessionism and the exterritorial autonomy alternatives are needed to reduce all territorial governments to bearable - or leavable (desertable, withdrawable, voluntaristic) sizes, all without a territorial monopoly. - J.Z., 26.4.94, 30.9.02, 11.12.11. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

CENTRALISATION: The "... Civil War was the most disastrous thing in the history of the Americans, ... it fastened on their necks so great a mockery of popular government as is their central government." - Douglas Woodruff, Plato's American Republic, 1926, p. 25. - Its WW I & II interventionism, its invention of nuclear bombs and Mutual Assured Destruction or Nuclear Strength policies and its growth of clumsy and often wrongful imperialist actions, do not run far behind and may by now have led to the death of even more human beings, on all sides, than did the Civil War. - The American Revolution or the Civil War should have been the beginning of individual and group secessionism. Instead, they outlawed and suppressed them. That put the stamp of despotism on Americanism and ended all too many of its libertarian features. - J.Z., 30.9.02.

CENTRALISATION: Why should 13 million people have only one head, one aim, one policy, one system, one organization, one legislation? - J.Z., 13.11. 75, 30.7.78.

CENTRALIZATION & WAR: War is the condition in which centralized government finds itself more fully in control, more secure in its authority, and most readily able to command undisputed public allegiance." (Alex Comfort, Authority and Deliquency in the Modern State, 1950) -  Quoted by Gian Piero de Bellis in his "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, POWER, DECENTRALIZATION

CENTRALIZATION, COMPULSION, PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS: Supposed solutions that are centrally imposed tend to multiply and increase problems. When, instead, they are applied only by and to volunteers, in a decentralized and non-territorial framework of complete exterritorial autonomy for them, then they will tend to become properly tested, developed and widely and freely accepted because of their successes. At the same time, false solutions will be much more rapidly and easily rejected, at much lesser costs. There will only be voluntary victims for them. Agriculturists, microbiologists, technicians and scientists in general are used to undertake numerous tests, at the same time and in the same country, all under controlled conditions, with minimal risks and costs. We should introduce the same kind of freedom for tolerant experiments in the political, economic and social spheres, even if not for the obvious moral reasons but simply because we want to avoid the endless repetition of the territorial disasters of the past and present, our man-made and man-imposed hells for involuntary victims. The few successful experiments will stand out as shiny beacons for others and would spread. – J.Z., 26.1.98, 11.1.99.

CETI: Let us first try to communicate and come to an understanding with the unknown people (aliens, foreigners) living on Earth, e.g., the anarchists and libertarians, objectively examining all the real or imagined solutions they have to offer, and those of all other ideologues. Let us also grant them experimental freedom at their own expense and risk - anywhere on Earth. Only once we have done that will we be fit to contact extraterrestrial civilizations. At present even the anarchists and libertarians themselves are unaware of all too many of the anarchist and libertarian ideas and proposals and the ignorance of them among the restrictionists is even greater. - J.Z., 27.11.01, 26.1.02. - ALIENS, FOREIGNERS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF REFUTATIONS, OF DEFINITIONS, LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY, BIBLIOGRAPHY, INDEX, ABSTRACTS, COMPLETE FREEDOM PUBLISHING IN ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

CETI: Let us try to communicate first with dolphins, whales, magpies, etc., any animals with any sparks of intelligence. At least we have some Earth experiences in common with them. And let us try to bridge the barriers between ideologies, religions, philosophies and cultures between the foreigners on Earth, all more or less "alien" to each other, and let us do this primarily by mutual tolerance not only for cultural differences but also for different actions, in all spheres, that are of a tolerant kind, i.e., practised only among volunteers and at their expense and risk. No more national borders and territorial laws! - J.Z., 6.7.01, 31.1.02. – I read today in “Spirit of Enterprise – The 1993 Rolex Awards”, p.173, that even Caterpillars and ants “communicate”, and engage in a kind of exchange: The three page article contains a picture of ants and caterpillar with the inscription: “A caterpillar of Eurybia patrona (Riodinidae) from Costa Rica being tended by Dolichoderus bispinosus ants attracted by an acoustical call produced by the caterpillar. The ants are drinking secretions high in amino acids from glands on the caterpillar. The secretions reward the ants for protecting the caterpillar.” – In short, free trade among as primitive and to us as alien beings! – Ants providing protective service for a fee upon a call! – J.Z., 12.11.08.- ALIENS, COMMUNICATION WITH EXTRATERRESTRIALS? PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, FOREIGNERS

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY, to ZUBE, JOHN, 4 July 89, 9pp, with some marginal notes by John Zube, 56-64, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PEACE PLANS 879.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC & ZUBE, JOHN, A letter by J.Z. on some of their agreements and disagreements, 25 Aug. 89. File: Chaitlin.889 - - Marc Eric of Ely-Chaitelaine, RP 100 - 1,000, P.O. Box 7075 Laguna Niguel, CA 92 677. [He died a few years ago. As far as I know, no one is carrying on his work. - J.Z., 30.8.11.] - - Dear Marc, thanks for your letter of July 4, 1989, MONARCHY DAY, and enclosure "An Introduction to Free Earth", both received only a few days ago. Postage was stamped 10 August 89, so may be you wrote on August 4th, not in July? Or is the P.O. as slow even in cancelling its stamps? - - In your pamphlet you come closest (so far, among those of your writings that I have seen) to the individual sovereignty, individual secessionist and associationist options embodied in panarchism or exterritorial minority autonomism or experimental freedom or freedom of action as taught by P. E. De Puydt, Ulrich von Beckerath, Max Nettlau, myself and some others. This means towards their essence and while using your own proprietary and to others somewhat misleading terms. But your traditional monarchical notions do still keep you from seeing the traditional precedents for this kind of panarchism and its potential for the present and the future. Moreover, from you comments I cannot help to notice that you have hardly followed the discussion of this option, in THE CONNECTION, in my own series and in the other relevant literature. Without clarity on this subject you will not even be able to find and declare your own position sufficiently. To the extent that I find it moral and rational or "virtuous", I do wish you success. - Alas, at present, as I see it, you still have to make up your mind whether you do favour: (1.) Monarchy as a centralized and exclusive and territorial rule by ONE and OVER involuntary as well as voluntary members (assuming for the sake of simplicity, that both are peaceful and creative in their actions. I do agree that aggressive criminals required effective defence and even domination until they are rehabilitated.), with this supreme executive acting at the same time and over a whole national territory and all its population, as a supreme legislator and judge, too, just because, supposedly and ideally, according to you, such a monarchy would be the best of all possible governments and forms of representing and managing a free society. - (2.) Monarchy as a non-exclusive and non-territorial (apart from pure household-, garden- and business variety, which are expressing home rule only over private blocks of land or real estate and their voluntary inhabitants and associates) monarchy that rules over voluntary members only, in one or the other possible forms of constitutional monarchism. This would imply voluntary membership, i.e. the individual secessionist option (limited only by real property rights), exterritorialism or personal law, free competition with many other such monarchies or, democracies, republics, anarchies and limited governments of all kinds and even with authoritarian systems, all peacefully coexisting, in accordance with the unanimous wishes of their voluntary members, all existing in the same large territories formerly occupied and mismanaged by territorial nations States or even across their borders or even in world-wide networks, like e.g. that of the Catholic Church. - (3.) Monarchy purely based on full recognition of the individual sovereignty of every mature and rational enough being over his own life and property, as a king among kings, a peer among peers, an equal among equals, with no one having the right or privilege to dominate him or her - unless he or she do individually choose to be so ruled by someone and even then only as long as they do. Only in this form does individual sovereignty agree with the voluntary minority autonomy of monarchists that is possible in the second model. - (4.) Another and perhaps only minor point is whether there are also to be Queens, not only Kings in your monarchical system or merely "consorts" that are "subjects" to "the" monarch. For that question has to be settled particularly for household self-governments. As I see it, x forms of voluntary marriages between 2 or several persons are possible and an absolute rule by one over all the others is rarely perceived as the ideal, by all the participants, for long. Ask your wife and the wives of others about this. What happens or is going to happen to their individual sovereignty under your kind of ideal monarchism? - What is it going to be? Please, do not give me another historical dissertation but just your own clear choice. I for one do not want you to go into 3 different directions at once and remain undecided upon a fourth option. If you can, make it still more clear by further distinctions. - As for YOUR own interpretation of "panarchy" and "panarchism": It has almost nothing to do with the panarchism that is advocated by ME. Your "definition" or "explanation" is a pure nominalist one, i.e. you vainly attempt to read the full meaning of a term merely out of your personal interpretation of its verbal roots, while fully ignoring the definition and meaning given to the term by its coiner, by other interpreters and by all the proposals, arguments and discussions in extensive writings since P. E. De Puydt wrote his original article, ignoring also preceding and subsequent writings, e.g. by Fichte, Spencer, Le Grand E. Day and others, who often used other terms than "panarchy" for the same thing, as well as numerous historical and even some contemporary precedents. - It is obvious that one cannot understand the definitions, meanings and proposals of others by merely offering one's own definition. Before trying to describe and understand the ideas and proposals of others, do try to read, not only your own mind and listen to others than yourself. And do not confine your reading and your listening to a single term only. - If you persist with your form of explanation, then, by analogy, this is almost as bad as if you were attempting to start the science of economy or of sociology or of psychology or of medicine all over again - by offering your personal interpretation of such terms, ignoring all that has been written and taught in these sciences before you came along. Since, admittedly, these sciences are not yet fully developed and since, possibly, you might be a supreme genius, future generations might, indeed start the beginnings of these sciences from your own definitions of them. However, until you are so recognized, let's be more modest and try to communicate with others using their terms or at least trying to read and listen to them in an attempt to understand them rather than a straw-man image one forms of them, all too readily and rapidly, in one's own mind. - Perhaps such a mis-judgment is not surprising in one who imagines that all wisdom, virtue, judgment and creative energies that are required can possibly be embodied and expressed by a single person, the supposedly ideal and traditional monarch. By all means, in his own sphere and among voluntary followers he should be at liberty to act on this premise - but not over even a single peaceful dissenter in his neigbourhood or anywhere else in the world. But is there a single person in the world who could rightfully and provably claim that he would be the greatest possible constitution maker, legislator, judge, economist and military leaders, not to mention many other specialist jobs that he would have to master supremely, as an ideal monarch, among the several hundred-thousand specialist jobs that exist by now? I hold that division of labour has gone so far that NOT ONE IN ANY PROFESSION IS ANY LONGER ABLE TO FULLY KNOW AND MASTER ALL ITS ASPECTS. A monarch in our times is just a presumptuous "KNOW IT ALL" or "JACK OF ALL TRADES". Leonard E. Read has well described, in various ways, that the more we come to know the more we come in touch with the still unknown. The analogy of an expanding circle of knowledge describes this well enough. How many of the hundreds of millions of books have you read and can you have read and what fraction of their references can you have studied? - There is another aspect of your "ideal monarchism" and "free territory" which you seem to have overlooked: Do you automatically lose your individual sovereignty and your personal law arrangements derived from it, whenever you pass the fence-line of the "Free Territory of Ely-Chatelaine"? Are you then automatically and fully subjected, forever and rightfully so, to the territorial law imposed upon all these external territories - or are you still individually sovereign and carry your own personal law so to speak with you, on your shoulders, in your mind, as a personal right, one limited only by e.g. the property rights and house-rule or individual sovereignty rights of others, the duties of guests, the laws of hospitality, good manners and fair and open dealings, by international law and international arbitration? - To take a concrete example: Are all your dealings with others to be taxed and regulated by others as soon as you leave your "free territory" and while you are absent from it? - Is your own silver currency as a standard and means of payment - or any other currency or clearing system that you might care to use, to be legal only in your home and business and subject to the existing monetary despotism outside of them? Is free trade to be confined to your home, garden and business and to stop at their fence-lines, subject to territorially imposed custom duties, quotas, foreign exchange regulations etc. etc. or are there to be personal law relationships between you and others like you, across all national and "free territorial" borderlines? - Please take your own ideal seriously enough to answer all such questions in full, at least to yourself if not to me, but preferably, by my standards, in my own sub-series ON PANARCHY. - My experience so far with individual sovereignty and individual secession advocates and practitioners has been the following: While, seemingly and mere logically there is only a small step from the verbal advocacy of individual sovereignty and secessionism and voluntary associationism to full and consistent individual sovereignty and their voluntary combinations in exterritorial and autonomous associations of volunteers, in all spheres, even the political, economic and social spheres, yet all too few of the verbal advocates and formal (not yet recognized) practitioners of the first step, have clearly made the small, logical and seemingly easy second step, i.e. have clearly seen all the implications of the first step. - They are thus like the advocates of equal "voting" rights, who want to give no one an exclusive vote over his own affairs but everyone a tiny fraction of the total vote over the affairs of all - which are largely unknown, unknowable and of no intense or highest priority interest to him. Or like the advocates of government by "consent", who deny the right to individual consent - and refusal. - Consequently, CONSISTENCY is one of the SUPREME VIRTUES which your kind of supposedly IDEAL MONARCHISM is so far lacking, in my own eyes. - Am I blind? Do I look through darkened glasses or spectacles with distorting lenses? - If I am wrong in this, please do prove me wrong. This subject is VERY important to me. - Rousseau was NOT a panarchist although he might have become one if he had attempted to develop further some of the lines of thought that he started in his Social Contract magnum opus and which he intended to follow up, according to his concluding remarks, should this work evoke a sufficient response in his lifetime. Alas, he never achieved this response or got around to carry out his plan of a sequel. But there are some pearls in his writings with anticipate panarchy, e.g.: "Liberty is a set of laws which I have chosen for myself." - Naturally, this was blackened by his submission of the will of the individual to the supposedly ideal "general will", presumably willingly accepted by the individual or by the assumption that a democratic consent would be equal to an individual one. - Anarchists, as a rule, want to ABOLISH the State and EVERYONE to become anarchists. Panarchists want to PRESERVE THE STATE - FOR THE STATISTS and want only anarchists to live as anarchists, of whatever persuasion, while all other ideologues would be free to live according to their own personal choices. Naturally, this requires full individual sovereignty and minority autonomy and these do require exterritoriality rather than territorial Apartheid or coercive territorial segregation or territorial monopolies for constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. Thus the essence of panarchism is not harmony through a uniform ideal for all but harmony or peaceful coexistence through the free practice of all diverse systems, at the own expense and risk of their voluntary members, i.e. harmony through diversity. And yet this harmony would establish the unity of A free society - composed of the diverse activities of numerous FREE societies and numerous UNFREE ones that are based on unanimous consent, too. - As my father puts it: To each the government of his dreams." As Gian Piero de Bellis and I amended it: "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!" - Individualist anarchists and libertarians and laissez faire advocates, who fully recognize individual sovereignty and all its consequences, including exterritorial autonomy, and see no essential difference between private and public services and package deals and insurance contracts, are thereby also panarchists, although they do not always clearly state this or are even aware of this. But consistency is rare among those who try to live under these labels or try to teach their meaning to others. All too often they imagine that their own limited vision of the ideal ought to be the one and only ideal to be adopted by all. - Limited government advocates who would limit the provision of their limited services to those who want them and only defensively against those who attack their liberties and rights, would not obstruct the development of competing governments over volunteers, exterritorially autonomous and operating under personal constitutionalism and laws. However, most limited government advocates are not as clear and consistent and imagine that their ideal of limited government ought to be adopted by all dissenters, too, or even imposed upon them, as the one and only ideal. - Panarchism embraces all possible and desired governmental and societal forms - practised only among those who want them. This requires their personal and minority autonomy. Moreover, they must then be so sovereign and autonomous that they must be EVERYWHERE free to secede from all associations presently characterized by compulsory membership and territorial constitutions, laws, administrations and jurisdiction, i.e. free to associate with likeminded people EVERYWHERE (within their property rights) in their own EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS voluntary associations. Thus the realization of Panarchism requires the establishment of several, possibly numerous, different Panarchies. Some of these may have only members in one village. Others will have members nation-wide or among several of the former nation States. Others will be world-wide organized. There are likely to follow several peacefully coexisting world-federations of like-minded people. - Why peaceful? Because all their members are fully free to do their own thing among themselves - at their own expense and risk. If one can get one's own will to that extent, one is usually rather busy in minding one's own business. And any trespass upon the rights of members of ANY other exterritorial, autonomous community of volunteers will be perceived as an attack upon all of them, anticipated by international law, arbitration and defence agreements and organizations. These can be of the grassroots and autonomy type, too and almost omnipresent, on earth or wherever mankind expands to. - There are many other factors involved to assure peacefulness or the rapid and almost bloodless victory over remaining aggressors. I have often discussed this subject and will not take it up in detail here. - Churches and sects provide a model for such a re-arrangement of political, economic and social systems. And so do private corporations, enterprises, productive cooperatives of a local, national or multi-national kind, in all kinds of forms, practising all kinds of management (monarchism) and self-management systems among voluntary members and considerable degrees of autonomy - apart from their remaining subjection to territorial laws, which panarchists perceive to be wrongful. And the different lifestyles and private activities of supposedly already "free" individuals in democratic States, as free as most of them presently want to be, provide another model for individual sovereignty and voluntary associationism in practice. Panarchism merely insists upon the same liberties to be fully extended to the political, economic and social systems. These systems are to possess no more monopolies or privileges, of a territorial and centralistic and coercive type than the tennis-, chess-, bushwalkers-, bridge-, football- clubs or any other conventional voluntary associations do possess now. But even these and other associations are to be free to attain, if they want to, full exterritorial autonomy for their voluntary members. - Is it really so hard to envision such a change-over or simple reversal of the present oppressions, monopolies and privileges into their opposites? - Panarchists are not opponents to "homes that are the own castles" and not interfered with by taxers and x inspectors and lawmakers - but they do not want to limit personal liberties, that are wanted by individuals, to these very narrow "realms". They want to extend the principle of voluntary and one-sided divorce, without insisting on more of a separation than is required by private property rights. Subjects, children, conscripts, marriage partners, former believers, are all to be free to divorce themselves by a UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and via new associations, if they do prefer them. - The separation is normally to take effect only after a period stated in a withdrawal notice. But in an emergency it may take effect immediately, i.e. when basic rights are threatened. To children the old Athenian rule might be applied that anyone could at least temporarily appoint himself or herself as a GUARDIAN of a child - but only to safeguard that child's rights and liberties, when and as long as they are threatened, but not to dominate its life. - Your scripts arrived just in time for inclusion in the latest ON PANARCHY microfiche, No. XV. - Hopefully, in the future, we will arrive at a closer understanding of our basic aims and methods, or ends and means. I have explained my own extensively and still go on adding much - while largely refusing to take up other and relatively minor bones of contention. (Individual rights, volunteer militias for their protection, monetary freedom, libertarian revolutions, tax strikes, self-management systems, alternative information storage, retrieval and communication options are among my major concerns.) - I do hope that you will favour me and my panarchistic special literature collection by submitting all your relevant writings to it. - Your "Monarchy Day", 4 July 89: Page 3, par.1: I added: As if there hadn't been x murders, killings and executions before, i.e. as if only the king's counted. - Par.2: Territoriality has many different spheres, of different emotional and rational meaning and intensity, from the intimate to the interest in mankind and in the planet sphere. Look up some of the special studies of them. To throw them all into one pot and mix them up does not provide a clear view of any one of them. There are also exterritorial animals, apart from the nesting instincts - and we are some of them. - Last par, first sentence: Did the insurrectionists in extermination camps like Sobibor, Treblinka and Buchenwald do wrong by rising??? - Page 4, par.2: As if the majority were permitted to make nuclear or other war and peace decisions. It ought to get this liberty but it hasn't as yet. And minorities ought to remain at liberty to make their separate peace arrangements or neutrality declarations and to make them effective. Total war is not obligatory. - Page 5, par.1: Obvious exceptions from your rule are the American Revolution and the revolution of Cromwell's time. - Page 6, par.1, first sentence: I argue as a Panarchist rather than as an Anarchist. - Par.3, first two words: What is "territorial" about it to deserve this name??? - Par.5, last sentence: The territorial republic SUPPRESSES a market in "government services"! - Par.6, first sentence: It is not true that I am "more concerned with territoriality than with people" but it is true that I am "concerned with exterritoriality FOR people". I do want to liberate people from territorial rule by a few. If, afterwards, some want to live under kings and thus established their kind of monarchies for themselves or readily accepted your or any other monarchical system, which is offered to them, or xyz among other systems, that would be THEIR problem. Exterritoriality FOR people! - Page 7, par.1: This is full of misunderstandings consisting out of your personal and nominal interpretations and misconceptions. You must review your own position and my own on this before we can hope to achieve an understanding. - Par.2, last sentence: It draws out energies - but not for fruitful discussions. And it rather wastes them in one-off large efforts that lead to frustration and resignation and submission to the remaining evils. Vote in the market and ESTABLISH A MARKET FOR POLITICAL VOTING, FOR INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR OWN AFFAIRS. Freedom to buy your favourite government services "over the counter". Buy your own government and let everyone else buy his own, too. If you happen to choose the same computer or computer network as your government that is your luck or bad luck or anyhow, your personal choice and you will have to bear the consequences - as long as you can stand them or afford them. - Page 8, par.4, last sentence: The 1618-48 war was more total, murderous and destructive, in Germany. - We have to understand each other before we can fruitfully act together. For this purpose both of us have to clearly enough declare themselves in the areas or spheres of possible and desirable collaboration. - I have tried, so have you. Have we tried often and well enough? - I enclose David Taylor's attempt to sum up Panarchy for George-ists. As far as I know, there was not a single response from them. The same happened to me, many years before. Most people relish remaining undisturbed by other visions in their own personal ruts. They have the right and the liberty to do so. But I have no high respect if they merely continue with this traditional mental attitude and behaviour pattern and ignore most of the moral and rational options of liberty and the peace, justice and prosperity, the harmony and "heaven on earth" they could provide. Such behaviour would be safe only once panarchy had already been realized. But now it is part of the road to destruction and extinction. - Clarify your own position to convince and do not imagine the position of others but rather try, seriously, to understand it, in order to get your message clearly across to them. - And please, do not content yourself merely with ready consent by your present followers. They would rather retard than advance your own thinking and do no more sanction your leadership merely by their numbers than the followers of a Hitler, Stalin or Mao did sanction these "leaderships". Naturally, in my own eyes you are very far above any of these beasts in human form. I only made the extreme comparison to clarify a point. - PIOT, John Zube. - Slightly edited & converted to WORD: J.Z., 30.8.11, 11.12.11.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY, An Introduction to Free Earth, The Free Territory of Ely-Chatelaine, est. 1975, 9pp, 65-74, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PEACE PLANS 879.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY, BOLTON VS ELY-CHAITLIN, By Ronald C. Tobin: THE NATIONALIST MANIFESTO, published in the July/August 1998 issue of THE THOUGHT, is a very controversial document. As such, it needs to be debated and subjected to heated scrutiny. This latest in-print debate does exactly that. Craig Bolton and Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin have tremendously different views on the topic. This in-print debate should provide much fuel for thought for even the most casual reader. As always, comments from readers are welcome, and may be published if desired and if warranted. - That said, on to the debate. . . . - AN APPRECIATION OF NEO-NATIONALISM, By Craig Bolton: The "NATIONALIST MANIFESTO," recently published herein, is presumably a serious attempt to raise serious questions about what is wrong with America and to offer a solution that the author believes has much merit. As such, it leaves much to be desired. - It would be charitable to state that the Nationalist Manifesto shares the central delusion of most of contemporary American political thought - the belief that all that is wrong is that the scoundrels are in power and that we can cure the woes that beset us by tossing them out and putting a "good man" in their place. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will maintain that the Nationalist Manifesto is really much worse than the typical political cant. - - Our prospective monarch, after much nationalistic rhetoric and the usual woe-is-us evaluation of the state of American civilization, informs us that " ... the order of government in America was founded in defiance of constituted law" and generally disparages the history of republicanism in America. By this he means, apparently, that the revolution against the Hanoverian dynasty was illegitimate and that we would all be better off under the rule of a monarch. Curiously, however, instead of calling for a restoration of the historically "legitimate authority" of the Hanoverians, through an acknowledgment of Queen Elizabeth as our legitimate sovereign, our want-to-be-king then contradicts his own premises and calls for his own ELECTION as a replacement sovereign. Worse, he proposes to rule with an elected constituent assembly and under a constitution that will limit his powers. - - Now all of this is, of course, nonsense. If the Hanoverians are our legitimate rulers who were illegitimately deposed, and if they are still available to reassume the reigns of government [which they are], then it is only proper that they be placed back in power rather than replaced with a usurper. If monarchy is the ideal form of government, then it is ridiculous to pray for a "constituent assembly" or a constitution to limit the monarch's discretion. The monarch, no less than purported representatives of a constituent assembly, can rule in the "name of the people" and for their benefit. Since the will of the monarch is the fount of good government, it is illogical and treasonous to propose a constitution to limit his discretion, and it is sublimely absurd for him to campaign for "election" by his natural inferiors, the "people". - - It is symptomatic of the root fallacy of the Nationalist Manifesto that the Usurper Marc Eric fails to frankly acknowledge the true principles underlying monarchy, as well as all other forms of "virtual representation" - that the People must be led through the nose for the national benefit because they are too stupid to administer their own lives, let alone have intelligent opinions about collective decisions. - - Fortunately, our royal-to-be is not completely without some familiarity with the fundamentals of statecraft. He does implicitly acknowledge the principle that governmental decisions are best made by "experts" [a favorite point of the fascist and technocrat] and by those who are more virtuous and more intelligent than the average American slug [a favorite point of elitists of all stripes, who are, of course, self-designated members of the elite]. - - Further, our pretender to the throne is at least attempting to master the big lie and the non-sequitur. Crime and governmental corruption, he tells us, will devour us all, and this is all the result of republicanism [although there was more republicanism in the early 19th century than now, and less crime and although monarchies are notorious for their corruption]. But don't worry, our savior also has the solution - conscription of those needed by him to rule [an innovation first introduced by that nasty republican French Revolution and refined by that great democrat and advocate of nationalism above all else, Abraham Lincoln]. As he advises us, "Every American has received a patrimony, a heritage" [the patrimony of tyrants and a heritage of submission, apparently]. - - So our want-to-be monarch does prove out to have the stuff that monarchs are made of. He is willing to distort and mislead, to rule and to tyrannize, and he has mastered the ultimate governmental principle of "tell them what they want to hear and/or scare them out of their wits" [so that they will give you power], with the well known collateral principle of, "that was then, this is now" [once you have the power]. So, perhaps, if some one should conveniently dispose of the legitimate royal family, the Usurper Marc Eric would be qualified to take the reigns of power and restore the true national spirit, a spirit which we have so greatly missed since the last World War. - - The King is dead. Long live the King [and long may he wave]. - [Bolton would, possibly agree with me when I say, regarding Chaitlin's monarchism or territorial monopoly claim, that addiction to power produces a kind of madness. - J.Z., 31.8.11.] - - A RESPONSE TO CRAIG BOLTON, By Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin. - When the Nationalist Manifesto was published I told my aides that it would cause a firestorm of controversy. The minute anyone suggests that the government can be operated as anything other than a police state, ten million armchair scholars, armed with high school educations, have to take you to task. Especially when you go out on a limb and propose specific reforms. No one is a better target politically than the party who becomes specific, and lays out an actual plan for action. Like honey to flies, a specific plan exposes your pink underbelly to every bitter wastrel in existence, who immediately puts to work to undermine what little unity might be achieved. Yet, is it for any social good? NO, it is merely for the purpose of giving the critic a much needed ego-boost, that he may continue to feel smugly superior to everyone, while shrewdly accusing those who actually have plans, of elitism. - Mr. Bolton’s bombastic attack attempts to destroy the Nationalist cause by nothing less than accusing myself of seeking to be a constitutional monarch. And in the process he exposes the fact that he has very little knowledge about the workings of the British/American Constitution. The Manifesto’s primary aim was not to recite all the well-known faults of the republic, but to put in place a legal basis for a restoration of legitimate government. The faults of the republic have been camouflaged so that mediocrities can attribute them to ANYTHING BUT THE REPUBLIC. Then, we wonder how these faults will ever be remedied, since the one causal factor has been ruled out as the first place to begin reform, the institution of the republic itself. - [Physically? - J.Z.] However, while attacking me in every way possible, Mr. Bolton fails to clarify exactly what system of government he, himself, would prefer. The inference is that he has bought into the propaganda of the slavemaster republic: that it gives people freedom; that they cannot live without it, and that any man who would seek to restore the Crown, and be elected to the throne, must be a power-crazed tyrant. The reality, that the republic operates as a faceless bureaucracy in which no one – not even the president – has responsibility, escapes his notice. As for his comment that "monarchies are notorious for their corruption," he fails to put it into context: Compared to what? Compared to the first successful republics, the Greek republics, when men incited mobs to attack those with property they coveted? Or the republics of northern Italy, where modern banking and moneychanging – and Machiavellian diplomacy – had its origins? Or the Swiss Republic, which harbored Nazis, and whose "neutrality" enabled the Nazis to carry on World War II for a solid year longer than otherwise would have been necessary, and whose banks stole the gold looted from a continent? Besides the notoriety of republics for total corruption, they are also historically noted for their sheer instability. How many governments has Italy had since it converted to a republic? How many republics has France had, isn’t the latest the fifth? And the history of the United States as a republic is a pathetic and disgusting record of men lining their pockets at the nation’s expense. Where would you like to start, Mr. Bolton? - Mr. Bolton seems to insist on only looking at the institution of monarchy through the propagandistic viewpoint of the founding fathers of the American republic, the great majority of whom were slavemasters. They certainly were not the advocates of the people, for whom they set up elaborate machinery, all for the purpose of "representing" them (and which did such a poor job, that at the first opportunity the people formed institutions that they felt might have a better chance of representing their interests, labor unions). Likewise, what seems to escape Mr. Bolton is that while the founding slavemasters invented a Congress to take care of their interests by an enactment on a single day, the institution of parliament grew and evolved as an almost organic institution for over a thousand years. By choosing to only examine monarchy in the latest stage, that of the modern nation-state, Mr. Bolton is declining examination of the thousands of years of monarchy that prove out that the institution is not limited to a hereditary model, or the absolutist model. It also exposes the fact that Mr. Bolton refuses to acknowledge the police state underpinnings of the slavemaster republic that we are saddled with, and which the Nationalist Manifesto is a direct attempt to address. - Mr. Bolton does not deny outright that conditions in the United States are sufficiently deteriorated that patriotic Americans should be moved to action, but the inference is there when he says, "tell them what they want to hear and/or scare them out of their wits." Anyone who wants to be scared out of their wits need only watch a half-hour of the evening news. But then Mr. Bolton infers that there is nothing unusual about the hourly blood bath that unfolds on American streets. Of course, the precious republic has nothing to do with causing any of it, freeing up these great minds to continue on in their anxiety-ridden confusion, trying to find causes when they have themselves ruled out the primary cause, the fact that the government itself is a degenerated criminal conspiracy. - In the most dazzling display of ignorance in our times, Mr. Bolton then goes on declaiming monarchy, by insinuating with sinister overtones that I do not understand the "true" principles of monarchy, which he portrays as "virtual representation." Like all republican American partisans, he insists that "true" monarchy revolves around the monarch, in the same way that "true" republicanism revolves around the president. Americans HAVE to view the executive as supreme, because the president is, and what they really fear is a president who is made king; it is literally impossible for an American to fathom the institution of the kingdom, because the great majority of Americans have no real comprehension of how the institution of the monarchy differs from the dictatorship of the presidency. In the opinion of Mr. Bolton, monarchy is a despotism erected upon the people by force, and therefore it is "illogical and treasonous" for a monarch to be constitutional. For some reason, 50 million Brits seem to believe otherwise. Maybe it’s that pesky thousand years of PRACTICE that has worked to endow each and every one of them with inalienable civil rights that are only echoed in the American Bill of Rights. - Mr. Bolton’s insistence on the archaic doctrines of legitimacy only reveal that he has not stayed current with the most recent incarnation of that doctrine, that no longer looks to European dynasties as the only source for a legitimate king. However, he also handily overlooks the fact that while the Hanoverian family was a dull lot, the Protestant succession which their ascendancy to the British throne represented, was the final act in the conversion of the British monarchy into a constitutional institution. If legitimacy in the sense that Mr. Bolton suggests were my aim, then I certainly would not uphold the claims of the Hanoverians, but of the Stuarts. Instead, all of this misses the real point, which is the institution of the monarchy, not the issue of exactly which family should bear the burden of the Crown. Furthermore, Mr. Bolton’s insistence on focusing on the monarchy itself at the expense of other constitutional institutions, such as parliament, exposes his lack of familiarity with the Anglo-American constitution, because the accession of the Hanoverians established in the law the supremacy of the people over the monarchy. - But Mr. Bolton’s aim is not to restore the Crown, and may not be to save the republic, but it is definitely directed against me, personally, who he intentionally insults by referring to me as Usurper. Never mind that the republic itself was borne entirely from an illegal usurpation of power. Never mind that the slavemasters who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 had no legal authority to erect any government whatsoever. Never mind that government authority in the United States in the 20th Century is the direct descendant of a violent revolution, driven by pure hatred and vigilantism. Without saying as much, the inference is that Mr. Bolton actually believes that the colonists were justified to engage in treason against the established and constituted government of America in 1776; which suggests that Mr. Bolton might not oppose an effort today to employ violence against the government. But here Mr. Bolton is deliberately vague, because unlike myself, he refuses to commit himself to any real plan to relieve the American people of the burden imposed upon them by the leaders of the republic. Instead, Mr. Bolton is not "beset by a spirit of false charity." No, indeed, it would seem that Mr. Bolton is not beset by any spirit of charity at all. - Yet most revealing is his comment that it is a delusion of republican politics that "all that is wrong is that the scoundrels are in power and that we can cure the woes that beset us by tossing them out." Here he falls miserably into the trap of the republic, which indeed does offer rotation in office as the solution to the abuse of power by government officials. What he does not recognize is the fact that the monarchy is stable precisely because its core, the king, is a chieftain, not a general. Most significantly, however, Mr. Bolton fails to perceive the difference, structurally, between a kingdom and a republic. The main propaganda of the republic is that the people control it through the ballot box, and the power to throw out incumbents is interpreted to be the paramount embodiment of the ultimate sovereignty of the people. In practice, however, individuals are never able to overcome that OTHER invention of the founding fathers, which was designed precisely to limit the risks their property might otherwise be exposed to, if in fact the people had the power to control the state: the political party. - The principal solution to the abuse of power offered by the republic is that its structure fends off would-be tyrants. The republic as a power-sharing scheme, in which the booty is spread out to all those politicians and bureaucrats powerful enough to impede each other’s agendas, is in direct contrast to the traditional kingdom, in which there is an actual long-term interest that is obliged to defend the integrity of the nation-state, the royal family. But those who are sharing in the booty of the republic recognize the threat a reigning family poses, because while corrupt bureaucrats under the republic can suddenly retire, confident that their successors will cover-up their crimes to protect themselves (and their own gravy train), a royal family is more concerned with the life and death issues of corruption in the state, because it is a reflection on the morality of the monarch. While there are examples of individual monarchs who were corrupt, or venal, or stupid, there are also examples of such monarchs suffering for their vices; and in some cases, whole royal families paid the price for the flaws of those princes. Nothing motivates a man to be scrupulous more powerfully than the threat that his own actions may cause harm to those he loves the most, his family; something that is totally absent from republics. - In the "bi-partisan" republic, where the two political parties are permanent fixtures of the state, the end effect is the same as having a single political party that everyone pretends is really two. Under this scheme the slogan every four years is that a rotation of power to the Other Party will somehow bring the people representation. Mr. Bolton seems to support this republic and its Government Party, divided as it is between the Democratic and Republican wings. This does not mean that there should be no political parties in the restored American kingdom, but instead the new parties should be organized by the constituents themselves, and they should operate with regards to the Restoration of constitutional institutions. - What I find the most incredible of all is the fact that I stand accused by Mr. Bolton of desiring to be elected under a constitution that will limit my power! An accusation that I must admit is true! Mr. Bolton’s circuitous logic reveals that he possesses a single, unhistorical view regarding the institution of kingship, which of course is the anti-monarchical view imbued into all Americans by the institutions of the republic, that a genuine king is a dictator and a tyrant. This knee-jerk reactionary notion is the key to the survival of the republic, because it is this reactionary stance, taught in the schools and universities of the United States, that is undermining public order. - Mr. Bolton is accustomed to electoral campaigns in which the candidates openly lie about their intentions, and who put out campaign literature full of promises that are never intended for implementation. The Nationalist Manifesto catches him by surprise, because at the bottom, it is signed and dated, and each clause carries with it whole volumes of legal precedents that define each term, and its usage. The Manifesto is a guarantee of a real flesh and blood man who is a legally knowable person. The institution it invokes the people of the nation to restore, above all, will burden that man with RESPONSIBILITY for the conduct of the government, personally. The fallacy of the republic is that it is a government of law instead of men, as if government can act like a machine, and there are no personal attributes that are components of a government over free people. It is one thing to seek the presidency, knowing that the entire bureaucracy will conspire to aid you in concealing your embezzlement of the national wealth; but that bureaucracy might just as well throw you to the lions. The president acts majestic for four or eight years, and then revolves out into political retirement as a senior politician, but he knows very little of what is going on around him, and he has responsibility for nothing. The president is the target for assassins, so that the plans of billionaires can proceed in the shadows, because the real beneficiaries of the republic are the billionaires who have more executive power over their property than any king ever held at the height of the absolutist era. - Mr. Bolton recognizes that the Manifesto is no ordinary "political cant," yet he knows so little about the genuine ancient American constitution, that he cannot address the Manifesto based on its legal implications. Instead, he has to focus his attacks on the person responsible for issuing the Manifesto, the Pretender to the Crown. But lacking anything but the clauses of the Manifesto itself, he must interpret them from the narrow dogmatism of the republic, which is appalled at the prospect of a restoration. Under the rules of the republic, no man is worthy to become king. All men are tainted, if not by their actual flaws, then by a prejudice that implies that all people cannot be trusted; which is a twisted derivation of the principle of law that recognizes that all people are equal before the law. But Mr. Bolton attributes no negative phenomena to the sudden imposition of the republic by the slavemaster founding fathers; he does not attribute any positive phenomena, but his mocking tone in the phrase, "crime and governmental corruption, he tells us, will devour us all, and this is all the result of republicanism…" infers that he is a member of the cannon fodder class, who uphold republicanism as the best system of government in the world. He suggests that monarchies are "notorious" for corruption, but outside of those of the absolutist era, when the kings were not genuine chieftains, but military dictators, there are virtually none. And out of a ten thousand-year history for monarchy, the absolutist era lasted less than 500 years. - It would be easier to address an unemotional legal brief, that refuted the legal principles at work, but Mr. Bolton’s criticism is not unemotional. It is full of rage. Yet whom is that rage directed at? Kingship? No, Marc Eric the Usurper, whose royal blood of King David is not sufficient to warrant a coronation. To Mr. Bolton the ideas of "freedom" and "republic" are Siamese twins, and anyone who would seek to disabuse him of this silly unhistoric idea, he is determined to destroy. Yet this is without understanding the nature and character of the ancient constitution of America, which is betrayed by Mr. Bolton’s open assertion that I imply that government should be run by "experts." No where have I ever asserted that government should be operated by experts; in fact, in almost all my works, I have asserted that this reliance on so-called "experts" is one of the most significant faults of the republic. A republic that became the model for the modern corporation, and the corporate state, the FASCIST STATE. - Mr. Bolton fundamentally misunderstands the way in which he is free in American society, because he misunderstood the phrase, "Every American has received a patrimony, a heritage." This refers to the fact that our civil rights in the United States derive from customary law, not the Bill of Rights, and our entitlement to their benefit is inherited. However, they are not inherited specifically from our own biological, lineal ancestors, they are inherited as a people, in the manner of the ancient folkright. Under the law of the ancient kingdom, the king had to observe the rights of the folk that held of him in chief; but under the republic, the people have to prove that they are entitled to civil rights by "good behavior." This is a pretext to incarcerate, and the hallmark of the republic is that it is not only a police state, but also a prison state. - Furthermore, Mr. Bolton’s belief that the Manifesto ordains conscription further reveals that he must suffer lapses of consciousness, because the Manifesto is a call upon people to voluntarily dedicate themselves to the benefit of their nation. There is not one iota of coercion involved in it, and if Mr. Bolton’s patriotism to the motherland is lacking, it is only he that suffers, for cynicism is not a crime. At the very minimum I applaud Mr. Bolton’s apparent recognition that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant; but I am disappointed that he does not know Mr. Lincoln’s reputation as a shark corporate lawyer, who was involved in landmark decisions that made the modern corporation what it is today. To label Mr. Lincoln as a nationalist is the same as to say that when JFK sent advisers to Vietnam, he was genuinely concerned about Vietnamese nationalism: it is pure and total fantasy. Mr. Lincoln was involved in causing the deaths of 1 million Americans. Today we are told it was for the cause of slavery, but the cause of slavery was introduced late in the war; the Civil War took place to crush the southern Nationalist movement that sought to carry on the tradition of the Washingtonian republic, slaves and all. Mr. Lincoln fought to preserve the supremacy of the Federal Government, period. One million Americans died. Is that nationalism? - The republic of the United States was the first corporation in the modern sense. It became the model for the corporation of the business world, and when General Motors used the military model of organization to become one of the most successful industrial organizations in the world, the GM model became the managerial model copied throughout the Free World. The only precedent for a republic under the ancient Anglo-American constitution was that of the Puritan Revolution, when Oliver Cromwell became military dictator. In most respects, the office of president of the United States is modeled on the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. And even Washington, himself, had a Cromwellian bearing. - The republic is about business; it is not about people or culture. That is why it is secular, and willing to subvert anything that is based on principles. The republic has only one limiting characteristic, and that is that it will only ignore moral principles if there is a monetary profit to be gained. If there is no profit to be made, it absolutely will not violate principles of moral virtue. But if there is a profit to be made, there is no law in the universe that the republic will not subvert to make it, for the republic has no purpose other than to serve the principals of the country, the players, the descendants of the founders – and the rich parvenu they intermarried with – the Billionaire Class of the social register. They OWN you Mr. Bolton, you and the entire American people. You owe them your rent, or your mortgage; they own the land, or the apartment, or the bank, or the credit company, or some part of them. You owe them your car payments, or the payments on your new toaster oven, or your new stereo, or your new washer and dryer; because if they do not outright own the companies that produce those items, they own the companies that sold them, or the companies that finance the companies that produce them. These are people who OWN property, as opposed to being allowed to use property owned by a bank, to whom payments are made, until a sum perhaps three times the worth of the property is surrendered. - The American Nation is not about the king; it is about Americans. The traditional nation responds to the call of the king, the chief, but the society of the nation is not dependent upon the chief. The republic usurped the authority of the government, and hobbled along for 222 years, and now it is a wreck. Nostalgia designed to perpetuate it is misplaced and ignorant. - America as a business enterprise is over, finished and done with. The company town is dead, may it stay dead. Now we human beings who live in North America have the opportunity to actually commune with each other, and create a community where one did not exist before, the American Nation. A Nation that is capable of bringing to fruition the noble ambition of a free country, one person at a time; a free country founded around the principles of a friendly society, wherein people have compassion for their neighbors, and goodwill for their countrymen. And don’t think for a minute that this is going to come about because the ancient constitution is restored, the ancient constitution is going to be restored BECAUSE IT COMES ABOUT among men, and you should never underestimate the ability of men to move men with great ideas. - What vision does Mr. Bolton have for America? His own? How much does he really know about America and Americans, his own people? If Mr. Bolton were mayor of the world, what agenda would he impose? It is easy and sarcastic to bombastically declaim another person’s work, but it is not so easy to provide any kind of alternative. If the kingdom is not restored, then the United States will be forced to retain the republic, at least superficially. But there is no alternative offered, other than the slow slide into chaos and dissolution. At this point, everyone of middle age in the United States is aware of the fact that voting out the Democrats and the Republicans from either the White House or the Congress, or state legislatures and Governor’s Mansions, has absolutely no effect. The times call for a new kind of activism that strikes at the very heart of power under the police state republic. The times call for a reform so fundamental that the bureaucracy is outfoxed, for it is the bureaucracy that is the roadblock to progress. The republic of the bureaucracy, for the bureaucracy and by the bureaucracy. The only way out of this rat-maze is the abolition of the republic, and the restoration of the traditional kingdom. It’s that simple. - Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin, King of Ely-Chatelaine, Regent of the United States, Pretender to the Throne. Post Office Box 7075, Laguna Niguel, CA 92607 (USA) - [To me it seems obvious that both of these disputants are still and largely merely territorial nationalists. - If he would have had any chance to realize this ambition then we are, perhaps, lucky that has died in the meantime. - As territorialists, both claimed, quite wrongly, legitimate power over the whole population of a territory, i.e., without individual choice or consent. - I was wrong, for a while, in seeing in Chaitlin a potential panarchist. - J.Z., 31.8.11.) Return to Main Webpage of The Thought  - - -TEBYE VS. ELY- CHAITLIN: THE FINAL ROUND. - By Ronald C. Tobin - - What follows is the third and final installment of the debate between Julian Tebye and Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin on the historical basis of monarchy, and whether or not the United States should remain a republic. Both of these individuals have put a great deal of time and thought into their respective arguments, and I thank both of them for this. However, after this installment I think it is wise to let this matter lie, at least as far as these two are concerned. I still invite comments from other readers about this in-print debate, all input is welcome and will be passed on to Julian Tebye and/or Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin, possibly published if such is desired and the contribution provides a new insight. - With that, I present the debate on history between Julian Tebye and Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin, for the final round. . . . - - - THE LAST WORD. - By Julian Tebye. - I really don't have much more to say concerning your very creative version of history. I might point out that, among those 1.6 million people in prison, are such people as Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan. I agree that those found guilty of victimless crimes should not be imprisoned--but not all 1.6 million are in that category. - It may surprise you, but I agree with you concerning much of what you criticize. My objections are to your sweeping generalizations and gross exaggerations (e.g.: "... reliance on the principles of law that had succeeded for TEN THOUSAND YEARS.") (Your caps.) 10,000 years would put us back to about 8,000 BCA--long before written history. Probably, long before writing. Do you actually claim to know "the principles of law" that existed at that time? - And your reliance on the good old Anglo-Saxons is somewhat misplaced, in my opinion. Does that include the "time-honored" practice of Blutgeld, where it was all right to kill a man as long as you paid the family blood money? And your beloved Anglo-Saxons, with their high principles of law, moved into England and stole the land from the indigenous Celts. (But, that's okay. The Normans later moved in and took much of their land from the Anglo-Saxons.) - Let's play "What if". What if you were to become the king or regent of the USA? What makes you think that your "Vision of the Friendly Society" would miraculously become reality? As with other utopian dreamers, you overlook one little fact: In order to transform society, you must change people. "If only everyone would think as I think!" (I have already--cynically--pointed out that you could have had just such a "perfect society" under Hitler, as long as everyone agreed with his ideas--and as long as they weren't Semitic, gypsies, homosexuals or a few other "unacceptable" things.) - By your own admission, this would be a Constitutional Monarchy. That means that you, as king or regent, do not rule. (I am reminded of Clemenceau's observation that, "In a democracy, the people reign, they do not rule.") So there you are, sitting on your fat ... throne. As Constitutional Monarch, you must have a Prime Minister. But you do not choose the Prime Minister; he or she is chosen by the voters. And they have the major choice of Dole or Clinton. My point is: What has changed? - You state that you are there to give poor people "hope". (Hope of what?) The poor people already have hope: The hope that they will win the lottery; The hope that they (male) will "get lucky". If you persist in your attempts to establish an autocratic government, please be aware that, when a government consists of a single head, this greatly facilitates the opportunity to lop off the entire government with a single blow. In your words: BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! - Julian Tebye. - (Anyone who would like to write to Mr. Tebye may do so through the Philosophers' Guild) - - TEBYE: CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT. - By Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin of the House of David, Regent of the United States. - Oddly enough, there are two incidents that stand out in history, which prove out your assertion regarding the weakness of dictatorship. The first is the assassination of President Lincoln, an event that threw the Republic into a panic that was only exceeded by the panic that followed the second incident, the assassination of President Kennedy. A third episode that powerfully illustrated the dictatorial power of the president was the death of FDR, which left a bewildered population, the youngest of whom had never known any other president. - If I could determine what you were in favor of, it would be possible to address it; but you squirm around, resisting defining yourself, so that you constitute a moving target. It doesn't seem to bother you that 1.6 million of your countrymen are in prison and jail, and that at least ONE-THIRD of those prisoners are there for drug related crimes. It doesn't seem to bother you that the fascistic Republic holds more prisoners, per capita, than any other national government on the Earth. That is not "creative history," that is data that is available from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. And if you were paying attention – which it would seem that you were not, because I have already gone over this – Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan committed genuine crimes, and their imprisonment, and the imprisonment of like-criminals convicted of real crimes, is justified. But the fact that the Republic has more of its own citizens in jail than any other country on Earth is a sure and certain sign that the consent of the American people to the perpetuation of the Republic is based solely on coercion. - I don't know how to tell you this, but I am not your enemy. I have no intention of depriving you or any American of his or her rights under law. Your complete inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by your inability to look beyond the Presidency, which you seem fixated on (like all the adherents of dictatorship). You seem unable to recognize that under a legitimate system of government, men with no integrity, such as Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, would not progress much. I do not think that a Clinton or a Dole would be put forward as a candidate for Prime Minister, if the United States were governed under a legitimate government. - You do not recognize the truly hostile and contemptuous opinion the politicians and bureaucrats possess regarding the American people, so you do not acknowledge that what I have done by putting myself forward as Pretender to the American Crown, is that I have risked my life. The likelihood is high that if I have any success at all in persuading a sizable audience that a change is necessary, that I will die under mysterious circumstances. And that is not to assume power myself, but to restore the ancient constitution in which individuals possess hereditary and inalienable civil rights that constitute the very sinews of the society, which are outside of the power of a legitimate government to revoke or change. It is unfortunate that you have no real education, because it is impossible to debate important topics with someone who is as handicapped as you are. You have no understanding of the Anglo-American constitution; your understanding goes no further than that blasphemy that the republicans pass off as a constitution, the Constitution of 1787, yet you think that you can argue that the institution it empowers (absolutely) is a bulwark for something positive. - I think your real enmity against me comes through in this letter, what I can only hope is actually and truly your "Last Word." I have already said everything there is to say, and to go on is to beat a dead horse. You cannot attack my ideas, so you attack me. But I don't see you putting yourself on the line. I don't see you doing anything for your countrymen, other than supporting a fascistic mass movement – the republic – which openly mocks you for believing that it makes you free. What you are completely incapable of seeing is that what I am proposing is not to change the people, but the GOVERNMENT. Any time someone suggests that the current system is not living up to any criteria of moral decency, it is people like you who come to its defense, so that it can throw more people into prison for smoking marijuana; and then you loudly declare that you are opposed to imprisoning people for such a "crime," yet you don't really do anything to change anything. You are a pure hypocrite. - The suggestion for a "Friendly Society" is in stark contrast to the Great Society, and the New Deal. It is not meant to characterize a well-financed centrally-planned government program, but a simple objective of creating a positive national community using tools such as friendship, loyalty and good faith, that are available to each and every person regardless of class, ethnic group, or partisan affiliation. You have spent untold hours thinking of criticisms of my ideas; did it ever cross your mind that you could make a positive contribution to your country, your community, your street? This is not about the vision of a single person carried out with a regimented system of thinking; to carry such a program into effect would be to do nothing but replicate the existing system of regimented thinking that now supports the republic of the Founding Fathers, the slavemaster bastards who saddled our ancestors, and whose descendants think it is their god-given right to saddle us. The logic you use to discredit the idea of a friendly society – that it would have to come into effect by some miracle – illustrates the really dark and negative outlook you have of the human race, who you apparently do not believe are capable of such a basic relationship as friendship. Is it really "utopian" to imagine a world in which teenagers do NOT kill their schoolmates, or wherein the highest cause of death in the workplace is NOT murder? - Your view of a constitutional monarchy is also oddly uninformed, which is typical of Americans educated in republican-controlled schools. A constitutional monarch cannot impose his opinions on the Government, which is a democratically elected institution. The most significant difference between a legal monarchical government, and an illegal republican state, is the fact that at the center of the republican state there is a ceremonial chief executive who is subject to powers greater than himself, namely the billionaires who literally own the country, and whose investments require them to minimize their risks by controlling the presidency through campaign contributions. The very temporary nature of the presidency makes it ideal for opportunists and rogues, which the political system of the republic has had no shortage of ever since it was crammed down the throats of the American people by a process of conventions that even Alexander Hamilton thought was high-handed and arrogant. - The idea of the kingship is that it meets the criteria of law, making it legal. In your fantasy world law is whatever Congress says it is, because that is what it says in the Constitution of 1787, and you cannot understand how this contradicts the principles of law, which represent a refinement over thousands of years. Yes, thousands of years. And to say ten thousand years is to intimate that the law evolved from human relations at a time in pre-history at a date uncertain. Does that bother your obviously Germanic sensibilities? That the law is an academic field of scholarship that was not enacted on a single day by plantation aristocrats who had no "right" to do so, but that it evolved out of a misty pre-historic past, and that it has evolved to meet changing times. By bringing up the blutgeld, you reveal that you fail to understand the underlying principle of it, which was that the payment of blood money replaced an even earlier practice whereby a murder was revenged by another murder; in the context of its origin, it was an advancement. Today, of course, we are beyond that, and it is just ridiculous of you to insinuate that in order for us to acknowledge the reception of Anglo-Saxon law, that we must also accept such outdated institutions as the blutgeld. Yet most significantly, the reason the Anglo-Saxon roots of the English law are mentioned is to remind you that we are part of a continuum, and law evolved out of human needs and common sense, not a political bargain struck by slavemasters to give them an unfair advantage over the landless masses. - I think it is possible to "know" the principles of law that were accepted millennia ago, because they are rooted in human needs for fairness and society. People are not naturally loners, the roots of community go back to those first human beings who stood erect. Truth is still truth, and a lie is still a lie, no matter how fancy our means of transportation may become, or how many industrial gadgets we invent to give us new and obscure conveniences that we are not even sure we need. You can rationalize all you want, but people love their mothers and fathers and children, and they seek to protect the ones they love, and they tend to be loyal to them; and they tend to join together with others like themselves, for no other reason than to enjoy the limited time of their mortal existence. You mention the ancient blutgeld, but you fail to see that the demand for restitution is still alive in modern life, even if the demand for blood money no longer exists. This will never change, and it embodies a drive in people that is so ancient, we do not know when it originated. But you can be certain that if men lived ten thousand years ago, and we are pretty certain that they did, that they held the same feelings of men and women who live today. - The people existed before the law, and it was to fulfill the needs of the people that law was devised, and this human influence shaped the law. When the first law came into existence it had to do with the interactions of the various individuals who constituted the community, which had the effect of recognizing the existence of "legal rights" as vested in individual human beings. Government came about as a result of the interaction of these individual rights, through the exercise of parental authority of the first leadership, as it was constituted by the actual parents of the tribe. It has been asserted that the ancient constitution is not the source of the civil rights of individuals, but the consequence of their existence; the rights of the individual are therefore pre-existent, before the state. And it is from individuals that the state has always derived its authority to govern. The idea that the Founding Fathers of American fascism originated the notion of government by the governed is absurd at best, an outright lie at worst. - I find your flippant remarks about "hope" troubled and negative. Today the American people have no hope, but that is only because every horror they must suffer through is portrayed as the end-product of the March of Civilization, which miraculously culminated in the Federal republic of the United States Government. When things go really bad, due solely to the corrupt and ineffective system of government we are forced to submit to, collaborators like you have the gall to accuse the American people of APATHY! As if slaves can JUST SAY NO! It really bothers you that others do not see things your way, and comply with your world vision; exactly what you accuse me of doing. Yet you don't acknowledge that I have put forward no such vision. The only society I want to see evolve is a friendly society, and the only way people can be friends is if every individual in that society is first and foremost, FREE. Ultimately individuals do have to liberate themselves, but if the republic is accepted at face value (which you apparently do), individuals are stripped of all authority to make their own choices, and they become, instead, the wards of an all-powerful state; and the fact that the leadership of that state is voted into power by a balloting process does not reduce the significance of the fact that the people over whom it shall exercise power are deprived of freedom of choice. - Someday you are just going to have to accept that you have been lied to by the adherents of the republic. It is not the best system of government in the world, it does not make you free; you are not better off because of it. Its founders were not good men, and the British king was not a tyrant. Kingship is not an autocracy, and law is not something that you can just invent out of thin blue air. Either you are part of the solution, or you are part of the problem; but those people who are part of the solution will be empowered far beyond their individual influence, and those people who are part of the problem will find that they are powerless and confused and reduced to irrelevance. When the abolitionists started on the long road to abolish the curse of the Founding Fathers – slavery – they were vastly outnumbered by the supporters of slavery; but by standing fast in truth, they prevailed. We, too, shall prevail, but without coercion; without fraud; without a violent civil war. Where is the instrument of "an autocratic government," that you allege I am attempting to establish? I have no army, no bodyguard, no political partisan faction. I am armed with nothing more than the truth, the historic truth, and it is the truth that shall liberate America. If I can contribute to that, I will be deeply honored. - Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin, Regent of the United States, P.O. Box 7075, Laguna Niguel, CA 92607. - Return to Main Webpage of The Thought  - - Chaitlin's traces of individual secessionism, individual sovereignty and panarchism did not seem to have saved him from getting mad in the end and envisioning himself as an emperor of the USA. - In spite of the lack of written records, he seemed to have achieved the miracle of having traced back his ancestors to the House of David! - I was unable to take his combination of individual secessionism with royalism quite serious. - J.Z., 19.9.11.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY, Household Government, literature hints and leaflet on his individual secessionism, 123, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PEACE PLANS 585. See also under CHAITLIN. (This guy had not made up his mind under which name he wants to run under! - J.Z.)

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY, Information Papers 7, 14/26, 29, 31, 34 and some correspondence in PEACE PLANS 633 & 640. - He may be classed among the individual secessionists and panarchists, although his monarchic to aristocratic notions are in conflict with his panarchism. He tried to establish a silver currency. - He also called himself: CHATELAINE, Marc Eric Ely or Marc Eric Augustin or MARC ERIC OF ELY-CHAITELAIN and made some wild claims on his origin and his authority as the true monarch for the population of the U.S.A. How many people living there did give him their individual consent? - Some of his statements made me ask myself: Was Chaitlin an individualist secessionist, panarchist, exterritorialist or just another monarchical imperialist or, even, a nut case? See expecially at the bottom, how he considered himself, when he signed his statement. - People should make up their own minds - at least on their own names! - I have not heard of him in many years. - J.Z., 30.8.04. - He died a few years ago. J.Z., 30.8.11. 17.10.11.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY, The Royalist Standard, 1989, 21pp, 19-39, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PEACE PLANS 879.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC ELY, The Royalist Tradition, 1988, with some marginal notes by John Zube, 4-18, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PEACE PLANS 879.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC OF ELY-CHAITELAIN & ZUBE, JOHN, A letter by J.Z. to Chaitlin, 3.5.89: Dear Marc, - I noticed a review of your book THE ROYALIST STANDARD in FACTSHEET FIVE, # 29. While I have so far filled 12 volumes of my microfiched sub-series ON PANARCHY with references on individual secessionism, individual sovereignty, panarchism and related subjects and discussions of them, apart from numerous other relevant titles in my Peace Plans series, your own thoughts, discussions, descriptions and experiences on this subject are still sadly lacking in this compilation. This happened due to your initial copyrights restrictions and secondly due to my flawed filing. Only now did I finally integrate two manila folders on our exchanges, largely due to you copyrighting whatever few leaflets etc. you have sent me on this. And it is not impossible that somewhere there exists another file, still. I am very far from having everything registered on a computer or on microfiche. - Please send me a copy of this book. I would like to include it and any other relevant material you care to send me in the next issue of ON PANARCHY. Issues VI-X are enclosed, together with my own small reader survey in PEACE PLANS 649 and a copy of Jim Stumm's description on how he built a reader himself. Another description on home-building readers will be in the follow-up to my micropublishing fiche 707/708. ON PANARCHY XI & XII are readied for filming but not yet brought to my agency, which still owes me the the preceding batch of microfiche. I've readied material up to PEACE PLANS 864 now. - Have you got a collection of libertarian writings of which some titles could and should be included in my series? - I filmed of you, so far: 1.) Information Papers 7,14,26,29,31,34 & some correspondence, 16pp, 48x, in PP 633 & 2.) your letter to T. M., 20.7.86, 1p, 48x, in PEACE PLANS 740. - So far, I suspect, with Jim Stumm, that you have not yet sufficiently thought out the details of your individual sovereignty system. But then who has - seeing the present state of this discussion? To me the very terms you used seem to indicate this already. But I have myself still more questions than answers, although I have the basic conviction that freedom in this sphere does have all the answers required. They just have to be discovered, where they are not yet known and visualized. We may never completely agree on terminology aims and means but should at least try to explore each term and option as far as possible and put our findings on record and make them retrievable. - I would be the last to deny the value of the concept of "my home is my castle." - It is attacked by e.g. ca. 200 -300 various officials and inspectors who, under one pretence or the other are authorized to enter our homes without our permission and without a special warrant and, naturally, by all the national, state and local government legislation that we are forcefully subjected to, including the costs that this involved, levied at the discretion of those in power. We are not even at full liberty on how we build and decorate our houses. - Household economic autonomy, is an ideal of Jim Stumm, as far as it is possible to achieve this aim. I can somewhat and to a limited extent agree with such an aim but am not prepared to undertake the necessary labours and research and investments. At most I will come to grow a few more of my own vegies and fruit. My few nut trees were killed by draughts or frosts and recently I sold most of my trees with two blocks of land. I do appreciate division of labour and free trade for most of my requirements. - Each housewife claims at least sovereignty in her kitchen, if not the whole house and most families do enjoy a considerable autonomy for their habitation and what they do in them and their gardens. How far do you intend to go beyond this? Full private proprietorship I would concede, for house, garden, industrial and business or agricultural and park and natural reserve estate. As far as mining and agricultural and very extensive parks are involved, I would propose to establish, on a purchase or donation basis, "open cooperative" ownership and use as one of the possible, rightful and competing land tenure systems. Details were described by Theodor Hertzka and amended by Ulrich von Beckerath. - As for applying the concept of monarchy, principality, dukedom etc. to one's private property and one's "office" as sovereign to one's territory, the case has to be thought out further. A king is not just a king in his own castle, garden, province and country but also when he is travelling elsewhere and visiting and temporarily residing in other countries or with foreign hosts. They may not impose their foreign laws and customs upon him - apart from the requirements of good manners and hospitality. Nor may he impose his own upon them. He would be peer among peers and they would have some local precedence, based largely upon their private property rights. Neither could e.g. impose his extreme costume or no-costume preferences upon the other, or his smoking or non-smoking or sexual habits or his drug or non-drug uses, drinking and eating preferences, subjects for discussion, or other common activities. They would then be both on the basis of individual sovereignty, with international law, respecting individual rights and liberties, between them. And to a large extent each would take his personal law with him wherever he or she went - for his own relationships and new contractual ones that he or she established. Thus it would be wrong, in my terms, to speak of such relationships as relationships governed by territorial law and complete individual sovereignty. You may serve your guest dinner but you may not serve them for dinner. Certain boundaries around each person are to be respected everywhere. - Such distinctions are common even in today's predominantly territorial law and sovereignty systems, as is recognized e.g. when a king, queen or president goes visiting overseas. - If sufficient agreement cannot be achieved under such conditions, then foreign guests may not be invited to enter one's property or may be shown the door. And when serious offences are committed against the host or guest then international arbitration, pre-arranged, ought to become involved. - In short, you should be free to be a self-proclaimed monarch or individual sovereign or co-sovereign with your other family members, wherever you choose to travel and stay, upon agreement with local proprietors, anywhere on earth or in space. Your liberty should not be bound by your own "free territory". But, naturally, if you were that way inclined, you would be at liberty to spit on your own floor but not on that of anyone else. - Perhaps we could come to agree on this and more. You may already have dealt with this and other aspects in your writings, unknown to me. In that case, please forgive me for presuming that you haven't. - Did I ever send you some comments to your booklet THE LAST CRUSADE, which you sent me in 1985? I find that I have 12 pages of scribbled notes on it in your file but no transcript of them or copy of a corresponding letter. - While I am primarily interested in your thoughts on individual sovereignty, I would not mind to reproduce your other libertarian writings, too, if you should care to make them accessible to me. But I would not be interested in your arguments with Ron Tobin. Judging from the little I have seen of his writings, several short mailings, I was not tempted to reproduce them or take up a discussion with him, no more so than with any other religious, occult, conspiracy or cosmic consciousness and largely emotional people. The various errors and myths involved in such discussions should simply be collected, alphabetized and confronted with the best refutations in encyclopaedic form. Otherwise, one is engaged in a battle with several "Hydras". - I would readily concede that "panarchy" is not the best of all possible terms but it is still one that seems to me to be less misunderstood than most other known or widely used terms are. That is a considerable advantage. - We have to work to achieve some more agreements between us and to develop a terminology, references and arguments with which we could successfully launch liberation programmes for the x flashpoints in the world - where minorities or majorities struggle towards all too incomplete liberation with all too imperfect means, tools, weapons and ideas. - Ideally, this kind of ideology should be so developed and ready to be supplied upon demand, that all minorities and suppressed majorities would come to subscribe to it, in the same way as the different churches and sects have subscribed, more or less informally, to the notion and practice of religious tolerance or freedom in most developed countries and as private and voluntary associationism is already recognized there for numerous private purposes - outside the "governmental sphere". - I have taken leave from THE CONNECTION for a while. New responses were so few and usually of such a low quality that I got turned off. For my own records, I may still respond to some of the newer and older statements on panarchy in that publication but why waste postage and subscription rates to send in fractions of these responses? The law of diminishing returns applies there, too. People who really want more information or discussion on panarchy will have to seek me out or participate e.g. in Le Grand E. Day's PANARCHY, Dialectics. - - Even decades of letter exchanges between quite intelligent people have ultimately proved fruitless upon each other  - apart from developing their writing ability. A letter exchange forum must be large enough in its circulation or efficient enough in its information retrieval when it deals with many diverse subjects - or must be very specialized, among largely like-minded people. Communication, to a large extent, takes place only among "equals", i.e. people with similar specialized interests and abilities. Otherwise, attention, energies and time become misdirected and misunderstood. Social gatherings and rap sessions, verbally and in writing, do have some attractions but not enough. - Perhaps the greatest achievement of THE CONNECTION consists in the off-shoot publications from it by various temporary participants. - PIOT, John. (Slightly edited. - J.Z., 31.8.11.) - - - CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC OF ELY-CHAITELAIN & ZUBE, JOHN, A letter by J.Z. to Chaitlin, 15.6.89: - Dear Marc, - thanks for your letter of 1 June 89 and your two pamphlets: THE ROYALIST STANDARD & THE ROYALIST TRADITION, as well as for your micrographic reproduction permission. I do, as usual, not interpret the latter as a "royal patent" for exclusive and permanent use but as a non-exclusive and revocable permission & mention the source and its address simply by reproducing the whole text or cover sheets that go with it, unless it is a well established journal or newspaper, whose name indication suffices. - Hopefully, you will have a royal time with building a Jim Stumm type of reading machine yourself. However, I hold with quality used reading machines, as long as they can be obtained as cheaply as in Sydney, from $ 60 onwards. For small and portable machines one will have to look for new or remainder models. - My wishing list for libertarian texts would probably come to hundreds of pages. If I ever get around to compiling a libertarian bibliography then I will annotate the texts already in my library or fiched by LMP or wanted by LMP for fiching. As a rough rule of thumb, I am interested in any text not yet in the LMP list, not or no longer copyrighted and long out of print or available at most only in expensive reprints or expensive microfilms from other microfilm publishers. Thus, if and when you peruse my listing and find yourself stopping for a moment and asking yourself: Why hasn't he included such and such title as yet? - then you are close, at least in your mind, to one I want. - Maybe, one day, all libertarians with some sizable private libraries will get around to list their contents on computers and to make these lists available in photocopies, disks and on microfiche or combine them into location lists, comparable to the location list the Australian National Library has for titles held in Australian libraries. But although I wish for this, I have not yet set a good example myself but have compiled only very incomplete lists of my books on some subjects. - - Regarding the details of a territorial - or, from my point of view, rather exterritorial - sovereignty system: You write: " ... to a large extent the rationalized theories must follow actual practices." - I would be the last one to deny the value of historical traditions and contemporary experiences. However, relevant theories do also belong to our traditions and correct theories lead to correct practices and can be arrived at only by a sufficient discussion of the various relevant theories that are advanced. There is no fundamental contradiction between theory and practice, as already Kant stated in one of his famous essays. Otherwise, this question resembles that of what came first, the chicken or the egg? What is verbally separated need not be separated in practice. The practicioner does follow almost every moment one or the other theory and no theoretician is worth his salt who remains ignorant of and does not follow relevant practices to the extent that they are just and rational. - - "... making the territory into an actual social system." - The territory is not the nation, the nation is not the territory. A social system isn't always an economic or a political system, an economic system is not always "social" in the modern sense although it may be very social, in terms of economic harmonies, as seen by Bastiat, etc. - - How large is your "territory" or household economy or domain? 1/4 acre or 200 or 2,000 or 20,000 acres? Why not call it by one of its simple Anglo-Saxon names, a block of land, a farm, a real estate, private land and otherwise add some words to indicate one's ideal of independence and monarchical or other aspirations? - The closest "royal possession" or kingdom nearby is simply called "Laird's Corner", of Prince John. I have never seen "territory" described, in any dictionary or political discussion in the way you use it. If it is exempted from the territorial sovereignty, the constitution, legislation and jurisdiction of the surrounding territory, then it is usually called an enclave or an extraterritorial area, like some foreign ships or embassies are, in practice and de jure. - And who is spokesman for your "territory"? You, on your own or anyone else? Although one might give one's family members all kinds of fancy titles and honours and offices, like Price Leonard of Hutt River Province did, royalty is as royalty does: only the activists and thinkers count in this respect, too. - - Regarding the "acceptance of individuals as they are" in your territory or otherwise, what does that mean? If you have agricultural, industrial or business job opportunities or settlement options to offer then this is something else than merely membership listings and "franchises" for the use of terminology, affiliations and mutual recognition declarations. - - And one should also keep in mind that most people who hear someone calling himself a king, although he is not recognized as such by the powers that are, or the heir of a recognized king, is usually simply classed as a mental case. When one is representing radical ideas then this becomes a double jeopardy. - - Any actual new social, economic and political experiment cannot help being by itself educational and, usually, will also have to have its public relations efforts. But by reading your two pamphlets I am still not quite clear about what you want to achieve and how to achieve it. Why not shortly state your aims and methods in points, leaving all the rest to footnotes and mere commentaries? I am collecting statements of principles and private drafts of codes of rights and liberties and would gladly include them. Mere historical discussions, opinions and general evaluations are a dime a dozen and fill whole libraries that ought to remain largely unread - if one is truly interested in improving one's situation. Like myself, when writing on panarchism, you seem to get carried away into a general rap-session. What interests others on this theme? - ought to be one question which you ought to ask yourself continuously. And then try to tabulate a) The flawed monarchies of old against b) you rown idealistic monarchy together with c) how you are going to establish it and d) how you and your supporters are going to maintain it. - - From the little that I know of man's history, I did come to the conclusion that more could be learned from the oaths forced upon kings to uphold the customary law of the land and from resistance actions and methods of their subjects, if they did not, than from the whole tragic-comical to sheer criminal royal successions. Overall, I do agree with Pitirim Sorokin, who has made a close study of this, that rulers, as a class, or profession, are the most criminal class, even with regard to "ordinary" violent crimes and quite apart from their "crimes of State" and those associated with their militarism. [The rulers of the states are the most criminal group in a respective population. With a limitation of their power their criminality tends to decrease; but it still remains exceptionally high in all nations - Pitirim A. Sorokin - (Pitirim A. Sorokin) - J.Z., 30.8.11.] – (Alas, I did not note where I found that quote. Quick browsing in the few works of it that I have, did not succeed in tracing it. – J.Z., 11.12.11.) Consequently, any imposition of their "services" upon anyone is to be condemned. Either S. was right in this or he was wrong. - - Admittedly, you say that you do not want to force your or any other monarchy upon anyone - except, I presume, in defence, to the extent temporarily necessary, to restrain an aggressor and achieve restitution, perhaps punishment and a deterrent effect and rehabilitation, if possible. To that extent, I could agree with you. But then what does remain of monarchism that would make it particularly attractive compared with other forms of organization or self-rule to take care of the own liberties, rights and interests? - - Other officials, however merely representative or democratic, tend to surround themselves, too, with pomp and ceremonies, give themselves fancy titles, offices and medals - all amounting to nothing except perhaps, to some, pretty sights and sounds. - - Generally speaking, individual liberties and rights are so precious and individualized possessions that ought to be practised and protected by the individuals concerned and that cannot be to any large extent practised representatively. Nobody can fully speak or act for you. And nobody can be held responsible, in any try sense, for millions of lives he has wasted, merely with his own life. - - In other words, the traditional and historical monarchism, as largely and almost continuously practised, stands condemned, even by yourself. Its ideal forms happened so rarely that only a few approximations could be quoted. - - In your form: Everybody a king who wants to be a king or who is voted in as a king by and for volunteers, on an exterritorial and personal law basis, would be respected by me as such but, otherwise, would leave me cold, like the chairman or president of a football or cricket or bridge club. An exceptional case would be the one in which excessively obedient royal subjects would entrust their ruler with mass extermination devices. Then, I, too, would come to consider the need to exterminate such kings. - - "Left to their own devices, many areas WOULD degenerate into total chaos." - I would deny this, for the long run, if people in an area are really left to their own devices, i.e. were free to establish all the alternative institutions they desire and to negotiate for their own security, peace and trading requirements between such free groups, setting up arbitration, policing, defence and rehabilitation services. The more they think only territorially, of uniform solutions, to be imposed upon all followers and dissenters alike, or of compromises, the more they will remain or become dissatisfied. The more each confines himself or herself to doing the own thing while leaving others free to do their own, the better off all inhabitants of an area or territory will be. - - As for the remaining or desirable statesmanship or leadership, usually just a dream and not even a beautiful one and a different dream for almost everyone, let it or let them be adopted by those , who do want them: To each the statesmanship or leadership, state or non-state, society or isolation of his or her dreams! Neither the dreams of a Genghis Khan nor a Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler or other modern and benevolent despot, guru, king, leader or statesman - should decide upon the fate of peaceful dissenters and on their past, present and future free, just and non-offensive actions regarding their own affairs. - - We do have almost total "chaos" in the entertainment, travels, sports, home decoration, garden development, mode of dress, choice of jobs, crafts, arts, hobbies, reading matter - and not disorder but, rather, order and harmonies result precisely from this. Disorder tends to arise only from attempts at meddling with the affairs of others, within or outside the family, business, affinity groups etc. By insisting on a) voluntary membership, b) autonomy and c) exterritoriality, for all who do want it, friction is reduced to a minimum, as far as this can be achieved merely by restructuring. Frictions resting on ignorance, intolerance, spleens, myths and prejudices would remain but would be directed largely into relatively harmless channels, where they would tend to harm mostly only likeminded people, or would arouse so much internal and external opposition, and this at an early stage, that leaders of such movements would not be able to gain and retain so many followers that they could become, at least temporarily and on a large scale, an overwhelming threat to others. How many roulette and horse racing betting systems are on offer? They cannot, as a rule, be sold to the masses but only to a few fools or prejudiced people. - - I hold that almost everywhere we do have large-scale chaos in most spheres in which meddling with the affairs of others is still permitted or even demanded and institutionalized. Naturally, the mere absence of such meddling and leaving everything else to uninformed minds, prejudices and impulses is not enough. That is why I hold correct theories and principles and contracts etc. and an acceleration of the process of enlightenment by means of a genuinely cultural revolution to be of a high importance - in advance of most major reforms and worthwhile revolutions or resistance actions. - - You write, page 1: "To me, language has within it the practical, down-to-earth wisdom which can, with the use of reason, reveal to the open mind the most fundamental truths of human existence." - While I do largely agree with this, I do not hold that the use of terms like "anarchy" and "monarchy" in an idealistic sense, like by you and many anarchists, quite opposite to the public opinion use and long term historical use of such terms, amounts to a practical and down-to-earth wisdom in advocating the respective ideals. The use of terms which have NOT been used quite differently, by most people, over hundreds of years, seems to me much more advisable than insistence upon one's own interpretations of old terms with, as generally perceived, quite different meanings. - - A monarch has only rarely been interpreted as one who would rule and would aim to rule or would practice to rule only over himself and over those who asked for his judgment or rule or leadership. - At a time when some individuals have their finger on nuclear buttons, decide in command economies, involve whole nations in international treaties that are unjust and war and revolution-promoting, in a situation where, in spite of all attempts to decentralise, split up or share or democratize powers, more power than ever before ended up in single hands and is, generally abused, how can one then advocate the single-handed possession of powers, in the hands of supposedly reasonable, enlightened and responsible monarchs, although such a monarch and even such an individual may not have existed as yet even during the whole history of mankind? - - Socrates at his trial should have asked: Point out to me the individuals whom I am supposed to have corrupted. I ask you now: Who are and where are the enlightened and incorruptible monarchs you are dreaming about? And where have they been all throughout history? - - - While I agree with you that individuals should strive to become as enlightened, incorruptible, free and independent as possible, calling them monarchs will not necessarily help them to achieve that. The infamous "interregnum" was not one without any kings but with all too many contending kings, all aspiring to exclusive rule over dissenters as well as followers - just like modern party kings and civil war leaders. Thus, I hold, one can hardly stress enough the primary requirements for any rule or non-governmental society: voluntary membership, i.e. the right of individuals to secede, to join or establish competing bodies or to remain outside organized bodies, if they prefer this. - And this implies, unless people are to be despotically shuffled around on the checker board of this earth's surface, i.e. deported, concentrated, segregated, fenced or walled in, put under house arrest or in reservations or ghettos, that they are free to live under their own rules quite exterritorially and independent of majority and minority decisions and individual alternative preferences of others. - - Your use of "territory" and "monarchy", in spite of concessions to voluntarism, individual sovereignty, tolerance and panarchism etc. here and there, goes quite contrary to these requirements - at least when the traditional meanings of these terms are used. - You do not mean them to be so contrary but, rather supportative, I do admit. But they are thus perceived, nevertheless. Thus you are trying to swim against the stream and might not even succeed in crossing it. - - Like you, I would deny that the State is a peacemaker rather than a war-maker or that mass murder devices could be called "peacemakers", particularly seeing the numerous wars, with a total of ca. 25-35 million victims, which we had since WW II, or that the State could possibly promote genuine welfare with its tax system. - - However, I would not object if believers in the rightful use of defensive force were to arm, train and organize themselves with rightful weapons, which can be used discriminatingly against aggressors rather than all non-combatants in an area and if tax-advocates were only to tax themselves in their voluntary and exterritorial communities. The latter might mean that 18 million bureaucrats and, perhaps 80 million welfare recipients might suddenly find themselves in their own company only, relying only upon whatever of their own resources and skills they could muster to support themselves. At the same time, they would no longer have any envious foreign or internal enemies to struggle with and could no longer blame anyone else for their failures. X kings, presidents and great leaders will offer their services and many will be foolish enough, for a while, to accept them. Only to the extent that some natural leaders among them will be able to release some to all of their creative energies will they succeed. - - "... the only thing people have which ties them together is their agreement on the meaning of words." - There is as much truth in saying: "The only thing people have which keeps them apart is their disagreement on the meaning of words." - - "I am not an anarchist. I believe that every person is a walking autonomous jurisdiction, whether he knows it or not; if he knows it, and takes responsibility for it, he is in a state of royalty; to fail to know it is COMMON." - At least individual anarchists and anarcho capitalists would often say essentially the same thing but without the "royalist" conclusion. And the left anarchists would merely confine jurisdiction to their voluntary collectives. On the other hand, the latter would, all too often, rationalize their aggression against the property rights of others as "defence" against the "aggression" by property owners. - - Those who object to be cannon fodder for the sovereignty and purposes of anyone else, ought to insist on more than a "royal prerogative" to be exempted from participation in hostile acts, to preserve their precious persons: they ought to arm, train and organize and properly inform themselves on rightful resistance options and obligations. To the extent that they can achieve the same objectives non-violently, all the better. But, if they are armed (with weapons that can be used rightfully) and well prepared, then there is likely to be much less bloodshed over all and the "enemy" troops and even internal security forces are much more likely to join them rather than squash, scrape together and flame them. - - Precisely because "life is a rich, sophisticated, complex phenomena", each and everyone of us, who is sufficiently grown up and rational, ought to be at liberty to go his own way, like most people do, e.g. on weekends, on foot, with bicycles, cars, trains, planes etc. How could anyone possibly plan all the individual movements in advance, command them and enforce them and achieve as much or more total satisfaction in the process? Free choice in everything and for everyone - which excludes any oppression and exploitation of anyone against his or her will. - - Precisely because there are relatively few common aims and means, each of the different individuals and groups ought to have full autonomy for their own practices among themselves - at their own risk and expense. This applies to monarchical, republican, anarchistic and all other groups which people may have advanced towards to or are still hung up on. - - "Anarchists don't believe in anything other than being in a constant state of revolt against any and all institutions of any kind." - - While I do admit that there all too many nihilists and permanent protestors and revolutionaries of this kind among them, to characterize all of them in this way would be rather unkind and reveal a insufficient knowledge of their literature and lectures and discussions. They greatly disagree even on this question and most of them are constructivists and organizers and "lawmakers" or "rule-makers" or "regulators" of one kind or the other and their voluntarism is often subordinated, just as among statists, to their particular kinds of dogmatism. - I just participated, last weekend, in a humanist/anarchist conference in Sydney. They strove strongly towards alternative institutions but have still no consistent and all-over visions of them, for themselves and for people who are dissenters against them and are economically just as ignorant and prejudices as they have been, for a long time. - - I challenge you to quote me 3 famous anarchists with statements like the kind of anarchism that you ascribe to anarchists. Ratbags and circus-anarchists and psychopaths are, naturally, plentiful among these people and groups too. But are all other movements and groups only to be judged by their worst and least informed examples? - - My main objection against anarchist movements today is that they seem to think that anarchism ought to be universal, that all ought to adopt it and that no other voluntary groupings and "States" ought to be allowed to continue, even if they are exterritorially and under personal laws confined to volunteers. With this aim, they do turn everyone else into an enemy rather than an ally against despotism and totalitarianism. Apart from this, most are still against property, money, competition, profit, trade, enterprise, natural inequalities and diverse personal and organizational preferences which do not fit into an anarchist cookbook. That they will get their maximum chance only under full tolerance and autonomy for all minorities and that this can only be achieved exterritorially, for all kinds of volunteers, most of them are not fully aware of, even though they state essentially the same idea in many of their favourite quotes. In practice, they do fall back upon primitive subsistence collectives, and decentralized territories, in the majority of cases - like you fall back upon the ancient model of monarchism and its unrealizable idealism and unfulfilled pretences. - - What is good in your aspirations has been, I believe, better expressed by formulas like that of Leonard E. Read: "Release all creative energies". These four words do not automatically provoke a host of contradictions and misunderstandings - but do, naturally, also need many practical examples and long verbal explanations to fully sink in. - - A monarch as a "single" ruler is not automatically identical with a "self"- ruler. He may still aspire to rule over or to "lead" others, rather than merely do his own things quite independently from others who think differently. - - You do not want to reintroduce Roman imperialism or medieval feudalism or royal absolutism or aristocratic rule and yet, the terms you do use lend themselves to such misunderstandings regarding your intentions. You say to them "go left" when you mean: "go right" or: "go up there!" when you mean: "go down there". “If you blow your trumpet in an uncertain tone or tune, who will get your signal right?” - Language and choice of words are very important and it is better to make up one's own, like scholars have in many spheres, rather than use established terms otherwise than they are generally used. - - "The Territory is a federation of self-governing, autonomous principalities, under the chieftaincy of one king, or monarch." - If that is interpreted geographically, then where is the difference to decentralized anarchical or retreatist green intentional communities or to small city states and nations under one head and, most importantly, what remains then of INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY? - If you merely mean that your house is your castle and your garden your moat and that you are prepared to defend them and your lifestyle in them, alone or together with other likeminded people, then do say so. But even that is an incomplete notion since you do not want to be confined to them and whenever you leave them, be without a choice or contract in the matter, simply subjected to one different territorial legislation and jurisdiction after the other, as you cross over them. You should, rather, be free to take you own law with you, in your pockets (micrographically possible for the full texts) and should be subjected only to the laws of hospitality and politeness and good manners and to an "international law" based on full recognition for the individual rights and liberties which others have bothered to claim for themselves. - - "Anarchists and libertarians, by and large, have no unifying factors." - Sorry, but I must disagree. They do have their own loyalist and traditionalist and dogmatic and principled or pragmatic groupings as well, probably as varied as the historical monarchies and aristocracies were. There are e.g. the federalists, decentralists, voluntarists among them, the cooperators, the religious anarchists, the atheist anarchists, the enemies of property and the propertarians, the monetary freedom advocates and those who want to abolish money - in short, almost the full spectrum. Under any hat or crown or flag we are just as diverse as before and have as many parties of factions or affinity groups or blood and other relations. The question is merely: Which kind of general and particular organization will lead to least friction and bloodshed and which forms are nothing but an organize antagonism or warfare state? - I have been a libertarian at least since 1949 and have also dedicated my life to the realization of a free society in my lifetime and I do interpret this as the realization of all kinds of free societies, as free or un-free as the voluntary members want them to be. - - "I can accept the idea of 'panarchy', in terms of a system of co-existence and mutual tolerance between the various ethnic cultures of the human race; in that context, a panarchy is essential, to create an explicitly universal understanding, in order to prevent the further destruction of the environment, another world war, and major unrest. However, there really only could be one panarchy, almost by definition (something every anarchist will fight tooth and nail, even though their collective members make their opposition insignificant)." - Your view seems thus little different from the "multiculturalism" and very limited tolerance and minority autonomy now at least paid lip-service to by almost all governments. But much more than mere cultural diversity and autonomy is meant by panarchism, namely and especially, experimental freedom or autonomy in the political and economic sphere - along or quite across cultural, ethnic, religious or national lines. Religious tolerance or freedom has largely gone across ethnic, racial, cultural, economic and political system lines and, correspondingly, so will one day economic and political tolerance and exterritorial autonomy or voluntarism. What you do accept as panarchy and which panarchy is definitely not, is merely the tolerance of monarchical or other rulers over a large territorial lot for what they perceive to be tolerable diversities among their subjects - as long as they do not rebel but subordinate themselves to the imposed constitution, laws, courts, police, tax demands, body-service taxes etc. Panarchism IS NOT the same as united territorial rule or a mere reduction of totalitarianism to democratic authoritarianism or benevolent monarchism. - - While "panarchy" and "panarchism" as singulars would exist after their realization, they would, like society, be expressed by numerous free and diverse societies or panarchies, each either with only few structures or very involved ones and sometimes almost no structures at all, living rather by agreed upon "customs". - - You may well be right that "the anarchist/libertarian groupings are the wrong audience", for us, in the same way as the initial Protestants and other new religious zealots were quite the wrong audience for notions of general religious tolerance not only for themselves but for all the people who did disagree with them. However, if they are not the proper audience, then who is? I have in mind groups like masses of refugees, unemployed and deserters, who ought to be at liberty, free to throw off not only their past but their present constitutional, legal, juridical, institutional and dogmatic fetters, to release all their creative energies, to support themselves without costing others their jobs or money, without constituting a new and threatening because alien voting block, in subjective perceptions of the local natives and traditionalists. But I do not know, either, how to reach them. If they know the micrographic options then their initial poverty would tend to make them choose this cheap alternative for much of their long text communication needs. - - "The people ... spend most of their time criticizing the real activists." - That flaw can be seen in ANY movement, among all followers and establishmentarians against almost all innovators. It is not a unique feature of anarchists and libertarians. - - "And ultimately, these people won't catalyse anything." - I hold, rather, that people are being catalysed rather than catalysing others. Ideas are the catalysts rather than people. - - Whether or not the LP could become a useful tool is still very debatable. I wish luck to all those who still think they can get something worthwhile out of it - while it merely repeats old party methods and strives only for selected or compromised platform points. - - Is it easier to "flood out" an established party, even a minority party, than to establish a new and alternative one? And are such organizational efforts worth the energies and means they do cost? I have wasted much time and energy on this in the past and have seen no worthwhile returns for such efforts. - I have never seen cost-effectiveness studies of party activities for minority group people. If you are a large lobbyist, who influences a large party in your favour, then there appears to be a close relationship between means and achieved ends in many cases - even though the whole society may suffer as a result of the new privileges thus established. However, to launch new ideas and win supporters and influence actions and events, the political approach appears to me as a rule the least effective one and even most conventional educational and propagandist and media usages deserve close analysis so that our energies and means are no longer and for as long and to such an extent wasted. - - I calculated only yesterday that for the last 12 years I have published in microfiche format ca. 320 pages per week. How much could I have published for the same amount of money and in the same time in any other medium? How fast could the total and permanent collection of all liberation information and its cheap retrievability at any time, upon demand, be achieved and how few would have to participate in this effort, if others used this medium like I do? In this I aim to be a sky-pilot or model-launcher or innovator. Sooner or later my own example may become so large that it can no longer be ignored and remain un-followed. - - "... free of the anarchist's sadistic pleasure in disagreement." - - If only all these disagreements were collected, ordered, listed and made retrievable, a worthwhile encyclopaedia or information centre would result.  - -Likewise, all positive and constructive suggestions, ideas and plans ought to be collected - and addresses of people interested in them or similar plans or objectives. A genuine, free and efficient market place for ideas does not as yet exist but has to be established first. It could become our most powerful tool for self-liberation and for the liberation of others - to the extent that they want to be liberated. - Libertarian primers: I have by now a small collection of them and the last Laissez Faire Books catalogue announces at least one new one. But how much can be expected from them? There are thousands of primers for reading and writing - and yet there are still dozens of millions of people illiterate. - - Does one have to create, by psychological efforts, a desire to study such texts or should one rather aim at cutting chains, wherever and whenever possible, expecting sooner or later a rational use of the released bodies and minds, after and while numerous mistakes are still made? - - "I am currently focussing my efforts on developing a non-profit facility for the homeless, to PROVIDE housing, and to educate them for re-entry into society; I am currently a volunteer at two local homeless shelters." - Are you dealing here with symptoms or causes? For ten-thousands of years Red Indians lived in teepees, earth-wall buildings, soddies etc. which are now mostly outlawed, even though insulation of such shelters and of persons, through suitable clothing, has been greatly improved. Every dump supplies building material to the enterprising, as many squatters' suburbs have proven. But almost all such efforts are outlawed and sooner or later severely suppressed. Rent controls keep spare rooms empty. Taxes, regulations and prohibition of gold clauses in e.g. mortgage loans, keep x houses unbuilt. Prefab housing is under restrictions, at least for imports and building restrictions, licensing requirements, unionist restrictions go into the hundreds. Anarchist squatters of existing buildings, marked for replacements by more and larger accommodation blocks, prevent increases in the total new accommodation offered and the filtering down of the pre-existing and used accommodation to the poorer people. Building and Loan Associations once came close to putting 65-85% of people into their own homes - now they are under government regulations and monetary despotism and the rate of home ownership tends to go down rather than up. - How much can be rapidly provided, when there is a will and no bureaucratic obstacles, has often been shown by army engineers, who comfortably accommodated hundred-thousands within days to weeks at most. - Marriage and family laws make people homeless. Hierarchical job systems drive people to drugs and street "lives". Government run mental institutions are largely failures - and dump most of their cases, quite unprepared, upon the streets. All refugees and deserters are homeless people and, usually, abominably treated. Some tiptoeing around the symptoms of the disease will not help sufficiently. I copied an article by Peter Samuel on this subject and may be able to enclose it. - The only "idea" I find the homeless open to is "squatting" in the property of others, a real non-solution, if ever there was one. - Mass produced mini-caravans and numerous competitive caravan parks could do much to alleviate this problem - but the heavy hand of politicians and bureaucrats has reduced these options, too. - I have slept many nights in a medium sized station waggon, my youngest even in a small Datsun sedan, with the back-seats taken out. Old cars, often called bombs or lemons, are cheap enough but parking, shower and toilet facilities are again short, largely through government intervention. - Some councils won't even allow people to live in a tent or caravan or shack on their own land, while they are building their conventional home. Most seem to have forgotten about the natural progression of accommodation from primitive to tented shelters, block-houses, soddies and shacks to modern housing - and seem determined to prevent the repetition of such natural developments under the wrong assumption that everyone has a right to comfortable and healthy modern accommodation - at the expense of others. - Bini-shells can be put up within 2 hours upon previously established platforms - but where are they permitted? - According to one report that I have read, Japanese executives often stay overnight, near their offices, in luxuriously fitted cement pipes, stacked high upon each other, in large rooms. They do this during the working week, to save travel time and hotel costs. Equivalents for poor people could be much cheaper. - And how much could be achieved via completely automated brick manufacture and bricklaying techniques? An early Whole Earth catalogue listed a kind of glue that could turn out waterproof and solid bricks, sun-dried, one part glue to 20 of sand. Underground buildings, artificial islands, under the sea surface accommodation, L5 societies etc. etc.  - Almost all major housing problems are government made but there are some technical and attitude problems to some of them. Abolish all government restrictions upon private enterprise and cooperative efforts in this sphere and an abundance of relatively cheap accommodation options would soon result. - If you insist on accommodating street bums, then I would at least insist on "payment" in quantities of aluminium cans, bottles, paper and other scrap or the presentation of corresponding credit vouchers from scrap dealers. - I think that the most urgent aspect of this problem is the possibility that suddenly there might be an influx of millions of refugees and deserters to be accommodated rather than to be sent or turned back to become a dictatorship's unwilling military and civilian slaves against us. For such situations suitable building materials should perhaps even be stockpiled. - - To organize the required degree of cooperation or at least contacts and information exchanges among people who somewhat agree and somewhat disagree is essential. For this alternative communication, information and retrieval and duplication options are required, too, not only minimal tolerance for divergent opinions - which ought to be supplemented by tolerance for tolerant divergent actions. - - Tax abolition requires alternatives to government hand-outs and alternative voluntary taxation or pay-as-you-go systems and a study of tax strike options and of the requirements for the protection of tax strikers. This might, temporarily, lead to policemen and soldiers and custom officials being on the payroll of the tax strikers. Moreover, a refusal to accept government paper money ought to be added and the issue of the own and sound exchange media. See e.g. PEACE PLANS 14 & 15. To give almost all a vested interest in the alternative, the bureaucracy's assets ought to become privatized in the hands of individuals, cooperatives, fraternal groups and volunteer groups of socialists etc. See PEACE PLANS 19c. - - I do share your low opinion of most anarchists but it is hardly different from my low opinion of most people in other groups. - But how does nature advance? Via mutations among a few. It seems a waste of effort to have in each case to appeal to millions to find the few with whom one can fruitfully cooperate. Thus I hold with institutions that would sort out the few in advance, by addresses and indications of their interests. - - After a few months of agitating for atheism in my youth, I have rather become a "quiet" atheist most of the time and can get along well enough with some religious people who love freedom sufficiently and leave the others alone. Until 5 minutes ago I was quite uninformed on Gnosticism. Some of their dogmas seem close to my own. (I have now to add to this: Since I wrote this, I read 2 other descriptions of it and could agree with hardly anything in them. But I can still sympathize with the diversity of that movement even if not with the kinds of dogmas and premises they seemed to have shared.) The Sydney conference last weekend contained a talk by David Ogilvy: "Gnosticism: High Spirited Anarchy for a New Age." If I had got your letter earlier, I might have listened to it. I asked for all the papers for fiching but will probably get none except those I collected then and there. Not one was submitted upon my free filming offer of the ca. 80 talks at the Melbourne Anarchist Festival in 1986. Most speakers, I believe, hadn't even prepared a paper and no effort was made to tape all proceedings. Really chaotic! - - Regarding T.: Why blame unprincipled and emotionally directed people for their about-faces? They simple change their "mind" often. That does not make them liars, even if every day they believe in a different "truth" or "discovery". I simply could not relate his various leaflets to any of my own major concerns and thus tended to treat them with the same disdain I have for most commercial advertisement leaflets of goods or services that I am not interested in. But he may still have a lot to teach, even if only by contradiction, or bad example, to other people. Freedom to choose one's guru or source of information or disinformation! The stars can shine only by contrast, in the dark. Everyone has a role to play in the general enlightenment process but every role is not for me or of interest to me. - - I have no doubt that some minimal common sense ethical standards are obeyed religiously by some decent people who, in the absence of this religious influence, might not be as decent in their actions towards others. If people depend upon crutches for walking, this is better than being immobilized or using sticks only to attack others. And some of the modern Christians, like Edmund Opitz, Poirot and Read of FEE had and have much to teach me and their notion of the "divine entity and destiny" is often not all that far removed from my faith in natural law and development. - However, if any text mentions god or Bible references more than half a dozen times and quite faithfully on a single page, this simply condemns the text to remain unread by me. To that extent I am prejudiced but I do not mind if others enjoy such reading. - - THE CONNECTION: I agree. However, I might want to re-subscribe again one day, as I did before, after a long interruption and I would still like to see the lot well filmed from the normal sized originals, and well indexed. - - Getting into the mass media: Most of the community radio station options and FM options are by now probably occupied. Educational video and audio tapes as well as floppies and video disks are not yet sufficiently used or at least not yet sufficiently marketed. I try my best to get microfiche accepted as a common supplementary medium among minority groups. - To get and remain in the mass media one has to make more concessions than I would be willing to make. I rather continue to operate on the assumption that "communication takes place only among equals" and that very few people with like interests and commitments can be reached by the mass media. - Alternatives are of low immediate impact but cheap and long term options like open air speaking, leaflets, bulletin boards, collaboration in new encyclopaedia compilations, information centres, microfiching, etc. etc., could achieve something. Even a centre that would collect excellent photocopies and produced from them good photocopies and mailed them, at a price, could reach many interested people but it would require much space, labour and equipment when fully developed. Initially, it could start and be continued for a while from a private home. - And in large cities a meeting calendar for all educational events could become a mass medium upon which any particular minority message could be "launched" among people who would otherwise hardly ever if at all hear of it. - - Those who can afford on-line connection charges with their PCs, a separate telephone, modem and computer for this and are not deterred by the required procedures could join electronic bulletin boards and networks. However, little more seems to have come from them so far than came from the supposedly creativity promoting use of LSD and the numerous courses in sponsoring self-expression and creativity. And for long texts these connections are simply too expensive, even if they would cost no more than the printer ribbons. Most of these high tech people remain unaware that microfiche are their cheapest print out and duplication option for large numbers of pages. - - "One of the most important values I uphold is the ideal of individual freedom to choose." - I fully agree with that and would like to apply this in all spheres for all adult and somewhat rational people. - - "If possible, consider the possibility of entering into a state of mutual recognition. ... I am still open to an informal arrangement, if you prefer." - I do recognize as rightful ruler any prince, king, emperor, peer, duke, leader etc. who has none but voluntary subjects, i.e. subjects, who are not by terror, drugs, electronic implants etc. forced into obedience to him, however proselytized, prejudiced or brainwashed they may have become, temporarily or in the long run, as long as they may at any time secede (when they finally, if at all, do change their minds, after having sufficiently fulfilled their contractual obligations, after an agreed-upon notice period, or immediately only under threat to their basic rights) from the contract or association. In case of doubt this withdrawal right and the end of their obligations towards that association are to be adjudicated by some arbitration system to be agreed upon either in advance of the occasion requires it. - - The best, the average and the worst of such governmental conventions do all have a role to play in developing individuals to the limits of their potential, which is impossible to predict with certainty for any half-way normal, normal or above the norm people. - - In short, I recognize all kinds of monarchies for all kinds of monarchists but also all kinds of republics for all kinds of republicans and all kinds of anarchies for all kinds of anarchists. Can one demand more or insist on less? - - I will probably enclose a 4 p. article on moral recognition from PEACE PLANS 15, published back in 1971, which I have just read and little to add to. But a further development or correction of such ideas by you would be welcomed by me for filming. So far we have tended to recognized professional and organized criminals rather than freemen. This trend ought to be reversed and I am interested in any approach that would facilitate this. - - Sorry that this letter turned out so long in response to yours. I have not even started to comment upon your two pamphlets yet or to transcribe the notes I made while reading them. My own excuse for this verbosity is that it will help me to fill another microfilm on a subject I am interested in, the right kind of libertarianism and how to promote it. - - I intend to reproduce your letter, too, but leaving out the remarks on T. since he might consider them as libel and you did not, most likely, mean them for publication. As human beings we have all our flaws, which when completely listed could fill long lists. It is more important to become aware of and utilize our own assets and those of others which they make willingly available. - - Your defence of monarchy in the most idealistic sense does somehow give me the impression of some kind of ancestral grudge against republican revolutionaries in America or France. At least as far as France is concerned, that should have been long ago satiated by the bloodletting that occurred during the white terror that followed the red terror. According to several reports, the killings of the white terror were even more numerous and cruel and were later only exceeded by Napoleon's mass murders and the subsequent nationalistic slaughters. And the North American royalists should have had their last laugh at the tragedy of two republics slaughtering each other's subjects during the Civil War, multiplying all preceding royalist killings in North America and killings of royalists. - - Although I am an anarchist, I am a voluntarist first and thus would welcome it if all the remaining uncrowned kings and princes without land and subjects of their own, could be motivated and were to raise their standards for voluntaristic, autonomous and exterritorial monarchies etc. under their guidance. Worldwide, they are sure to find millions if not dozens of millions of willing subjects. As De Puydt suggested in his essay "Panarchy", the capable king of some monarchy might, at the same time, serve as a capable director of a large multi-national corporation, the president of an exterritorial republic and as a consultant or superintendent for some independent cooperative, fraternal or charitable enterprise. Such personal growth opportunities are better for them and others than pomp, ritual and ceremony. I have always considered it to be a shameful aspect of the constitutional monarchy of G. B. that even the speeches of the monarch were imposed upon him or her instead of respecting their freedom of expression, too. I would have loved to see some investigative journalism about that and many other topics. They probably got much inside information on our political and bureaucratic rulers but are forced to shut up about it. That does them and us wrong. And why should royals not have the same chance which any popular broadcaster, journalist, speaker or writer has to influence public opinion as much as they can? That could have led to some interesting, nay outright royal debates and would have helped to promote good manners in this field, too. - - In a small libertarian circle in Berlin, in the fifties, we discussed petitioning the English Queen for admission of Germany or at least West Berlin to the British Commonwealth. There may still exist in Germany more respect for at least some members of the British Royal House than exists at any time for any of the ruling German politicians. - - I may have mentioned it before that I for one was one of the cheering ones, when a few years ago, Kerr, as Governor of Australia and thus royal representative, recalled a labour regime, one that had become despotic and unpopular - as was proven by the subsequent free election. - As an anarchist I had no difficulties in swearing allegiance upon naturalization, to a Queen as inoffensive and constitutional as ours. I remember also that the Italian monarch, formally still ruling and recognized as a constitutional monarch, did at last recall Mussolini, which played an important part in M.'s downfall. Maybe, if we still would have had a constitutional monarch after W.W. I, even only one as bad as the last emperor was, a clever but evil, mad and domineering beast like Hitler would not have lasted as long as he did. There was simply no constitutional or formal alternative or procedure provided to get rid of him, short of a putsch, military insurrection, popular uprising or tyrannicide. - I do not want to put down these alternatives, but simply uphold, within the present systems, a voice of reason of a still respected constitutional monarch as highest national judge on some decisive questions, as one of the preferable alternatives to democratic or republican or military absolutism. - Since Sieyes suggested it during or after the revolution, almost any government becomes somewhat bearable if ultimately it can be recalled by a royal veto power that may be exercised by a monarch, to uphold the rights of the people. Many people, like the French at that time, in S.'s opinion, may not yet be ripe for a better kind of constitution. However, those that are, should also enjoy the freedom to go ahead - or stagnate or go backwards at their own expense and risk, as a result of their own errors and mistakes. - However much I can understand and approve such options, I would not attempt to systematize them or see in them all the solutions that we do need and have a right to try out among ourselves. - - In your two pamphlets you sound sometimes like a Kassandra, shouting: Woe to us, for x reasons. - I am much more interested to hear what you are going to do about it or proposing that ought to be done about the present mess? - Generally, like one kettle that calls the other black, I am under the impression that you, too, use too many words. At least you kept your letter relatively short compared with this one! - - Also the quality of your printing or photocopying leaves much to be desired. I re-enlarged your text to normal size again, to permit me to hand-correct the flaws towards legibility, which will probably cost me many hours of labour. I do not want to undertake such jobs often and thus will tend to postpone microfilming material of as inferior print quality. A paper master for microfilming, like the paper master for book printing, should be close to perfect. - - In THE ROYALIST TRADITION, page 19, you come at last to specifying three points: The first comes simply to an enlightened cosmopolitanism or internationalism. - The second is rather vague apart from its individual sovereignty segment. If you have more to say on this, say in clearly in separate sub-headings. - The third point, the customs of nations, does, so far, include all kinds of atrocities, too. - - The international law of the past and present was largely a law of war and almost unrestrained warfare at that. It has a far road to travel before it respects individual rights and minority group autonomy. Compare Jerome Internoscia's New Code of International Law, which I reproduced in one of the early PEACE PLANS issues. - - Compared with your royalist expositions, the ten commandments area model of concise clarity, in spite of their many remaining flaws. - - I found no clear description of voluntaristic alternatives to your monarchical ideal and of tolerance towards them. - The exterritorial and personal law aspect was not clearly enough described for my taste. - Nor was the right of individuals to secede, even from ideal monarchies, highlighted. Nor did I find a case for upholding the exclusive right of a monarch to make war or peace and negotiate international treaties that would bind all his subjects. - - The options of tyrannicide, rightful resistance and revolutions, the right to arm, train and organize oneself for them, with rightful weapons, for rightful war and peace aims, with rightful fighting methods, were neglected, too. - - As for "universal jurisdiction", never mind the narrow new meaning you may want to give it, it is a misleading term: No system of jurisdiction is rightly universal - except among those who approve of it and selected it for their own affairs. Naturally, then it does become rightly applied for those who, without just cause, offend against the internal life of such groups. - - Who among the kings of the past was ideal by your standards? - - And when you add to your main theses as many opinions and evaluations as you have, on the past and present, then it is almost inevitable that many personal myths, prejudices and errors become mixed up with your own refutations of such mistakes by others. The total number of popular prejudices errors and myths is so large that no individual can on his own liberate himself sufficiently from them. - - The king as an alternative judge, by choice, could be stressed more than you have done. - - Everyone a king should be distinguished from the option of everyone being free to elect a king for himself and to recall him or to secede from him. - - And if everyone is to be a "king", does that add, in clarity, to the concept of individual sovereignty? - - One can endlessly ramble on decrying the past and the present or selectively praising one or the other aspect of the past and present, rightly or wrongly. - - What I finally and mainly want is RECIPES or BLUEPRINTS, or APPEALS, PROGRAM, PLANS and PROPOSALS for the present. Your pamphlets have a far way to go before they become concise, clear and well ordered positive programmes, in form of e.g. alternative declarations of independence and constitutions. So far, they appear to me to be no more than drafts towards such objectives. - - I have said more than enough - too much as a matter of fact and will not resort to tackling your pamphlets paragraph by paragraph with all my doubts, questions and counter-suggestions. Kings in the past have been rather vague about their powers and aims or programmes. You ought to distinguish yourself from them in this, too. - PIOT, John. - Slightly revised: 31.8.11.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC OF ELY-CHAITELAIN, Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin, The Dynamics of Mob Rule (1988) [English] October 2009.

CHAITLIN, MARC ERIC, 45, 70-72, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PEACE PLANS 901. - TC 152, 89-91, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901. - TC 153, 93-94, ibid.

CHALLENGES: I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfilment to the calm state of utopia." - Dean Alfange, THE FREEMAN, 6/73. – One can be, coercively, confronted by too many challenges, e.g. too many laws & regulations, to be able to fight them down, one by one. One must become free to opt out from under them. – To each his self-chosen utopia. That will pose enough challenges for everyone, especially when one is in world-wide free competition with the numerous different utopias by other volunteers. - J.Z., 15.11.08. – PANARCHISM, GUARANTIES, UTOPIA, SECURITY, WELFARE STATE.

CHALMERS, A Collection of Treaties between Great Britain and Other Powers (London, 1790), vol. ii, p. 271. – Quoted by LIU, ibid.

CHAMBERLAIN, J. P., Ph.D., The Regime of the International Rivers: Danube and Rhine, VOLUME CV, 1923, 509 p., part 1, No. 237, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, edited by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University

CHAMBERLAIN, JOHN: Contracting Out of Socialism, Review of IEA: Rebirth of Britain, Pan Books, London, 3pp in THE FREEMAN, 4/1965, on contracting out from all manner of state programmes, but not out of the State itself. JZL. (Indicates: In J.Z.'s library.)

CHAMBERLIN, WILLIAM HENRY: Bureaucratic Blight, 8pp in THE FREEMAN, Jan. 1967. Page 41: In the conclusion he seems to advocate individual and group secessionism, although he might deny this: "There was a time when Americans did not put up so sheepishly with inbred official bureaucratic arrogance, obstructionismm and deliberately planned delay. There is a most relevant passage in the Declaration of Independence: 'He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.' - The time for a Declaration of Independence from bureaucratic blight and its legion of accompanying evils is long overdue." - But we should not expect it from the government mis-educated majority but only from various minorities, in their special spheres of interest. - J.Z., 1.2.1999.

CHAMELEON: 43, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PEACE PLANS 585. - 21, 41, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.

CHANCE: A Chance for Everybody." - Hyacinthe Dubreuil. – Book title on work cooperatives or autonomous work groups. Recommended by Aldous Huxley in “Ends and Means”. – J.Z. – However, this title does also sum up what free choice for individuals among many different panarchies of volunteers would have to offer. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHANCE: Chance comes to those who have prepared themselves for it." - Leonard E. Read, Outlook for Freedom, p.36. - Alas, FEE is still only using print on paper, i.e., has made no attempt to prepare all its freedom writings ready for D-Day, at least on microfiche or disk. - J.Z., 26.4.94. - Well, for a while it used at least long-playing records. - It should utilise all the powerful and affordable media which technology and the market offer - and should encourage other freedom lovers to do the same. - J.Z., 30.9.02. – Chances come for almost everybody – but remain ignored by most und all kinds of false excuses or pretences. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – Everybody with a different faith or ideology, which can be practised tolerantly, i.e. among volunteers only, would get his chance, if enough people prepared for the replacement of territorial monopoly by exterritorial autonomy choices. First by merely thinking about all aspects of this kind of revolution, which would lead to the abolition of all territorial monopoly powers and institutions. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHANCE: Instead of endeavouring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made between the existing classes, our aim should be to increase, multiply, and extend the chances. Such is the work of civilization. Every old error or abuse which is removed, opens new chances of development to all the new energy of society. Every improvement in education, science, art, or government expands the chances of man on earth. ... if there be liberty, some will profit by the chances eagerly and some will neglect them altogether. Therefore, the greater the chances the more unequal will be the fortune of these two sets of men. So it ought to be, in all justice and right reason. ... if we can expand the chances, we can count on a general and steady growth of civilization and advancement of society by and through its best members. In the prosecution of these chances we all owe to each other good-will, mutual respect, and mutual guarantees of liberty and security. Beyond this nothing can be affirmed as a duty of one group to another in a free state.” – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.144/145. – PANARCHISM, CO-OPERATIVES, PURCHASE OF ENTERPRISES, PROPERTY, MONETARY FREEDOM, HUMAN RIGHTS, LIBERATION, OPPORTUNITIES, POVERTY, RICHES, DISTRIBUTION, RE-DISTRIBUTION, COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM, EQUALITY, RELEASE ALL CREATIVE ENERGIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHY, DUTY, DISTRIBUTION, CIVILIZATION

CHANG, RICHARD T.: The justice of the Western consular courts in the 19th century Japan, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1984, 193pp, indexed, bibl.

CHANGE: Be the change you want to see in the world.” - Mahatma Gandhi – Apparently, he had no idea of all the individual rights and liberties required to achieve comprehensive changes in every sphere. Or did he simply assume that we were already quite free to change our lives, as much as we want to, in every respect, quite independent of the legally or despotically imposed “great machines”? As a barrister he should have known better. Or his belief in non-violence and the passive submission to all wrongfully inflicted penalties gave him the belief that an ultimately unlimited power for all individuals to do their own things for themselves does already exist, although it would imply much suffering for innocents. At least he set an example by trying to ignore some laws that he considered to be unjust, like e.g. the salt tax. – He was lucky in thus confronting a somewhat civilized regime rather than a totalitarian or despotic one. – J.Z., 8.8.08. – If only he had advocated it in this form: Gain the freedom to practise the change that you wish for the country or for the whole world. Do so quite rightfully, among your own volunteers only and at their expense and risk. Thus you might become successful and the whole world would willingly adopt your innovation. Or it would not. It should also be free to reject it, even if it is objectively superior to all other systems. You have no right to force even the objectively best kind of meal, clothing, art or book upon anyone, far less a whole economic, political and social system. – All people have subjective values and the right to make their own subjective choices for themselves. - J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHANGE: Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better." - Richard Hooker, 1554 - 1600. - Change is not made without SOME inconvenience TO SOME, even from worse to better." - J.Z., 8.8.77. - Compare: "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." - Which is supposed, by some people, to permit them to treat other people, especially eggheads, like eggs. - J.Z., 28.5.78. There are not only win-lose situations but also win-win or "mutual convenience" (Don Werkheiser) situations and opportunities. All free exchanges are of that nature, when both parties are not deceived or self-deceived. - Voluntarily taken up inconveniences or sacrifices should be distinguished from coercively imposed ones. - J.Z., 27.4.94. - MEANS, ENDS, SACRIFICES, REFORMS

CHANGE: Change is not merely necessary to life, it is life." - Alvin Toffler – One could say the same about the panarchies of panarchism, offering experimental freedom to all people in the last three spheres where they do presently remain territorially suppressed, namely that of political, economic and socials systems. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHANGE: Change your thoughts and you change your world.” - Source unknown. - Well, at least you will change your world view. And, if you are very lucky, under the present circumstances, then this might ultimately lead to you changing the world. - But even many libertarian and anarchist ideas have to be further developed to achieve that. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – The saying seems to imply that we have already the astonishing power to directly change the world merely by thinking about the changes we find desirable. Luckily, not even the top political leaders have that PSI power. – The road from a good idea to getting it realized, at least among volunteers, is still a rather hard one. - J.Z., 12.11.08. – As long as their exists no ideas archive and talent centre to fully bring demand and supply in these spheres together. – J.Z., 11.12.11. - CHANGING YOUR WORLD & CHANGING THE WORLD, INDIVIDUALS & THEIR POWER TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING, IDEAS ARCHIVE, SUPER-COMPUTER PROJECT, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, DIS.

CHANGE: Everybody thinks of changing humanity and nobody things of changing himself." - Leo Tolstoy, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 1/76. - And too many people think only of changing themselves and leaving all abuses in public affairs untouched, even unexamined. - J.Z., 27.4.94. (As if we were already quite free to live our own lives in accordance with our own beliefs or convictions, quite independent of territorial governments! Only in our still permitted private sphere are we able to make some wanted changes. – J.Z., 12.11.08.) – Man-made collective changes should take place only among volunteers. – All kinds of groups of volunteers should try to establish exterritorial autonomy under personal laws – or panarchies or polyarchies etc. – for this purpose. – Then they will become free to make no only the minor or even trivial personal changes that are possible even under despotism or totalitarianism. - J.Z., 8.11.10. - SELF-IMPROVEMENT, FREEDOM TO TRY TO SET BETTER EXAMPLES FOR OTHERS

CHANGE: I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself." - Aldous Huxley, 1894 - 1963, at age 67. (*) - Especially in a world where political, economic and social changes are largely territorially monopolised by governments. His most important contribution may have been his review of Hyacinthe Dubreuil's proposals on autonomous work groups and work cooperatives, in "Ends and Means". - J.Z., 27.4.94. - - (*) Even that is sometimes close to impossible, for some, as those can confirm who want to give up smoking, alcohol, other drugs or to lose weight. - J.Z., 30.9.02. - CERTAINTY, WORLD, REFORM, PANARCHY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CHANGE: If you want change, on a free market you buy it." - Gary North in REASON, Oct. 73. - That's why we need a free market most of all for all services that are wrongly called government services, as if only territorial governments could supply them. Sovereign consumers should be free to haggle for any particular "government" service or for whole package deals of them - under free competition for all suppliers. - J.Z., 27.4.94. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

CHANGE: In a forest of giant trees ... seedlings sicken and die. They need sunlight to grow; they can't get it. It's only around the fringes of the forest, as it spreads out, that they can get the right environment for growth. In the centre the only growths that survive are the kind who can live in a filtered gloom. They survive under that certain condition, but they couldn't survive a change; they couldn't survive a condition which is normal environment elsewhere. They can't even survive direct sunlight. You get that in a civilization of humans, too. The significant changes always come from the fringes; there's no room for them to develop where the giant trees still stand." - Mark Clifton & - Frank Riley, They'd Rather Be Right, p.126. – The tall trees, with their extended root network, possibly also some chemicals in their fallen leaves, branches and twigs, make life of other plants under them difficult or impossible. Just like territorial governmental regimes suppress alternatives to them. But exterritorially autonomous alternatives for volunteers would not have to own any territory but, at most, some real estate. And this they could also lease. We should also consider that trees live in symbiosis with many insects, birds, worms and even other plants and lichens that live on them or under them, not always in a deadly fight against each other. The varied life forms in higher tree levels of jungles is only now being systematically explored. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHANGE: Individualism vs. central direction. - The advantage of individualism lies in its flexible response to change. We all change. Individuals and nations change with time and circumstances; and their happiness will depend on equivalent changes in their institutions. Within the nation, individuals differ widely from each other, and their institutions must give scope for these differences. If individuals are allowed freely to contract with each other, their contracts will present infinite variety. If there is central direction, catering for such variety is impossible, and the directors must decide on an average demand." - Henry Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 12/77, p.63. – Alas, in his correspondence with Ulrich von Beckerath, at the end, he proved that he was unable to apply such thoughts to panarchism. Fixed ideas predominate even among anarchists and libertarians. - See: - J.Z.

CHANGE: Moreover, order consists in change; a free society cannot be static. It must form a fluid organism, a natural unity that, left unhampered, freely adjusts and grows in the face of new requirements and aspirations." - Rudolf Rocker. - ORDER, SOCIETY, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY AND FREE ENTERPRISE AND EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN ALL SPHERES

CHANGE: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. It's the only thing that ever has." - Dangerous Buttons, No. 462. - POWER, INFLUENCE, INDIVIDUALS, MINORITIES, IMPOSSIBLE, DREAMS, IMPRACTICABLE, UTOPIAS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CHANGE: People seldom realise the enormous period of time which each change in men's ideas requires for its full accomplishment." - John Morley, On Compromise, 223. - But numerous competing panarchies could speed up the learning process by the experimental freedom they realize through their exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. Within minority groups the required change is easier and faster to achieve or already accomplished. - J.Z., 12.6.92, 27.4.94. - POLITICS, PUBLIC OPINION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EDUCATION, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALITY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CHANGE: The best way to change society is to replace it one man at a time." - James A. Michener, The Drifters, Chapt. VIII. - The best way not only the change the small remnants of free societies that we do still enjoy, but to change the territorial monopolies of their oppressors, is to introduce individual secessionism and voluntary, exterritorial and autonomous associationism, to take and compete the territorial States down in size and powers and as territorial monopolies out of existence, by such rightful one-man revolutions. - J.Z., 27.4.94. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

CHANGE: The philosophers have only INTERPRETED the world. The point, however, is to CHANGE it." - Karl Marx, 1818-1883. - More important: Change in what direction and at whose expense? Change is not valuable by itself. E.g. cancer, tuberculosis and colds. Subjectively and objectively there are positive and negative changes, rightful and wrongful ones, tolerant and intolerant ones, voluntary and involuntary ones. Libertarians and anarchists should always come out only in favour of positive, rightful, tolerant and voluntary ones. – The choices which the Marxists made, for themselves and others, should be sufficiently known by now. – Quite without justification they looked down upon the efforts of utopian experimenters as, supposedly, being “unscientific”, as if Marxian totalitarian impositions, costing over 200 million lives last century, had been “scientific”. - J.Z., 27.4.94, 15.11.08, 11.12.11.

CHANGE: There are too many people trying to change this world who could not change a fuse." - Nicholas Shakespeare, THE TIMES, Critic's Choice, 4 Dec. 82. - Just let all try to change the own fuses only. Don't give anyone exclusive power over the fuses of others. - J.Z., 22.6.92. - Otherwise, they might “blow their fuses” and become, e.g., terrorists or "freedom fighters". - J.Z., 30.9.02. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

CHANGE: to achieve non-disruptive change - change unaccompanied by wrenching social disruption and widespread human misery." - Willis W. Harman, p.16 of TRANSNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES, No. 3, 1988. - PANARCHISM, AUTONOMY, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIALISM.

CHANGE: To hurry on after logical perfection is to show one's self ignorant of the material of that social structure with which the politician has to deal. To disdain anything short of an organic change in thought or institution is infatuation. To be willing to make such changes too frequently, even when they are possible, is foolhardiness." - John Morley, On Compromise, p.229. - Exterritorially autonomous and individually and voluntarily sponsored change IS organic and natural change and with it one fundamentally avoids having to compromise with the majority and other dissenters with diverse preferences. - J.Z., 16.6.89, 7.4.94. - PANARCHISM

CHANGE: We do not always gain by changing." - Proverb. - But we have the right to do so, nevertheless, at our own expense and risk, in every sphere. - J.Z., 27.4.94. - RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, DIS.

CHANGE: We must not, of course, assume that people will at once act rationally in a new situation. But, if not by insight, they would soon learn by experience and imitation of the most successful what conduct best serves their interest. A major change like the one considered here might at first cause much uncertainty and confusion." - Hayek, Denationalisation of Money, p.55. - EXPERIENCE, EXPERIMENTATION, GRADUALISM, ENLIGHTENMENT, MONETARY FREEDOM

CHANGE: When you act differently, you change the system." - Leon J. Fine, 1975. - Only to the extent that you are free to do so or can get away with it. - J.Z., 27.4.94. - Your example must also be in a significant sphere and sufficiently publicised - otherwise it will be largely ignored. - The inertia of large masses, their customs, habits and traditions is large. Compare the non-use of affordable and powerful media even by radical libertarians and anarchists for their favorite literature. - J.Z., 30.9.02. – However, a very successful panarchistic experiment nearby – your very neighbour could be a member of it – would be infective, initially upon a few, later upon the many. It might constitute the best kind of publicity. – J.Z., 8.11.10. - DIS., PUBLICITY, INERTIA, MASSES

CHANGE: Whoever wants to reform himself will first of all have to reform society." - G. B. Shaw, retranslated from a German version. - This is correct, to some extent, e.g., regarding war, revolutions, civil wars, terrorism, despotism, racism, price-, wage-, rent and exchange rate controls, regulations, bureaucracy, unemployment, inflation and their effects upon the individual. In some respects those who want change have not only to change themselves but the whole system they are suffering under. At least until the panarchist options are realised for individuals. - J.Z., 24.6.93, 27.4.94. – DIS., STATISM, DISOBEDIENCE, OBEDIENCE, RESISTANCE, SUBORDINATION, REVOLUTION, TERRITORIALISM


CHAORDIC COMMONS: The Chaordic Commons facilitates connection and collaboration among members. Also we facilitate access to a considerable and continuously evolving body of knowledge about chaordic organizations and organizing. From leveraging how others have discovered and expressed deep common purposes and essential principles of right relationship your intentions and projects can be realized more quickly and easily - - Member projects  are exploring: - New forms of governance - Innovative models of business, - Emerging concepts of citizenship - New models for ownership, investment, and philanthropy - New approaches to public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder alliances - Dynamic approaches to collaboration - New forms of leadership - Generative models of organizational learning and change - New, more global architectures of relationship in every field. - - The Commons serves all members through the self-organizing activity of Owning Members linked by their commitment to common purpose and shared principles. Delighting in diversity, the Commons is open to all who subscribe to its purpose and principles in conducting activities of the Commons. - Join and share your own experiences, hope and dreams at - Underlining by me. - J.Z.


CHAOS: Again, as for order and stability, there is nothing so chaotic as times of war and oppression. Free individuals have no reason to be chaotic or rebellious. If no one has the authority to control the lives of other people, there is obviously no institution to rebel against. - The libertarian anarchist believes that order and stability can be brought about through the free marketplace...." - SLL leaflet: Who's Afraid of Anarchy?

CHAOS: Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized." – Terry Pratchett - One should distinguish between imposed order and voluntarily chosen order, between the natural order of individual decision-making and the unnatural chaos resulting from centralized and enforced decision-making. The chaos of free individuals doing their things for or to themselves is different from the chaos resulting from domination and the striving for power. However, one should also consider the advantages of voluntary centralization, e.g. in an Ideas Archive and Talent Registry, a libertarian bibliography, directory, index, projects list, abstract and review compilation and an a complete libertarian library and publishing service, using common listings. E.g. a complete freedom library of up to 1 million books in an external HD of 320 Gbs. – J.Z., 20.2.05. – The “chaos” of a free market is orderly and peaceful – because it releases everybody’s creative energy and makes all actions self-responsible or confining all powers over others to those consented to or asked for. – J.Z., 11.12.11. - CHAOS VS. ORDER, DIS., POWER, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, CONSENT, FREE CHOICE, FREE EXCHANGE, PROPERTY

CHAOS: Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit." - Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, 1907, p. 16. - ORDER, ANARCHY, CONFUSION, DISORDER, KNOWLEDGE, HABIT, CUSTOMS, CONDITIONING, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIVERSITY, CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CHAOS: Chaos results when the government tries to run your budget and your life. Order and clarity get a chance when you are free to run your own life and affairs. - J.Z., 3/75, 11.12.11. – BUDGETS, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY


CHAOS: I don't think that any government ever has or ever will serve us in preventing chaos. In many ways, I think government causes disorder and wars. All wars are started by governments." - Robert LeFevre, quoted from a discussion with L. E. Read, by Carl Watner: LeFevre, p.181. - Although he was the only one in the English language area that I know of, who reprinted De Puydt's essay "Panarchy", in his RAMPART JOURNAL, he still did not sufficiently distinguish between territorially and exterritorially competing governments, i.e., between governments with involuntary members and taxes and those with voluntary ones only. Only the former tend towards disorders and wars. The latter are free to sort themselves out in a rightful and orderly way, determined by their individual customers and supporters. - J.Z., 27.4.94. - PANARCHISM

CHAOS: It's not anarchism that breeds chaos. To government belongs that responsibility. It is not the anarchists who are the violent members of society - it's the government rulers that hold that distinction." - Michael E. Coughlin, DANDELION, Sum. 77. - And their followers! That anarchists can also act chaotically is demonstrated by their in-fighting, by them not even agreeing on tolerating all voluntary actions among adults, even when they are governmentalists and, e.g. by their failure to collaborate sufficiently to put all their writings permanently in print, at least on microfiche. - J.Z., 27.4.94. – Or on discs or online. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHAOS: one thing you can say about chaos is that it works.” - L. Neil Smith, Taflak Lysandra, p. 50. – Freedom works to, if rationally and tolerantly tried and not obstructed. – J.Z., 12.11.08. - CHAOS VS. AN ORDERED OR COMMANDED ORDER, LIBERTY

CHAOS: Stop the chaos. Realize anarchy. - J.Z., 9.1.76. – Easiest through panarchy for all kinds of archists and also for all kinds of anarchists and libertarians. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – DIS.

CHAOS: The prevention of chaos means that thanks to governments there have never been wars, genocide, or the threat of blowing up the planet." (*) - Eric Thorndale, THE STORM, Winter 78. – (*) The population of whole cities or even countries. – J.Z., 11.12.11.) - JOKES, TERRITORIALISM, ORDER, WAR, NWT

CHAOS: The word ANARCHY unsettles most people in the Western world; it suggests disorder, violence, uncertainty. We have good reason for fearing those conditions, because we have been living with them for a long time, not in anarchist societies (there have never been any) but in exactly those societies most fearful of anarchy - the powerful nation-states of modern times. - At no time in human history has there been such social chaos. Fifty million dead in the Second World War..." - Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, IX. - I would honour those States neither with the name society nor nation. They do suppress both, on a vast scale. A writer of Read's quality and convictions should have made such distinctions. - J.Z., 27.4.94. - Nor should one ignore the dozens of examples of primitive societies without governments and wars. - J.Z., 30.9.02. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, SOCIETIES, DIS.

CHAOS: there would be order, without law to disturb it. But, let us define chaos of the social kind. Is it not disharmony resulting from social friction? When we trace social friction to its source, do we not find that it seminates in a feeling of unwarranted hurt or injustice? Now, when one may take by law that which another man has put his labor into, we have injustice of the keenest kind, for the denial of a man's right, to possess and enjoy what he produces, is akin to a denial of life. Yet the confiscation of property is the first business of government. It is indeed its only business, for the government has no competence for anything else. It cannot produce a single 'good' and so must resort to doing the only thing within its province: to take what the producers produce and distribute it, minus what it takes for itself. This is done by law, and the injustice is keenly felt ( even though we become adjusted to it ), and thus we have friction. Remove the laws by which the producer is deprived of his product and order will prevail." - Frank Chodorov, Out of Step, p.45. – Territorialism deprives people not only of their property but also of their preferred systems and institutions, personal laws, and, on a large scale, even of their lives. – J.Z., 8.11.10. - LAWS, TERRITORIALISM, CENTRALIZATION, TAXATION, PROPERTY, GOVERNMENT, STATE

CHARACTERISTICS OF PANARCHISM: 1.) Tolerance for all tolerant people, intolerance only towards intolerant people. - 2) Voluntarism for all but criminals with involuntary victims and other aggressors. - 3.) Exterritorial autonomy vs. territorial autonomy. - 4.) Individual sovereignty vs. collective sovereignty over whole territories and involuntary “citizens”, peaceful inhabitants, treated as governmental subjects without their individual consent or subscription. - 5.) Secessionism: Its voluntarism includes freedom for individuals, minorities and majorities to secede and to live exterritorially autonomous from any territorial organization that continues or tries to impose itself on other than its own volunteers. - 6.) Personal law vs. national or statist territorial law. - J.Z., 19.8.11. - VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, NATIONALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW, CONSENT, MANDATE, DIS.

CHARITY: Charities have often appealed, rightly or wrongly, with the statement that without help being supplied about 40,000 children would die world-wide unnecessarily from hunger or diseases. Implied is the assertion that these many deaths could only be effectively prevented by sufficient charitable donations to the advertiser, who used to ask for a dollar a day, for this purpose. – None of them seemed to ask or to attempt to answer questions like these: How many less children would thus die every day if e.g. free migration, free adoptions, free trade, free banking, unrestricted foreign investments and voluntary taxation were introduced and dictatorships overthrown and peace introduced, e.g. via some of the panarchist options and militias for the protection of all individual rights and liberties? (With the latter still to be optimally expressed and widely enough publicized!) – Under various self-management and self-education scheme many children could also work themselves for their own life-support, unexploited, for a few hours every week, at jobs they are capable of. Their education and training for better jobs could then take place much faster and better as well. – Individual rights and liberties, including credit and insurance options, rather them mere reliance on charity! – J.Z., n.d., 22.9.08. – DIS., CHILDREN

CHARLES THE GREAT: In the Capitularies of Charlemagne and of Louis I, recognition was given to the applicability of Roman and other foreign laws to cases involving the respective foreign subjects. 4 (4 Savigny, op. cit., vol. i, p. 127. – LIU, Extraterritoriality, page 29.)

CHECKS & BALANCES: The advent of democracy in the last century brought a decisive change in the range of governmental powers. For centuries efforts had been directed towards limiting the powers of government; and the gradual development of Constitutions served no other purpose than this. Suddenly it was believed that the control of government by elected representatives of the majority made unnecessary any other checks on the powers of government, so that all those various Constitutional safeguards which had been developed in the course of time could be dispensed with. - Thus arose unlimited democracy - and it is unlimited democracy, not just democracy, which is the problem of today." - Source? - - In "representative" democracies citizens are not free to decide e.g. on taxes and on war and peace issues. To that extent they are all too limited. And neither territorial constitutions nor conventional "checks and balances" have so far ever worked very well for a long time. New kinds of checks and balances are needed: Mainly: No government should be granted exclusive territorial powers and be based on compulsory membership and subordination to its laws in the first place. - J.Z., 27.4.94. - CONSTITUTIONS, REFERENDUM, MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS, SECESSION, RESISTANCE, TYRANNICIDE, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY, PARLIAMENTS, VOLUNTARY TAXATION

CHECKS & BALANCES: The American 'checks and balances' system is largely a fraud, contrasted to the real checks and balances provided by the free economy." - Murray N. Rothbard, REASON, 3/73. - I would add: and by those of freely competing and only exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers and by volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights. - J.Z., 27.4.94.

CHEMISTRY: The immensely diverse chemical world and its free, automatic & natural or voluntarily and intentionally organized interactions: I consider it to be an analogy to panarchism as well. - J.Z., n.d. - Alas, we individual atoms or complex molecules do not have the freedom of association and disassociation enjoyed by these small particles. Instead, we are subjected to the territorial policies of some human or, rather, inhuman "atoms" and "molecules": our territorial rulers. - J.Z., 12.9.04.

CHESHIRE, G. C. & NORTH, P. M.: Private International Law, first ed. 1935. 10th ed. by P.M. North, London, Butterworths, 1979. - Page 17: "... nowadays Hindus and Moslems in India have their own family and religious laws." (Westlake, p. 12, Savigny, Vol. I/3 in Cathart's translation.) - On the disappearance of Personal Law: Page 18: "The cause north of the Alps was the gradual transformation of society into a number of feudal units. Feudalism is the negation of personality. A Frank or a Burgundian who found himself in the position of vassal to a feudal overlord could not invoke the personal law of his race but would be obliged to recognize that he was merely the man of his lord, and as such subject to the law of his lord. This was essentially territorial, applicable without exception to all persons and to all transactions within the fief. The policy of a feudal superior was rigorously to disregard all laws save his own and to refuse protection to rights that had been acquired under an extraneous legal system." (Note by J.Z.: Feudalism may have been largely the result of monetary despotism and tax extortions, apart from conquests, so that many people, deprived of cash, in order to be able to survive, in an economy very short of cash, and full of beggars, put themselves under a landlord, who at least could provide them with food and shelter but in return reduced them to serfdom, i.e., compulsory labour on his land.) "Thus, for instance, strangers were rightless. A person who passed from one fief to another was in danger of losing his property & even his freedom, and, though the treatment he received varied infinitely in different fiefs, an almost universal burden was that he could not transmit his property on death. - In a world which is organized on a feudal basis it is clear that there is no room for what we now know as private international law. That branch of law presupposes inter-state and international relations and the machinery of courts to apply foreign laws when necessary in the interests of justice, but feudalism recognized nothing except the local laws of the land. All laws were ‘real’ in the sense that they were effective only within the territory of the legislator. -- INFLUENCE OF THE ITALIEN CITIES: South of the Alps the substitution of territoriality for personality was due, not to feudalism, but to the growth of the Italian cities. The bond of union between men in Italy came to be neither race nor subjection to a common feudal overlord, but residence in the same city. There gradually emerged a number of prosperous cities, such as Florence, Bologna, Milan, Pisa and Padua, which had succeeded in winning their independence, and which not only had their own territories but also possessed laws that showed many individual variations from the generally prevailing Roman Law. It was this diversity of municipal laws, combined with commerce between city and city, that demanded some respect be paid to alien laws and that ultimately gave rise to the science of private international law." - Extract from: G. C. Cheshire, D.C.L., F.B.A. etc., PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 3rd. edition, 1949, First edition: 1935, Pages 225 & 226. File: Pan Personal Law Cheshire, ERA OF PERSONAL LAWS, page 25:  2. Fall of the Roman Empire; sixth to tenth centuries. - Marginal note: The era of personal laws. - - After the barbarians overthrew the Roman Empire and settled tribe after tribe in the territories where hitherto Roman law had run as a territorial system, there arose what is called the system of personal laws. There ceased to be a territorial law applicable to all persons living within a certain defined space. Instead, each tribe, Visigoth, Lombard, Burgundian, and so on, retained its own tribal law, in much the same way as nowadays Europeans, Hindus, and Mohammedans in India have their own family and religious laws. (1) - - - (He describes it as if personal law had been a new invention rather than an ancient practice, at least among the “Barbarians”! – J.Z., 18.12.04.) - - Savigny has described the position as follows: (2) 'When the Goths, Burgundians, Franks, and Lombards founded kingdoms in the countries formerly subject to the power of Rome, there were two different modes of treating the conquered race. They might be extirpated by destroying or enslaving the freemen, or the conquering nations, for the sake of increasing their own numbers, might transform the Romans into Germans, by enforcing on them their manners, constitution, and laws. Neither mode, however, was followed; for although many Romans were slain, expatriated, or enslaved, this was only the lot of individuals and not the systematic treatment of the nation. Both races, on the contrary, lived together and preserved their separate manners and laws. From this state of society arose that condition of civil rights denomi­nated personal rights or personal laws in opposition to territorial laws. The moderns always assume that the law to which the individual owes obedience, is that of the country where he lives; and that the property and contracts of every resident are regulated by the law of his domicile. In this theory the distinction between native and foreigner is overlooked and national descent is entirely disregarded. Not so however in the Middle Ages, where, in the same country, and often in­deed in the same city, the Lombard lived under the Lombardic and the Roman under the Roman law. The same distinction of laws was also applicable to the different races of Germans. - - (1) Westlake, p. 12. - (2) Vol. i, c. 3, Cathcart's translation; and see Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xxxviii. - 26 HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS: The Frank, Burgundian, and Goth resided in the same place, each under his own law, as is forcibly stated by the Bishop Agobardus .... "It often happens", says he, "that five men, each under a different law, may be found walking or sitting together".’(1) - There were, of course, exceptions to this system of personal or tribal laws. Criminal law and the canon law were of universal application, and there seem to have been certain matters, such as the tutelage of women, dowry, and the extent of a husband's authority, which were subject to rules of general application. For the most part, however, it was necessary to discover the national law of each party to a dispute and then to choose which of these laws was applicable. - Marginal summary: Rules for choices of law. - - It is obvious that under this system questions must frequently have arisen bearing a close analogy to those which nowadays fall within the sphere of Private International Law, but the manner in which they were resolved cannot now be completely and exactly stated.(2) Certain rules, however, are reasonably clear. Thus the general principle was that the system of law to which the defendant was subject must prevail in every suit. - Capacity to contract was governed by the personal law of each party; succession was regulated by the personal law of the deceased; a transfer of property had to comply with the formalities required by the law of the transferor; in an action of tort the law of the wrongdoer prevailed; and marriage was solemnized according to the law of the husband. - - (1) Agobard became Archbishop of Lyons in 816. - - (2) For an interesting account of the whole subject see Étude sur it frincife de la fersonnalité des lois depuis lets invasions barbares jusju'au XIIe siécle, by L. Stouff. - I have not yet seen any significant relevant other passages in this indexed volume of 884 pages. - J.Z., 04. - CHESHIRE, G. C., Private International Law, fifth edition, Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1957, 702pp, indexed. I extracted and digitized some extracts that are of some panarchist interest. - J.Z.

CHILDS, R.A., Jr.: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand, Objectivism & the State. - From an August 1969 article in the RATIONAL INDIVIDUALIST, page 98, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - On competing governments. - Later Childs retreated from this position - but without stating his motives or reasons for doing so. I can only imagine that they were poor ones, just like Herbert Spencer's. Only few people do get more radical when they age, like e.g. Lysander Spooner did. - J.Z.


CHINA: Each community in Old China was cell-like, largely autonomous and autarkic." - [Paul Myron Anthony Linebarger (1913-1966) Amer. educator] - C. B. in email message 20.4.05.

CHINA: If we could win 1 billion Chinese over from totalitarianism to full free market ideas, the battle for freedom would almost be won. Instead, we antagonize them and throw doubts on freedom by immigration and trade restrictions, by taxation and central governments, by an avalanche of legislation, by dealings with their rulers, by not recognizing Chinese governments in exile. - J.Z., 18.3.84, 28.4.94.

CHINA: JEWISH COMMUNITY IN CHINA: A Jewish Community in ancient China: An extract, from “Pictorial History of the Jewish People” by Nathan Ausubel, Crown Publishers, New York, 14th. Printing, 193, page 223. The article contains 3 pictures, that I cannot reproduce: 1. “The old synagogue at K’aifeng, from a drawing by the French Jesuit missionary, Pére Jean Domenge, who visited it in 1762. It no longer exists. - 2.) A Sefer Torah case and its Ark, which formerly belonged to the K’aifeng Synagogue. – Jewish Museum. - 3. Jews of K’aifeng, 1919.” - (In Jewish clothing but by their facial features indistinguishable from Chinese.) - China: In K’aifeng, an ancient city on the Yellow River and the capital of Honan Province, live a handful of Jews who cannot be distinguished in any superficial way from the Chinese. Yet what marks them out as a unique ethnic group is their devotion to the Jewish religion. Their synagogue, now relinquished, was beautiful and elaborate, with exquisitely designed courtyards and chapels in the style of a Chinese temple. On one of the stone tablets in the compound of the synagogue was an inscription in Chinese characters. It read: ‘Adam was the first man, Abraham was the founder of our religion, then came Moses and gave us the Law and the Holy Scriptures …’ - - Now, even without a house of worship they, nevertheless, cling to the Law that Moses gave them. The few traditional clans that they make up, Chinese fashion, desperately hold together in a common identity. - - Some historians speculate that the Jews of K’aifeng are partly descended from Jewish stock that had been previously settled in Persia. Unknown events probably had obliged them to seek refuge in China in the days of the Maccabees, a period which coincided with that of the Han Dynasty. - - There is little doubt that the K’aifeng Jews, both in numbers and in influence, must have formed at one time an important element in the community. The Chinese emperors of the T’ang Dynasty (seventh century C.E.) set a mandarin over them to look after their welfare. Once a year this princely official would enter the synagogue at K’aifeng and, in the name of the emperor whom he represented, would burn incense before the altar. The Chinese emperors granted the Jews full protection and accorded them courteous treatment. It is an interesting commentary on the varying social philosophies of peoples that at the very time that the Crusaders were savagely exterminating hundreds of Jewish communities in Europe, a Chinese emperor welcomed the Jews with these words: ‘You have come to our China; revere and preserve the customs of your ancestors.” He even helped them build their synagogue. - - There were many migrations of Jews into Honan during the centuries. Their numbers must have been quite formidable to deserve the frequent official mention made of them in imperial records. The Jewish newcomers resembled the Chinese in so many ways as to make them readily acceptable: their gentleness, their scholarly predilections, their devoted study of religious writings, and not the least – their great reverence for tradition and for their ancestors. This may explain why it is that in time Jews began to disappear from Chinese life, though they were neither killed off nor forcibly converted. They were probably absorbed biologically and culturally in a slow but inexorable process. Today only enough of them are left – barely a few hundred – to serve, so to speak, as ethnological specimens.”  - -According to 2 books that I have recently read, even Genghis Khan and his successors upheld religious tolerance. At least in that respect the “Christian” crusaders were worse. But the Crusaders also established some autonomous orders of “knights”, like the Templars and the Maltese. – J.Z., 8.12.04.

CHINA: Many and very diverse, voluntary and exterritorially autonomous Chinese communities vs. territorial Red China. – J.Z., 13.5.06. They could largely dissolve it without a war, without a violent revolution. – For its remaining few volunteers the present regime could then even be continued, indefinitely, as long as it still finds any voluntary supporters. - J.Z., 6.10.07. – PANARCHISM, LIBERATION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

CHINA: Questions for Readjustment Submitted by China to the Peace Conference, Paris, 1919.

CHINA: See: ABBEY, PHILIP R., Treaty Ports & Extraterritoriality in 1920s China.

CHINA: SOME POLICY NOTIONS TOWARDS CHINA, ECONOMICALLY SOMEWHAT LIBERATED BUT POLITICAL & SOCIALLY STILL UNDER COMMUNIST RULE: Extracts from a letter to a friend, somewhat edited. - No regime lasts forever, the current government knows that from history and most regimes fear their overthrow. How many are there in China, or friends of Chinese people and culture, outside of China, who do already think in terms of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers? That is one form in which a communist government, hopefully quite peacefully overthrown, but only as a territorial monopoly regime, could be continued, indefinitely, for all its remaining volunteers, as soon as it has lost its territorial monopoly. - Even its opponents will probably not mind if it is merely continued for its volunteers. - If the rulers became aware of this option, then they might consider this idea at least as their life insurance option! (An alternative approach, in many South American revolutions, was to provide a plane for the deposed leader, to any country of his choice.) - At one stage they might even become wise enough to introduce it themselves, once they know of it and have closely examined it, just to prevent an uprising against themselves. - Perhaps, at a critical point, one individual or a group might get the chance to speak up for this alternative. - It might impress the power holders even more if peaceful panarchist revolutionaries do frankly admit that that they are not communists but, ideologically, rather anti-communists, but, nevertheless, they do favor this liberty and right also for communists. Whoever advances with this tolerant approach would have many other groups on his side, once they have understood it, which would also wish to have exterritorial independence for their volunteers. - In Russia, at least for a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Regime, there were about 30 % of the population still in favor of the old regime with all its social services and its military might. The new regime should have allowed them to practise their communism among themselves. - Revenge and punitive actions and indemnification claims should also be generally avoided. They played a great role after WW I and helped in the rise of the Hitler regime. - For: which government has not committed any territorial wrongs? Who is not guilty and who should thus throw the first stone? Even the most democratic governments have imposed their laws and institutions upon dissenters and taxed all of the population. - Instead of seeking revenge and punishments for all past wrongs, people should simply make sure that certain wrongs do never again occur in the future and that they do make the soonest and fullest use of all the liberties and rights they do already understand and like. - - Communist institutions in form of nunneries and monasteries have long existed in the West for their volunteers and as penal institutions, in form of prisons, for convicts. Also in form of utopian colonies and intentional communities. Armies are also largely run on communist authoritarian principles. For hundreds of years we have had e.g. a State socialist institution like the P.O. - The practice of family communism in the nuclear families of the West is still quite common, at least until the children are grown up and have become self-supporting. - Ideally, the Western governments - and also public opinion in the Western World - especially its mass media - should recognize all kinds of alternative governments in exile for China, but all of them only for their volunteers now and in the future. Quite prominently among them they should recognized at least one kind communist or State socialist government - for its remaining and future volunteers. - - Naturally, one should demand that all Western governments should also transform themselves in this way. One might invite the present regime in China to establish and recognize a great variety of governments-in-exile for all Western countries, all, naturally, also only for their volunteers. - Possibly, the proposed and continued communist communities in China would largely be made up only of old guard members, gradually dying out. However, according to the biogenetic law the individual goes, physically and mentally largely through the development of the species and thus young people do again and again rediscover or pick up simple or primitive and flawed economic ideas as their ideal. - - The economic system of Marxism is already largely rejected in the modern China, apart from e.g. its monetary and its taxation and government debt certificate system. That is, so far, in East and West still almost purely one of Marxist Communism. - - The tolerant, exterritorial and voluntaristic position of panarchism for any numer of diverse communities of volunteers, all doing only their own things, at the own expense and risk, is a much less confrontational position than all those of all exclusive territorial powers, already existing or planned ones. Territorially imposed systems do not even work very well for intended democracies, e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq. - If the panarchistic, polyarchistic etc. peaceful and tolerant alternative were introduced in China, then it would, in its way, revolutionize the world, learning from this precedent set by China. - In other words: Laissez-faire for a continued communist regime for Chinese volunteers - in case the present territorial one should be overthrown or would collapse, like many other governments did. - - Many Chinese probably still remember with disgust, at least from their history books, the old "unequal" treaties that foreign governments imposed upon China, granting foreigners exterritorial status in China but not, for Chinese, exterritorial status in foreign countries. This was rightly perceived as quite wrong by Chinese nationalists - and also by cosmopolitans. - Panarchism would take up the justice of equal treaties, which were then denied to the Chinese people. Chinese volunteers should have been recognized as having the right and liberty to live under their own laws and institutions, in foreign countries, if they preferred that and as long as they wished to do so. - - Moreover, the panarchist approach would mean that a voluntary and exterritorially autonomous communist Chinese government would no longer be confined to China but could, exterritorially, "expand" all over the world - to the extent that it finds volunteers, anywhere, not only among the millions of overseas Chinese. (Ca. 20 to 30 million at least, I believe.) It would also open up immigration options for Chinese all over the world, sponsored at least by self-governing Chinese communities there. - Borders and attitudes against free migration would more and more disappear. Also racist notions. - - Compare this platform with the attitude of fanatic and territorialist anti-communists, who were prepared to bomb the whole population of China with nuclear "weapons", i.e. mass murder devices, - just to get rid of its territorial communist regime. - - With this in mind, no one, who stands for panarchist tolerance, although he or she may be a convinced anti-communist, like myself, for instance, will be considered as a primary or fundamental enemy of ANY Chinese government without territorial powers and privileges but, possibly, even as some kind of ally in its future struggle for survival, as an exterritorial autonomous community of volunteers, under its own personal laws. - - It is largely forgotten that China once, about 8 centuries ago, provided asylum to Jewish refugees, persecuted in other countries. As tradition-bound and scholarly people they were welcomed and allowed their religious practices and communal self-government. But, gradually, they intermarried and biologically dissappeared and the last of their independent practices and institutions disappeared with their last few members, finally all with Chinese faces in ancient Jewish costumes, who died out, I believe in the 1920's. - The Chinese government had granted this independence to foreign people generously, it was not imposed upon it by a foreign power. - - By the way: Among the numerous "discoverers" of the Americas, after the Asiatic people who settled there and became the Red Indians, were also Chinese, ca. 800 B.C. For a while afterwards there existed some trade between America and China. - - The great advantage of voluntary government and exterritorial autonomy is that a regime like the present territorial Chinese, if continued only as an exterritorial one for its volunteers, would, almost at once, get rid of all its internal opposition, all its trouble-makers, without having to imprison, exile or to exterminate them. They would simply leave that government of their own free will, in order to do their own things for or to themselves. Then the remaining communist government could peacefully and safely continue with a full mandate, based upon the unanimous consent of all the volunteers who preferred to stay with it. - What politician has so far even merely dreamed of such a complete, a unanimous backing? It would almost be a sinecure. No struggle with opposition parties. No election campaigns. No election defeats. Only losses of members whom one can no longer satisfy. And who could be blamed for such losses? - O.K., they would have less millions of subjects - but among 1300 million people enough would stay on their side to make them a large government and as such it could be continued - as long as it could satisfy these volunteers. If it could do that, then it could even gain new members. - - Ideas know no borders. Theoretically, they could be spread, electronically, within a day all over the world. - - Does anyone have a better program for the future China and all its diverse peoples, with many different aspirations, as one no longer exclusively under TERRITORIAL communist rule? - Chinese people are among the most creative, inventive and intelligent people in the world. Just look at the record of their early inventions, much later copied or reinvented by other people. I think they would easily adapt to the experimental freedom for volunteers, which panarchism offers them even for whole alternative political, economic and social systems and likely to make the best possible use of them. - - I am sure that the general staff of the Chinese Red Army has its contingency plans and so has the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Red China. - But would either of them have explored this survival option for themselves? - - The other aspect, that I am interested in, is that monetary freedom experiments in China go back for many centuries. Without a central territorial government suppressing them, they could come to blossom and spread and lead rapidly to full employment, easy sales and fast economic development without inflation, deflations, credit restrictions, recessions, crises and mass unemployment. Full monetary and financial freedom, together with other economic freedom aspects, all only for their volunteers, could and would release and promote the creative energies of Chinese much more thoroughly than any territorial government could. Under it economic growth in China could be still much faster than it is now. - - The notion that China is over-populated - which has led to the one-child policy - which undoubtedly has not made the government very popular, is - also quite false. There are many nations with much higher populations per square km and a much higher average standard of living. That is also something that has held China back. - Russian communists never subscribed to Malthusianism. One result was a great population growth - and also an enormous Russian Red Army. - - Under full monetary and financial freedom there would be no "over-heating" of the economy, no inflation, no unemployment. And that could be demonstrated theoretically and also and best by the first successful experiments of this type among volunteers. - - One of many things which friends of Chinese people, culture and civilization could and should promote in China, in talks with officials or private Chinese, without running into political opposition, is the republication of the ancient Chinese encyclopedia of ca. 1200, already then sized like Encyclopedia Britannica. Also its translation at least into English. I assume that even its information on herbal medicine alone might already justify this effort, quite apart from the historical details it contains. - At least one copy of it was left in the East Berlin University in my time. The Chinese copies may all be destroyed. Thousands of hobbyists could work on the scanning and translation job from microfilm copies or photocopies. (I did much of my microfilming from photocopies.) - There are also numerous other treasures of Chinese literature that were never before translated and which have been for all too long out-of-print. Electronically they could and should all be published quite cheaply, and translated at least into English, as an important part of world culture. I doubt that the present regime would oppose the republication of whatever is still preserved of its ancient literature - somewhere in the world. It would boost national pride more than being able to provide the world with cheap gadgets produced in China. - I spoke once with the head of the Institute of Oriental Studies in West Berlin's Free University, about the translation of the Chinese ancient encyclopedia. His reply was: There are so many Chinese writings – that university departments like mine will get around to all of them only in about 200 to 300 years! - However, not only university scholars can produce translations. Laymen can do so too, although probably not as well. Many laymen could also mutually correct each other and thus, perhaps, produce - between them - many good enough translations fast. - I liked the regime's practice, for a while, to allow "barefoot doctors" to provide whatever medical aid they could. - I also like its policy to allow tens of thousands of Chinese to participate in the drafting of its constitution, at least within the confinement of the official communist doctrines. - I wish that the overseas Chinese, especially their students at Western universities, would have tackled this job as a part-time job to make some money by bringing these ancient treasures to light, in translations, published only on microfilm or in on-demand printing or electronically, on disks, selling duplicates of them. Perhaps many could have financed part of their study years in this way. Maybe they still could. - - Those involved in financial negotiations with Chinese officials would also have opportunities to talk about value preserving clauses and free choice of value standards for them - as a means to attract more foreign investments. That, too, would not present them as enemies, except in the eyes of the officials of the Central Bank of China. - Stable value reckoning, in silver and copper (the tael unit) has had a very long tradition in China. It really should not have adopted all the Western wrongs and mistakes in this sphere. Dr. Walter Zander wrote once in its favor. He also pointed out an electricity plant in Shanghai as an issuer of its own currency, with which its bills could be paid. - - As far as the officials there are nationalists and opposed to foreign ownership, one could always point out to them the option that the employees of foreign owned companies could come to buy out these companies on terms, within a few years, under terms that are profitable to both sides. Maybe that option should already be included in foreign investment contracts. - Enterprises with sensible and businesslike self-management, i.e. without the rarely popular bosses and without dependent mere employees will be much more productive than those held back by the employer-employee relationship, which started off and continued to promote all the class warfare ideologies. - Hyacinthe Dubreuil called that relationship an "organized antagonism". - The topics one can already freely discuss in China may still be too limited but there are at least some that are interesting enough. - For instance: A Chinese told me once about one customary practice that made Chinese businessmen in Australia largely independent of banks. They had their regular meetings in which each stated how much, if any, he had to offer the group in investment capital. The total was summed up and then a bidding began. The one who made the best offer for this capital got it. - They all closely knew each other and trusted each other. No payment of interest and fees to outside banks for them! Possibly also no taxes upon the money they earned in this way. Just common sense self-help. - - Chinese businessmen have often been very inventive in this way. The clearing houses were copied by the West from Chinese examples. - - Even when it comes to simple technology like wheelbarrows. For a long time, in the West, they had only one wheel and this out-front, while the typical Chinese wheel-barrow had two wheels - for greater stability - and also placed in the middle of the load space, so that the user would not have to lift up as much in weight but would merely have to push the mass. (The only advantage of the Western and single wheel one is, that it can be pushed upon narrow planks.) - - One short hint I got from Ulrich von Beckerath: In China's war with Japan it was helped by Australian experts on cooperative production, who set up some successful cooperatives producing ammunition in China. This experience may not be altogether forgotten as yet. - Perhaps the best forms of productive coops would also not be a taboo topic there. - Especially the libertarian socialist form of "open coops", first proposed by P. Buchez, then developed by Theodor Hertzka in several popular books and, lastly further developed by Ulrich von Beckerath. (An open coop accepts new workers and investors as far as technically possible, but rewards each only according to their work and investment input. That form of organization would do away with natural monopolies. Each who is interested in them could profit from them as worker or investor. Monopoly earnings and profits would thus be reduced to market levels.) Was it Karl Hess or Murray Rothbard, who said, many years ago, that the Chinese move towards more liberty while the West moves towards less? - PIOT, John. – C.B., 10.6.08: This is quite something different from what you can read about China in "DER SPIEGEL" or other mainstream media. - Somewhat edited: J.Z., 20.9.11.

CHINA: The Maritime Custom, Treaties, Conventions, etc., between China and Foreign States, 2 vols., 2nd ed., Shanghai,1917.

CHINESE BUREAUCRACY BOUGHT OFF: 46, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505, which has been digitized as part of the ON PANARCHY sub-series of PEACE PLANS. - There were only few Mandarin bureaucrats for large populations. But even these were often "bought off" by merchants who rather wanted to trade freely than under bureaucratic rules and burdens. - Hint by Ulrich von Beckerath. Who can supply further details? - Corruption and black markets are ancient and modern features of all despotic regimes. By their very nature one can never get full information on all underground (somewhat free market) exchanges. Alas, as de Soto pointed out in at least two of his books, legal and juridical recognition for such contracts is missing and thus sufficient security for such transactions. Publicity is also not permitted to play its useful role regarding these exchanges. - J.Z., 12.9.04. - According to a hint that I read some time ago, China had then 46 million public servants. That sounds a lot, but among 1,300 million Chinese in this country still under communist despotism - in recent years with some free market practices, not when it comes e.g. to central banking, that amounts, astonishingly, to a smaller percentage of public servants than exists in most of the Western World's "Welfare States". To that extent at least they are more State socialistic than Communist China is. Perhaps someone can and will supply a comparison table. - J.Z., 17.10.11.

CHODOROV, FRANK, I should, of course, like to see society organized so that the individual would be free to carry on his 'pursuit of happiness' as he sees fit and in accordance with his own capacities. That is because I assume that the individual is endowed at birth with the right to do so. I cannot deny that right to my fellow man without implying that I do not have that right for myself, and that I will not admit." - Frank Chodorov, "Out of Step", 105. - Did he clearly recognize, somewhere, even exterritorially autonomous personal law communities and the right to secede from territorial States, set up such alternatives or to join any of them what would accept him or her as a member? - J.Z., 17.10.11. - RIGHT TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, SOCIETY, RIGHTS, ASSOCIATIONISM, DISASSOCIATIONISM, SECESSION, WITHDRAWAL, OPTIN OUT, ALTERNATIVE SOCIETIES ETC.

CHOICEfree choice was still the best system of trade." - Representative Johnson of Virginia, according to Murray N. Rothbard, The Panic of 1819, p. 178. – But all other systems as well, for those foolish enough to opt for them, for their own affairs! – J.Z., 15.11.08. FREE TRADE, FREE EXCHANGE

CHOICE: A free man must make a free choice. It is his birthright. A man cannot give more, even to the son he has fathered." - Minnic Hite Moody: The Freedom Suit, in "This Is America", by Max Herzberg. – Alas, America is not yet panarchistic. – In which country will the first conversion to panarchism occur? Actually, only a revival of an ancient tradition but one that would prevent nuclear war, if generally applied and also terrorism, civil wars and violent revolutions. Do we expect territorial leaders to introduce it? That would not be impossible, since thus they could secure a sinecure over their remaining volunteers. No more troubling election campaigns for them. But their followers would expect them to fulfil their rightful promises – in the absence of all internal and external active opposition, except the merely verbal one. – J.Z., 15.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: A man can’t live as he pleases. He can’t even die as he pleases.” – From film: The Snows of Kilimanjaro”, with Gregory Peck & Susan Hayward. – “A man who don’t go his own way, he is nothing.” – From Film: From Here to Eternity. – At the same time, man today has more positive choices and opportunities left to him than ever before to advance better ideas and institutions (*) – but he does not fully utilize them, e.g. alternative, powerful and affordable media, but, rather, relies on those which so far failed to achieve their objective, namely, sufficient general enlightenment. These are print, websites and mass media broadcasting, films, theatre, poetry and songs on records, as well as general encyclopaedias. - (*) Here I am thinking, presently, especially of the potential power not only of microfilm but, e.g., even of floppy disks, that could cheaply reproduce up to 6 books, CDs, that could cheaply reproduce 3000 books and external hard disks, of 320 Gbs, that could cheaply store and make available upon demand 1 million freedom books. Even without such facilities there is as yet no systematic effort to make all freedom books permanently and cheaply accessible, apart from quite a few website libertarian book offers, that are not yet combined in a common list. – J.Z., 9.1.05. - We do already have this particular right and freedom. Nevertheless, we have not yet made sufficient use of it - for all freedom writings. - J.Z., 17.10.11. - TODAY, ALL TOO LIMITED.

CHOICE: A Society which maximises choice is a choice society. - J.Z., 29.7. 78.

CHOICE: All choices! Each only for those who choose it. - J.Z., 8.5.92. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: And, choice must mean not merely a static selection among available alternatives, but an act of creation that generates new ranges of possibilities, defining the 'now' by uniting an assessment of the past with the creation of the future. A free man does not confine himself to a technocratic politics of the possible. His world is that of the politics of the ever-expanding desirable." - Silbert, Man's Power, p.162. - CHANCES, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, MORALITY, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES – NEVER FULLY & OPTIMALLY STATED AS YET!

CHOICE: Any person should be allowed to act creatively as he, not someone else, determines. Such volitional action - freedom of choice - is the definition of freedom." - L. E. Read, ABCs of Freedom. – But in the sphere of societies and governments he wanted to limit it to limited and territorial governments, just like Ayn Rand did. – J.Z., 15.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: As much free choice as a person wants and can stand. - J.Z., 18.9.84. - PANARCHISM.

CHOICE: ASSOCIATIONS & PANARCHIES: Each would find or could establish the kind of exterritorialy autonomous community with the kind of people that now he cannot find even among his relatives and friends and least of all among the present majority of territorial statists of the worlds, since all of them claim a territorial monopoly and insist upon compulsory membership or subordination, with the same rules for all, however diverse and antagonistic they are to each other, so that the individual’s choice and self-government is reduced to having one voice among millions, i.e. practically no self-determination power left to them, except in the private spheres, e.g. as a consumer. He is not free to buy or reject government services and is overcharged for those he wants and charged even for those he dislikes or rather would do without. Under panarchism for all kinds of panarchies he would not have to submit to any sovereign or autonomous body except the one he chose for himself or established himself. – J.Z., 31.12.04, 7.1.05, 11.12.11.

CHOICE: But no such freedom of choice is allowed the individual when flight from integrity occurs in the realm of politics. The individual, irrespective of his scruples, his morals, his ideals, his tastes, is helplessly swept with millions of others into the miserable mess which the dull weight of ignorance gradually but inevitably inflicts on everyone." – Leonard E. Read, ELEMENTS OF LIBERTARIAN LEADERSHIP, p.105. - BUREAUCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, TAXATION, LICENSING, REGULATIONS

CHOICE: But the risk of making the wrong choice is the price we must pay for freedom. It is well worth is." – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log II, 132. – Panarchies would give us other choices as well rather than merely the limited choices left by territorially imposed governments. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: Choice is the prerogative of those who can use it.” - Richard S. McEnroe, The Shattered Stars, 83. - Those who can't use it rationally - do still have the right to make their own mistakes - but only at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 22.1.02. - FREEDOM, RATIONAL BEINGS, RIGHTS OR RATIONAL BEINGS

CHOICE: Choice represents the means of expressing freedom, the manner in which each human actor decides between the myriad alternatives open to him." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 3/77. – The panarchist choices – of societies and governments, are not yet open to individuals, although they are long overdue. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: Choices must be left to individuals." - GUARDIAN, leader, Dec. 31.1973. - Choices must be left to the individuals directly concerned and within their basic rights and liberties, rather than to any politicians, bureaucrats, policemen and judges. - J.Z., 28.4.94. – That would also mean an end to any territorial rule. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

CHOICE: Choose for yourself, not for others. - J.Z. 5/73.

CHOICE: Distrusting the ability of the 'common man' to make choices, the Communist police states delegate to little commissars in big jobs the right to determine what should be produced and in what quantities. In contrast, the free market purports to give optimum opportunity to individuals to express preferences." - M. S. Rukeyser, THE FREEMAN, 10/75. – Hardly under central banking or monetary despotism, taxation and protectionism and uncounted other government interventions still existing in supposedly free market countries, especially territorial laws and institutions, at best approved by majorities. Free markets for all kinds of governmental and societal services, including personal laws! – J.Z., 15.11.08. - COMMAND ECONOMY, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, PLANNING, MIXED ECONOMY, MARKET, CAPITALISM, LAISSEZ FAIRE, PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Each individual must be allowed to choose among available alternatives because he is a purposive being, capable of charting his own destiny." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 4/73. – FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS, COMMUNITIES & SOCIETIES, INCLUDING EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS ONES: PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHY! To my knowledge R. K. F. never went that far. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: Each to be the maker (smith) of his own fate." - Old German proverb.

CHOICE: Each to his choice, and I rejoice." - Rudyard Kipling, Sussex.

CHOICE: Everyone favors freedom of choice. There are only different degrees of consistency. - J.Z. 12.10.78. - Everyone wants a different degree of freedom of choice. Few have so far agreed at least in theory on the desirability of the greatest possible freedom of choice consistent with the greatest possible freedom of choice of every other peaceful and creative being. - Then there are the numerous different interpretation of or applications of that theory to practical proposals. - J.Z., 28.4.94.

CHOICE: For instance, we can measure with a near precision the average citizen's loss in freedom of choice as it relates to the fruits of his own labor. During the past twelve decades, by reason of governmental expansion, his freedom of choice has declined steadily from 95-98% to about 65% - and the trend grows apace. In other words, taxation, which once took only 2.5 % of earned income, now deprives us of about 35%." – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.22. – Even worse, he is subjected to an avalanche of laws, regulations and bureaucratic institutions that are not his own individual choices. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – Personal laws vs. Territorial laws! – Limited governments for those who want them for themselves – but also unlimited (but non-territorial) governments who are foolish enough to want them for themselves and non-governmental societies for those who do prefer them. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: FREE CHOICE AMONG GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES: Freedom of choice and choice of freedoms. - Slogans from an advertisement of the St. George Building Society, heard on April 4th., 1986, one with which panarchists would agree. - J.Z.

CHOICE: Free choice for both, 1. addicts to statism and 2. part or complete abstainers from it. Every individual to be free not only as a conscientious objector to statism – or to free market laissez-faire arrangements – but also free to act upon his beliefs or convictions, in his own affairs, alone or together with like-minded people, always only within his individual rights and liberties, i.e., respecting those of others. Such freedom of choice should not be confined to religious or other private matters but become extended to all kinds of public affairs and their services. Territorially one would have only to agree e.g. on left-hand or right-hand driving and on some quarantine measures. – The most important part of panarchist choice is that it is individualized, not collectivized, i.e., not confined to gaining the approval of the current majority first or those of the government-recognized experts. - J.Z., 25.1.05.

CHOICE: Free choice is a prerequisite for a working moral framework." - G. C. Roche III, THE FREEMAN, 7/73. – Thus territorial rule, even in form of an ideal “limited” government is contrary to morality and ethics. Limited governments, without a territorial monopoly – only for their adherents! Any other supposed ideal only for its volunteers! – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: Free choice of currencies and financial arrangements, insurance contract and court and arbitration services, of policing, prison and defence as well as welfare services and fraternal or mutual or cooperative or partnership self-help societies, tax and voting systems, of constitutions, laws, regulations, economic systems and whole utopias. Full consumer sovereignty in all spheres. Fully free choice, full laissez faire, laissez passer, for all creative and self-concerned and voluntaristic activities, for all rights (and thus duties to respect them in others), but especially for now suppressed minorities, for deserters and refugees. No one can claim that he has all the rightful answers for all others. Let people choose their own "fate" and allow them to opt out of it with whatever they have not wasted yet. - J.Z. 23.1.90, 10.1.93.

CHOICE: FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS, BY INDIVIDUAL VOTES FOR INDIVIDUALS OR MINORITIES: It might be thought an ideal arrangement if, in the same territory, we could have a choice of governments just as we now have a choice of colleges to which we send our boys, or of shops in which to do our trading. If there were several governments, and we were bound to none of them, government in the sense in which it is opposed to anarchy, or complete individual liberty, would really cease to be." - William M. Salter, Anarchy or Government? - An Inquiry in Fundamental Politics, N.Y., T. H. Crowell & Co., 1895, 176 pp, reviewed in NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, No. 63, Feb. 27, 1977. Extensively discussed, but on many other points only, by Victor Yarros in LIBERTY, Feb. to May 1896. "Now, the opponents of government maintain that the governmental method itself is a violation of individual rights, and that the maintenance of equal freedom is impossible except under a system of voluntary organization for defence." - Victor Yarros, in his initial 3-part article, "Mr. Salter's "Anarchy or Government", "LIBERTY", Feb. 22, March 7, 21, 1896, as quoted in NLW 63, of 27 Feb. 77. - The "governmental method" is, among other things, characterized by territorialism, i.e. compulsory membership, exclusive sovereignty, constitutional, legislative, juridical, military, regulatory police and penal powers and the compulsory taxation which they tend to bring with them. Salter seems to have wanted to break all these bonds via individual secessionism and associationism. Did Yarros really oppose him in that? No, here he merely revealed his different definitions and otherwise attacked some arguments of S. on the practicability and justice of anarchism here and now. - J.Z. 3.7.89.

CHOICE: Free choice to own, acquire, and dispose, to work or to rest, to invest, to trade, to move..." - Ray L. Colvard, THE FREEMAN, 1/73. – There are many more important individual rights and liberties. They should finally and optimally become declared together. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – E.g., free individual choices between non-territorial governments and societies. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: FREE CHOICE: Local choice in education, transportation and social welfare permits experimentation with new solutions and a healthy competition among groups with different political ideas." - JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery, 1984. Page 312. - Exterritorially autonomous experiments among volunteers offer even more competitive options than merely local experiments. E.g., Free Traders could freely trade world-wide among themselves. - J.Z., in letter to GPdB & C.B., 11.11.04.

CHOICE: FREE CHOICE: Party Power – over Party People only! – Abortions – for Abortionists only. States, for Statists only. Anarchism, any variety, only for its believers. Governmentalism, only for and among its voluntary supporters. - Party Programs – for all their Party People! - Pick your Party but for your own life only! - Pick or Plot & Produce your Proprietary Paradise with your Party People – but only  among People Pleased with it and Prepared to Pay its Price. - Popular choices only for those who make them. Unpopular choices only for those, who make them. - Party rule? Yes! For each party among its faithful only! - J.Z.

CHOICE: FREE CHOICE:IN EVERTHING, SELF-RESPONSIBLY: Panarchism: “… where you choose everything.” - A remark from the ABC radio requests program, heard on 4.12.04.

CHOICE: Free services or freedom of choice." - Ralph Harris in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, "Right Turn", 17. – Alas, the panarchist choices are not discussed there, either. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: Freedom involves choice, not necessity, but means little if man is not free to choose - to choose good as well as evil." - Jack Markowitz, on J. Swift, in THE FREEMAN, 4/76. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Freedom is not an empty concept: nor is it a vague ideal. It is the choice for action." - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., quoted in INDIAN LIBERTARIAN, 5/75. - Full freedom of action or freedom to experiment requires individual sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities. - J.Z., 30.9.02. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Freedom of choice requires a free-market economy where the value of goods is determined by the satisfactions they produce for willing traders in terms of other goods." - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p. 106. – A fully free market requires also consumer sovereignty and free enterprise regarding all governmental and societal services, consistent voluntarism, personal laws and experimental freedom in that sphere. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

CHOICE: Having choices makes a difference. People with options fare better than people with 'discipline'." - L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach, 364. – Coercively disciplined people should be distinguished from self-disciplined ones. – J.Z., 8.11.10.OPTIONS, IDEAL MILITIAS VS. ARMIES OF CONSCRIPTS

CHOICE: HAYEK & MISES: In their respective essays Gottfried Dietze and Shirley Robin Letwin come to the nub of Hayek's greatest importance, which is his recognition that economics, as Ludwig von Mises has put it, is part of a larger science of choice. Choice, of course, implies at least an 'as if' acceptance of free will, and it can only function well in a society whose basic conventions and law keep men from invading each other's rights." - John Chamberlain, "THE FREEMAN", Dec. 76, p. 759. - And they all failed to realize that territorial States cannot constitute such a general societal framework but do prevent it from coming into existence. They remained unaware that their kind of laissez faire choice is applicable not only to economics but also to politics and social affairs. The science of choice requires also free choice, for individuals, of governments and of government services. - J.Z., 9.1.93. - And of societies and of societal services. - J.Z., 9.12.03.

CHOICE: If it is not a quite free choice then still a form of compulsion or coercion is involved. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CHOICE: If man is to continue his self-improvement, he must be free to exercise the powers of choice with which he has been endowed." - F. A. Harper, Liberty: A Path to its Recovery. – Didn’t he, too, wish to confine us to his supposed ideal of “limited” but territorial governments? – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: If people believe in un-coerced choice, the economic system will take care of itself." - John Chamberlain, on Leonard E. Read's Castles in the Air, THE FREEMAN, June 75. – Let them have free individual choice not only when it comes to economic systems but also among political and social systems, all exterritorially autonomous. Finally, the best ones will tend to be freely accepted most widely and then almost taken for granted, like presently, one of the worst system, the territorial one, is taken for granted. – J.Z., 8.11.10. - HARMONIES, LAISSEZ FAIRE, NATURAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

CHOICE: If we truly respect the unique individuality of our fellow-men, we should not presume to pay God by claiming to know what is best for them. Yet every avoidable extension of government coercion violates freedom of choice and must tend to diminish the significance of the individual, the family, and every form of voluntary endeavour." - Ralph Harris, The End of Government ....", p. 38. – ONLY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS MUST BE DONE AWAY WITH, NOT EXTERRITORIAL ONES OR PERSONAL LAW SOCIETIES OF VOLUNTEERS!

CHOICE: In things that concern me, I want to make my own choice, and I do not want another to make it for me without regard for my wishes; that is all." - Bastiat. – COOPERATIVES, PANARCHIES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAWS

CHOICE: Indeed, what moral virtue is possible if individuals are not free and responsible to choose between good and bad conduct?" - Ralph Harris, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.25. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP IN ALL STATES & SOCIETIES. NO TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY AT ALL!

CHOICE: Individual choice rather than collective territorial decision-making for all. - J.Z., 21.4.89. - In every sphere. That does not mean that anyone should be free to construct nuclear weapons or reactors in his backyard or store radioactive rubbish there, since that would infringe the basic choices of his near and distant fellow human beings. - J.Z., 28.4.94.

CHOICE: It is unfortunate that many people do not regard free choice in the economy as a fundamental right. Even more detrimental is that this choice may be limited by what is deemed to be 'in the public interest.’" - Dennis Bechara, THE FREEMAN, Oct. 77, p. 614. - It is even more unfortunate, since economic freedom could be realised in this way, for those who want it, that most of the economic freedom advocates do not consider "free choice for all governmental services" as a fundamental right. Thus they deprived themselves of most of their potential allies and of the most efficient framework for realising all kinds of reforms for all those who want them. - J.Z., 28.4.94. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: It's about time that we as people living in Australia have a choice." - John Singleton, 20.10.76. - However, he confined it to the choices offered by the libertarian Workers Party. - J.Z. – Even this libertarian party did not stand up for panarchism and full monetary freedom. – J.Z. 8.11.10.

CHOICE: It's human beings who have choice, and therefore have guilt." - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, 437. - She should have added: "and virtue". - J.Z., 28.4.94. – Should we really neglect all the cases in which we do not have free choice as yet? – J.Z., 15.11.07. – PANARCHISM, MONETARY FREEDOM, FREE MIGRATION, FREE TRADE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, ARMAMENT & DISARMAMENT & INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, RESPONSIBILITY

CHOICE: Let citizens be free "to buy the political institutions of their choice." - David Friedman, in: Laissez Faire in Population. – That may be as close to panarchism as he has come so far. – J.Z., 15.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Let people choose for themselves, individually, even among all government services, all of which should be freely and competitively offered, too, by volunteer communities in the same territories, exterritorially organized. - J.Z., 2.5.92, 13.1.93.

CHOICE: Let the people choose." - Adam Smith. – Even individuals, in all spheres, even that of political, economic and social systems! – J.Z., 15.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Let us employ every area of choice that we can, in the service of liberty." - Murray N. Rothbard, OUTLOOK, 4/72. - We should not be the servants of liberty, either, but only of ourselves and our own liberties, those of our families, friends and associates and of those with whom we strongly sympathise. - J.Z., 28.4.94. - Let others have all the un-free systems that they like for themselves, as long as they can stand them. - J.Z., 30.9.02. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Let us live by our choices and die as free men!” - Charles R. La Dow, THE FREEMAN, 3/74.

CHOICE: Life encompasses purpose and choice; a slave lacking free choice becomes less than human to the extent his choice is restricted; man enslaves other men to the extent that he, solely or collectively, INHIBITS a selection of alternatives; moral man ought not to coerce his fellows." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 9/74. - Territorial impositions are the largest enslavement practices. - J.Z., 28.4.94. – PERSONAL LAWS, LEGISLATION, STATE, GOVERNMENT, PARLIAMENT, DEMOCRACY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, PANARCHY

CHOICE: Man must have the right to choice, even to choose wrong, if he shall ever learn to choose right." - The Free Man's Almanac. - Compare: SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & PANARCHISM, which can also be defined as "free and individual choice among governments and societies", without having to change one's residence or job - unless it's a job in the government one seceded from. - J.Z., 28.4.94.

CHOICE: Man must have the right, even to choose wrong, if he shall ever learn to choose right. The child walks as we unwind the swaddling clothes; the building stands on its full beauty as we remove the scaffolding; lest by making more intricate the wrappings of law, more strong the rods of coercion, man himself remain feeble and imperfect." - Josiah C. Wedgwood, quoted in The Free Man's Almanac.

CHOICE: Man should be free to choose his own destiny in all enterprises. The sole justifiable limitation on this liberty rests in the injunction that no man shall use his powers to coerce or deny an equal freedom in all other human beings." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 11/73. – PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP IN STATES & COMMUNITIES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, FULL FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT AT THE OWN RISK & EXPENSE

CHOICE: Mankind is at its best when it is most free. This will be clear if we grasp the principle of liberty. We must recall that the basic principle of liberty is freedom of choice, which saying many have on their lips but few in their minds.” - Dante Alighieri – Our free choices should include all those of sovereign individuals, and of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 23.1. 08. – FREEDOM, LIBERTY, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

CHOICE: Men were endowed with free will, with the power of making choices, and were accountable for the choices they made." - Frank Chodorov, Out of Step, 24. – So why do we still concede to territorial politicians all too many decision-making monopolies? – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: Minimal or no choices at all to governments, States, diplomats, leaders, rulers, politicians, bureaucrats and other meddlers and oppressors - over the fates of non-consenting victims but every chance for them to lord it over voluntary victims. - J.Z., 28.4.94. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Most people wrongly presume that their own favorite bill of rights, constitution or system of laws would properly determine the rightful limits to freedom of choice - although these limits have barely been touched in most discussions of the subject. They are right, though, in wanting to limit their own freedom of choice to that extent and should be given that choice and opportunity - as a basic right. At the same time, they should be given no choice, opportunity, vote, right or power to similarly restrict the freedom of choice of other volunteer groups. The only common platform would have to be: To each the government - or the non-governmental society - of his or her choice. This implies only a few basic principles and practices, like voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy and respect for those rights and liberties claimed by members of other communities for and among themselves, for which workable traditions have already been established, no matter how little they are reported in most history books. - J.Z., 14.10.81, 28.4.94. - ON PANARCHY, Nos. 1- 24 in my PEACE PLANS series. - J.Z. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: Multiply variety and choice. Don't put them to death! - Free version of saying by Utley/Uda: Vouchers for Education, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Down with the Poor, p.98. - DIVERSITY, UNIFORMITY, LEGISLATION

CHOICE: Nevertheless, I believe in choosing one's destiny.” - Poul Anderson, The Book of Poul Anderson, p. 79. – DESTINY, FATE, FUTURE, AIMS, PURPOSES

CHOICE: No man, however talented, possesses the innate or acquired ability to choose for others and to make demonstrably better choices." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 9/74. - Compare: "No man is good enough to rule another man without his consent." – LEADERSHIP, CONSENT, TERRITORIALISM

CHOICE: One of the most important free choices required is: who are going to be one's international enemies and friends? One should never let rulers and their diplomats or generals decide that question. - J.Z., 11/81. - TREATIES, SEPARATE PEACE, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM. On the individual and group choice on whether there should be war, peace or neutrality, see under DECISION AND NEUTRALITY, as well as under REFERENDUM.

CHOICE: Only I should be privileged to make MY CHOICE." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 4/73. – Everybody should be free and has the right to make his own choice in all spheres regarding his own affairs. He does not belong to a country, its population or to a territorial government as his feudal lord. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHY

CHOICE: People ought to be free to choose - individually or collectively - whatever economic, social, moral etc., system they want." - Jerry Millett. Texas, ANALOG, June 61.

CHOICE: personality develops best (as a general rule) when citizens are left as much choice as possible in determine how they should live their lives." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.17. – The voluntary and exterritorial autonomy or personal law or panarchist or polyarchist options should be included, rather than thoughtlessly ignored or wilfully excluded! – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: Persons who believe in liberty will uphold the right of the individual to make wrong choices, not because he agrees with the wrong choices, but only because in this way can the individual become a moral and self-controlling person. Only in this way can he learn to govern himself." - Robert LeFevre, March 30, 1961, quoted in Watner, LeFevre, p.165. - Mistakes, Errors, Wrongs, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

CHOICE: Popular choices only for those who make them. Unpopular choices also only for those, who make them. - J.Z., 04-11. - FREE CHOICE

CHOICE: Respect for people’s different choices! – Michael Cloud, 24.7.04. – Indeed, but in every sphere, i.e., respect even for people’s different and individual panarchistic choices. – J.Z., 2.4.05. - RESPECT, VARIETY, PEOPLE

CHOICE: Socialism Leaves Little Choice." - L. E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.107. – Voluntary or cooperative socialism would leave all others to their own choices. – J.Z., 15.11.08. – Any kind of territorial statism, regardless of the rest of its ideology, leaves dissenting individuals and minorities all too little choice. – J.Z., 8.11.10. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, TERRITORIALISM

CHOICE: That which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p.951. – The territorial monopoly of present governments is an artificial construct. We can and must get rid of it again and be it only to eliminate nuclear targets. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: the choice is really between freedom unlimited and totalitarianism." - Russell Lewis, Freedom of Speech and Publication, in K. W. Watkins, In Defence of Freedom, 85. - I would add: "or any other choice which panarchists make for themselves." - J.Z., 7.4.91.

CHOICE: The choice, of course, remains yours, and I would not dream of making it for you." - George R. R. Martin, Second Helpings, ANALOG 11/85, p. 91. - I am still afraid of ordering all back issues of ASTOUNDING & ANALOG on microfiche - since that would tempt me to read them all - and I cannot afford the time for this. - J.Z., 28.4.94. – Alas, territorialism still outlaws some of our most important choices, which ought to be quite free for ourselves and like-minded people, however few we may presently still be. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: The distresses of choice are our chance to be blessed." - W. H. Auden, Shiprecords, quoted in Frank Herbert, The Lazarus Effect, P.236. - Compare the book title: Decidophobia. - By Kaufman.

CHOICE: The fact is that our present political system offers choice, but not FREE CHOICE. The two are only vaguely related. A prisoner who is told by his captors that he has the right to die either by shooting or by hanging is given a choice. If he were given a FREE CHOICE, however, you can be sure that he would choose a third alternative not presently available to him." – Robert Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.63/64. – Does Ringer in any of his writings explore exterritorial autonomy choices for individuals? – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: the freedom to make choices is the SINE QUA NON of morality, ..." - Jerome Tuccille, Who's Afraid of 1984?, p. 148.

CHOICE: The goal is for individuals to freely choose the risks, rewards, rights and responsibilities of personal liberty and economic freedom." - Stormy Mon, A Liberty Book, II. – I remember, alas, no clear expression of his in favor of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. – There are still too many inconsistent libertarians and anarchists. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: The hallmark of a self-governing society is free choice. When free choice is 'reasoned' into a secondary position and replaced with little or no choice, what is left is a system of slavery. We end up discussing the degree of slavery we will tolerate, rather than whether we will be free or unfree." - Sy Leon, None of the Above, p.120.

CHOICE: The instrument of our self-control is choice. The choices we make fulfil our purposes in life. We choose our course continuously according to our unique circumstances, with every moment a new beginning. This page of this book will turn only if you CHOOSE to turn it. That's so even if you contrarily believe, as many profess to, that men are but helpless pawns shaped by their environment. The truth is rather that we shape our environment to make it congenial to our purposes." - Roger McBride, A New Dawn for America, p.3. – As if there were no territorial governments which have monopolized all too many decision-making spheres, e.g. by central banking. – J.Z., 15.11.08. - FREE WILL, DETERMINISM, FATE, ENVIRONMENT

CHOICE: the issue is not materialism or any other kind of philosophy, but whether human beings should have the right to choose for themselves, without state coercion of any kind, (*) the philosophy under which to live. For me freedom comes first, the freedom of intelligent rational choice for individuals, maximised as much as possible. It is for this that I am prepared to die if necessary rather than for any set of economic arrangements." - Sidney Hook, in REASON 5/77. - (*) Including territorialism!– If one could take them literally at their words, then many people were already or are panarchists, without being clearly aware of this for they did not yet draw the last conclusions from their own statements. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: The market offers a real choice." - Skye d'Aureous, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION,  5.8.73. – If really free then it would also offer a free choice between all kinds of non-territorial governments, societies and communities – to individuals, all volunteers only, under personal laws and without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: The morality of choice means that man must assume responsibility for all of the effects rationally generated by his choices." - Ridgway K. Foley, THE FREEMAN, 4/74.

CHOICE: The more choices we have, the better.” - F. M. Busby, Rebel's Seed, p.49. - Not necessarily! For the just and rational man there is often only one choice and that is the best one. However, for those who cannot as yet think rationally and morally, the more choices they have to learn - at their expense and risk, the better for them and for all others. - J.Z., 8.7.01 & 22.1.02.

CHOICE: The progress of society, like that of the individual, depends, ultimately, on choice." - L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, p.136/7.

CHOICE: The question is whether government promotes progress by robbing individuals of their right to choose. This right of free choice is being taken away by those who believe in an all-powerful government." - Earl McMunn, THE FREEMAN, 3/78, reprinting from THE OHIO FARMER, Dec. 77.


CHOICE: The theology of Christianity stipulates that a man can choose between good and evil and that such choice is necessary for his moral salvation." - Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.8/9. – How many Christians have ever advocated free individual choice between all kinds of governments, societies and communities, none of them with a territorial monopoly? – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: There are as many preferences as there are men." - Horace, Satires, 35-30 B.C.

CHOICE: There was no reason why unnecessary restrictions on choice should be added to all the other problems disadvantaged people suffered, nor why the choice of everyone should be restricted by ill-conceived efforts to provide assistance, ..." - Malcolm Fraser, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD 26.9. 75 (or 76?). – Most of the errors, wrong premises and conclusions are embodied in the hypothesis and practice of territorialism, like here, the implied and supposedly necessary restrictions of choice. – According to him, a former Australian prime minister, there should be only one federal government and one Prime Minister of it, for all Australians. – This in spite of the fact that elections in Australian are often close to 50% for the Liberal Party candidates and 50% for the Labor Party ones. – To my knowledge he did not even make a single statement at least for biarchism. – If he had, he might be still ruling as a Liberal Prime Minister for all the Liberals in Australia. - J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: To the extent that he lacks this choice, he loses his essential humanity and remains in the chains of slavery." - Ridgway K. Foley.

CHOICE: To the extent that one person forecloses the choice between alternatives available to another, he dominates the latter and denies him his essential humanity." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 3/77.

CHOICE: Today the issue, as I see it, is not between capitalism or socialism. Rather, it is freedom to choose whether to live under one or the other, or more accurately, to have more or less of one or the other." - Sidney Hook in REASON 5/77. - Or neither, if one wants neither! – Or any other choice that one wants to make for oneself – together with like-minded people, or alone, if one can! - J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: Totalitarian excesses emphasise that freedom is indivisible and that an open market, which gives the individual optimum free choice, is an essential ingredient in the all-around adventure in human liberty." - M. S. Rukeyser, THE FREEMAN, 1/76, p. 35. – All forms of territorialism are already a basic kind of totalitarianism. – J.Z., 11.8.10.

CHOICE: True conservationists and environmentalists, genuinely concerned with conservation of human values, improving the environment and the quality of life, are aware that although they propose changes, these changes should never be obtained at the risk of destroying the greatest quality already achieved by men living in a free society. This is the acknowledgement of the right of every rational individual to live the life of his own choice. To go about his life and his business and affairs in his own way without interfering with or placing demands upon others." - John Curvers, THE LIBERTARIAN NEWSLETTER, No. 2, 1976. - LIBERTY, RIGHTS, INTERFERENCE, COERCION, COMPULSION, VIOLENCE, FORCE, FREEDOM, RIGHTS, SELF-OWNERSHIP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, PANARCHISM

CHOICE: True self-government requires individual free choice for all kinds of governmental and societal services and also free enterprise or cooperative production of all such services. - CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE ENTERPRISE.

CHOICE: Various routes to happiness lie open and he is free to choose what seems to him the best for the purpose." - Etienne Gilson, "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy." - HAPPINESS, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, FREEDOM, INDIVDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

CHOICE: VOTING, PERSONAL LAW, SELF-GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM: Thomas Aquinas presented us such a principle: The individual has the right to choose everything as long as he chooses for himself. He is not allowed to choose to impose something on another person because by that kind of action he would tamper with the other person's freedom to follow his own reasoning. - Christian Michel, LIBERALIA. - Expressed only in such general terms most people do not immediately realized that this choice requires also free choices among exterritorially competing government and societies. - J.Z., 4.9.04. – THOMAS AQUINAS

CHOICE: We can face the crossroads again. We can re-choose." - M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.459. – Alas, we are not yet sufficiently free to choose. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: We Conservatives do not accept that because some people have no choice, no one should have it." - Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, 1975. – As if there could be only the different choices that rich and poor people have for themselves. Full experimental freedom also for the poor would open many paths towards riches even for them. Under that freedom the riches based upon legalized monopolies would be diminished with the abolition of these monopolies. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: We have the right to choose the society most acceptable to us." - J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Great Books ed., 304.

CHOICE: We must spread the gospel that there is no gospel to spare us the pain of choosing at every step.” – Justice Cardozo, in the 1920’s, quoted by Philip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense, How the Law Is Suffocating America, Warner books, 1994, p.186. – As if we could already freely choose our personal law system and our panarchy, together with like-minded volunteers. Too many judges are without sufficient judgment and think only in terms of the limited choices for individuals under territorialism. – Full consumer sovereignty and also full free enterprise and other forms of associationism in every sphere. Naturally, also free choice between various jurisdiction system. In this way and at least indirectly every judge would become an elected one – through the voluntary membership in the society in which he is a judge. - J.Z., 11.8.10. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead." - Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground, 1864. – In as general terms, all too general, even Dostoevsky was a panarchist. – J.Z., 11.8.10.

CHOICE: whatever does not spring from a man's free choice ... does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness." - W. v. Humboldt, quoted by Noam Chomsky, Notes on Anarchism. One might add: "if that." – Only exterritorial autonomy for all people can release all creative energies. – J.Z., 15.11.08.

CHOICE: When discrimination is not allowed according to one's wisdom and conscience, both discrimination and conscience will atrophy in the same manner as an unused muscle.(*) Since man was given these faculties, it necessarily follows that he should use them and be personally responsible for the consequences of his choices. He must be free to either enjoy or endure the consequences of each decision, because the lesson it teaches is the sole purpose of experience - the best of all teachers." - F. A. Harper, in The Free Man's Almanac. (*) - Here may be the danger in the all too incomplete, pre-digested, prejudiced and rapid fire pap that we are exposed to especially by TV and radio broadcasts. If one had the time, energy and opportunity to tape them and then discuss them with others, some counter-action that would be enlightening, would occur. But that would also require more patient and interested participants than are usually available. - J.Z., 28.4.94. – Did Harper, a great thinker and writer in many respects, ever apply this thought to personal law associations, exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers? Or was he also such a victim of territorialism? – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: When is a choice not a choice? When you cannot say 'No.'"- Sy Leon, None of the Above, 33. - VOTING, CONSENT, REPRESENTATION, REFERENDUM, SECESSION, PANARCHISM

CHOICE: When millions of people are free to act creatively as they choose, an unimaginable wisdom is the consequence." - Read, THE FREEMAN, 1/75. - However, although e.g. libertarians and anarchists are free to reproduce all their writings permanently and cheaply and completely on microfiche, discs or online, at least so far, they have still chosen not to do so, which does not reveal much wisdom or realism. - They have not even compiled all "Slogans for Liberty" as yet, as handy tools for their struggle. Nor have they compiled all freedom ideas, bibliographies, abstracts, indexes and addresses of those freedom lovers who want their addresses publicised. - Few of our remaining liberties are fully used, by choice, to realize all the rest. Very unwise, but it does happen. Thus one should possibly rather say: "could be the consequence - if and to the extent that they acted within their remaining liberties." - J.Z., 28.4.94. – The only panarchist freedom that Read supported, to my knowledge, was monetary freedom, in very general terms. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: When people are free to refuse or to buy capitalism, free enterprise and free market services then capitalism will be "sold" in the fastest possible way. - From J.Z., Tolerance pamphlet. - TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, SOCIETIES, ASSOCIATIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.

CHOICE: When the choices are too limited one does not really live any longer. - J.Z., 15.8.76. - That is not life. Then one does not risk life but can only gain it. Then you have nothing to loose but your chains. - J.Z. – I mean a fully free life, in accordance with your own ideals, as far as they are practically and tolerant of all others, doing their own things to themselves. – J.Z., 8.11.10.

CHOICE: Wrong is wrong only when you are at liberty to choose." - Sir Rabindranath Tagore. – Did Tagore ever state how far liberty to choose could and should go? Naturally when you are subjected to extreme pressures and threats you are no longer fully responsible for your actions – but the persons or the institutions which make you act immorally are responsible for them. Territorialism enforces numerous wrongful actions. Under panarchism, when people know of wrongful actions towards involuntary victims in their panarchy or in other panarchies and do neither protest nor resist them nor secede from such a panarchy, could they, too, be held at least somewhat responsible for these wrongful actions. – J.Z., 11.8.10.

CHOICE: You can't think for 8 million people." - Roy Millikin, commenting on the Australian elections, 9.12.75. - Nevertheless, politicians who can't even think sufficiently for themselves or their family or friends, brashly pretend they can think for a whole nation, defining its ends and prescribing its means. - J.Z., 28.4.94. – Think for yourself. Politicians and bureaucrats won’t and can’t. – J.Z., 11.12.11. - LEADERSHIP, POLITICIANS, GOVERNMENT, STATE, RULERS, TERRITORIALISM

CHOICE: You don't have to reconstruct the social order; you don't have to overpower the villains; you don't have to re-educate the world; you don't need a miracle. All you have to do is to use your sovereign power of choice to release yourself from those who would keep you in bondage. The opportunity has always been there. You just haven't taken advantage of it. ... Freedom is living your life as you want to live it." – Harry Brown, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, p.168. - To me this seems to indicate that he rarely ever wanted anything that was legally "verboten" (prohibited) and effectively suppressed. - Naturally, under almost any system some can become rich and buy themselves some personal liberties. But they still live in an unfree world, insecure and subject to e.g. the nuclear holocaust. He was unable to point out any country in which e.g. individual secession is permitted and monetary freedom, too, and where voluntary taxation is realised. - J.Z., 28.4.94.

CHOICE: You have freedom of choice but not freedom from choice." - Wendell Jones, in READER’S DIGEST 1/79,p.154. - How much real freedom of choice do we have today and how much is wrongfully and forcefully denied to us? And if we choose to deprive ourselves of freedom of choice, by delegating it to others, then we should even be free to choose that condition - as long as we can stand it. - J.Z., 5.6.80, 28.4.94. - PANARCHISM.

CHOICE: You leave me no choice" - is a common expression in reaction to an all too common policy. The solution is simple: Leave maximum choice for people and they won't clash as often or as disastrously. - J.Z., 24.4.82. - PANARCHISM

CHOICE: You pay your money and you take your choice." - Common saying. - It should become so in every sphere. - J.Z., 28.4.94.

CHOICE: You say that I would do better to follow a given career, to work in a given way, to use steel plough instead of a wooden one, to sow sparsely rather than thickly, to buy from the East rather than from the West. I maintain the contrary. I have made my calculations; after all, I am more vitally concerned than you in not making a mistake in matters that will decide my own well-being, the happiness of my family, matters that concern you only as they touch your vanity or your systems. Advise me, but do not force your opinions on me. I shall decide at my PERIL AND RISK; that is enough, and for the law to interfere would be tyranny." – Frederic Bastiat, quoted by G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p. 243. - FREE ENTERPRISE, LAISSEZ FAIRE, COMPETITION, PLANNING, PANARCHISM

CHOICES: Don’t blind yourself, … If you keep telling yourself that those are your only choices, then those are the only choices that you’ll ever make.” – Debra Doyle and James D. MacDonald, Starpilot’s Grave, Book Two of the Mageworlds, p. 97. - ALL TOO LIMITED VS. AS UNLIMITED FREE CHOICES AS POSSIBLE, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, STATISM, PARTIES, PANARCHISM, VOTING


CHRISTIANITY: from the year 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1860 more than 8,000 treaties of peace, which were meant to remain in force forever, were concluded. The average time they remained in force was two years.” – G. Valbert, “REVUE DES DEUX MONDES”, April 1894, p.692. – Having these facts in view, the Honorable George Peel, in his “The Future of England”, p. 169, said that for fifteen centuries, since the full adoption of Christianity by the continent of Europe, peace has been preached, and for these fifteen centuries the history of Europe has been nothing but “a tale of blood and slaughter.” - Pitirim A. Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories Through the First Quarter of the Twentieth Century, Harper Torchbooks, 1928, in footnotes, p. 325. – WAR, PEACE, TREATIES, TERRITORIALISM

CHRISTMAS GIFTS: Spread panarchist thoughts, ideas and tolerance rather than any other gifts, at x-mas, birthdays, marriages and other social occasions. - J.Z., 04-11.

CHRISTMAS PRESENTS, PANARCHIST IDEAS AS THE BEST ONES: Put the panarchist ideology and symbols under and on your x-mas trees. They DO constitute the best presents you could ever provide. - Only they present a genuinely good will, tolerance for all tolerant actions and can assure to each his own. - Thus only they can bring us a lasting peace in freedom, justice and prosperity, with as rapid progress as individuals want for themselves. – J.Z., April 04 & 29.12.04. - CHRISTMAS CIRCUS

CHU AO-HSIANG (Louis Ngaosiang, Tchou): Le Regime des Capitulations et la Reforme Constitutionnelle en Chine, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1915.


CHURCH: The most important tasks for today's churches, as I see them, are the following, not necessarily in that order: - - (a) a moral and rational stand on individual rights and liberties. This involves among other things: - - (b) A stand on abortion that respects the rights of all involved, including the unborn child. - - (c) A clear-cut rejection of all collective responsibility (excepting only those of convicts, for similar crimes), and especially of its extreme expressed in ABC mass murder devices. - - (d) A thorough exploration of whether and how the principle involved in religious tolerance or liberty and that in freedom to experiment in the natural sciences and in technology, could solve or settle down to bearable proportions the major economic, political and social problems of our times. - - (e) A moral and clear stand on tyrannicide. - - (f) A clear rejection of conscription. - - (g) An application of the "Thou shalt not steal!" principle to taxation and inflation and to all monopolies. - - (h) A rewording of "love thy neighbour" to: "be just to thy neighbor" and of: "love thy enemy" to "love all the victims of thy enemy". - - (i) A proper translation of the command, so far wrongly translated as: "Thou shalt not kill!" to: "Thou shalt not murder!”. - - Without these and some related reforms, I cannot presently think of to list, the churches will continue to do more wrong and harm than right and good. - J.Z., 9.10.88, 28.4.94. – But then they were never really moral or ethical or social reform institutions. – J.Z., 15.11.08.


CIA: 69, 70, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. - Territorial States have always had their secret services. Secret anti-State services, with a quite rightful program, have either been very rare or non-existent. Whistle-blowers are an insufficient substitute and private protective services are still largely banned in this sphere. For now publicity must be our major weapon. As the privatization trends show, libertarians can also to a limited extent work together with some existing governments, towards economic liberalisation, even when they are still politically totalitarian ones, like e.g. the Red Chinese regime. What is mainly wrong about organizations like the CIA, FBI etc. is their territorialism. If they defended only volunteers - and this with rightful means, then such organizations would be morally acceptable. - J.Z., 12.9.04.

CICERO ON STATUS, VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT, ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, TERITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM & PANARCHISM: The Commonwealth is the people’s affair; moreover, a people is not every group of men brought together in any way, but a group of many men associated by consent to law and by community of interest.” – Cicero, De Republica, I/25. - All too little progress occurred in political thought over the last 2,000 years! – J.Z., 10.1.99. - At his time the personal law tradition was not largely forgotten already. - J.Z., 22.9.04.


CITIES: Right Rules Promote Right Outcomes. Proposition No. 2: The Good City will be whatever arrangement of things and people emerges out of the decisions of those people when such decisions are made within a framework of appropriate rules. That is to say, the Good City cannot be defined in terms of its own characteristics but only in terms of the correctness or incorrectness of the decision-system within which it emerges. Right rules promote right outcomes; wrong rules promote wrong outcomes." - Benjamin R. Rogge, ibid. – The usual mutual territorial domination games are played in them, too, instead of each group of volunteers paying its own way. Political rather than market forces are used and abused. – J.Z., 16.11.08.

CITIZEN AND STATE: Under panarchism each citizen can form or join his kind of State, utopia or free society, wherever he lives and works, independent of the different choices by other citizens. - J.Z. 3.7.89.

CITIZENS VS. GOVERNMENTS: It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” – Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, American Communications Assn v. Douds, 1950. - They do not have to try to enlighten any government as long as they are free to secede from it! Thereby even their former masters might learn something. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – A citizen not free to secede – exterritorially – is, essentially, still a mere serf of a feudal system. – J.Z., 9.11.10.

CITIZENS: Government should by NOT intervening and taking initiative from them, challenge citizens to take the initiative." - PURSUIT, Oct. 1976. - But then it must also leave them enough money to finance their initiatives themselves. The primary territorial interventions by constitutions, laws, regulations and taxation must be removed, at least for all peaceful dissenters. - J.Z., 29.4.94.

CITIZENS: Subjects are not citizens. Only volunteers are citizens. - J.Z., 13.4.87. - Compare Mrs. Chisholm's remark: "Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name national."

CITIZENS: that (the people) being unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level, yet competent judges of human character, (they) chose for their management representatives, some by themselves immediately, others by electors chosen by themselves. Action by citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately and removable by themselves (the people) constitutes the essence of a Republic." - Thomas Jefferson, 1816. - Still a territorial monopolist and as such an enemy of public welfare. Apparently, he had not read Fichte's 1793 work on the French Revolution, in which he defended the right of individuals to secede. Only voluntary citizens are citizens. "Republics" with involuntary citizens are despotisms, to that extent. - J.Z., 29.4.94. - SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE, REFERENDUM, REPUBLIC, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM

CITIZENS: The State is the association of men, and not men themselves; the citizen may perish, and the man remain." - Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Bk. x, ch. 3. - In another version, retranslated from a German version by me: "The man as citizen may perish but the man as man must remain." - Did M. have anarchist leanings? - He failed to note here that the State is a compulsory and monopolistic and territorial "association", which does not permit, as a rule, individuals to opt out, like other associations do. - J.Z., 29.4.94.

CITIZENS: They are our citizens, aren't they? We can do what we like with them." - Reply of an official of the Russian Commissariat for Foreign Affairs to a protest against the oppression of German colonists in Siberia; quoted in W. H. Chamberlain, Russia's Iron Age, XIII, 1934. – That is territorialism in a nutshell. – J.Z., 9.11.10. -  INTERNAL AFFAIRS, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, HUMAN RIGHTS, SECESSION, DESPOTISM, TOTALITARIANISM, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, SLAVERY, TERRITORIALISM

CITZEN EXPERIMENTS VS. GOVERNMENT EXPERIMENTS: Regarding: "Governments Should Be Free to Experiment", from PEACE PLANS 2, 1964, plan 66, page 3, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: The ultimate of civil disobedience means opting out of any State whose leaders are not amenable to reason. (Are any of them?) - J.Z.

CIVIL LIBERTY: Civil liberties, in my eyes, are the rather trivial rights to which the best kinds of politicians and lawyers want to reduce our basic individual rights, to fit into their monopolistic, territorial, coercive and more or less democratic or republican constitutions, laws and States. - J.Z., 2.5.94.

CIVIL LIBERTY: Civil liberty is the status of the man who is guaranteed by law and civil institutions the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare." - William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man. But for the "guaranties", this sounds too much like "human rights" or "individual rights". – ANOTHER VERSION: The notion of civil liberty which we have inherited is that of A STATUS CREATED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BY LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS THAT EACH MAN IS GUARANTEED THE USE OF ALL HIS OWN POWERS EXCLUSIVELY FOR HIS OWN WELFARE. It is not at all a matter of elections, or universal suffrage, or democracy." - W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe Each Other, p.30. - The notion of civil liberty which we have inherited is that of A STATUS CREATED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BY LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS THAT EACH MAN IS GUARANTEED THE USE OF ALL HIS OWN POWERS EXCLUSIVELY FOR HIS OWN WELFARE. It is not at all a matter of elections, or universal suffrage, or democracy." - W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe Each Other, p.30. - Which territorial State has ever conceded as much to individuals & their rights and liberties? - J.Z., 16.11.08.

CIVIL RIGHTS CASES: All too often merely bickerings about non-essential or even non-rights, while essential rights are neglected or even fought. Most of all the Civil Liberties Actions have ignored freedom of action (or individual secessionism, combined with exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities). - J.Z., 30.1.92.

CIVIL SERVANTS: In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master'." – Robert Heinlein, Lazarus Long. - Mature? Statist or territorial, monopolistic, coercive and collectivistic! - J.Z. - PUBLIC SERVANTS, BUREAUCRACY

CIVIL WAR: a civil war is worse than any other sort, When two parties in a given country resort to arms to settle political differences (*), every man is a potential enemy to every other man, and the distinction between legalized killing and murder is not clearly drawn in the minds of average men, who are incapable of sustained thought. Death is held to be a fitting reward for those who dare hold contrary views, and a nation involved in a civil war is a breeding ground for children reared to look with tolerance on next to nothing but violence." - Kenneth Roberts, Oliver Wiswell, p.471. - (*) Because tolerant exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups is either not known or appreciated as an alternative. - J.Z., 2.5.95.) – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

CIVIL WAR: Civil wars are usually the most uncivilized ones. The enemy is known and strongly hated. The fight is really about what both claim is rightly their own and exclusive homeland. Each wants to territorially dominate the other. Enemies across a national border are usually not as well known or as much hated. - J.Z., 2.8.93. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE

CIVIL WAR: Civil wars result from people, either as ruling majorities or minorities, treating others in an uncivilized manner, e.g. by imposing the system they prefer territorially upon all others of the population, either by ballots or bullets. – J.Z., 31.7.08. - TERRITORIALISM, CIVILIZATION, VOTING, DOMINATION, GOVERNMENT, LAWS

CIVIL WAR: If I could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves, I would. If I could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would.  And If I could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves, I would do that also." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN, SLAVERY

CIVIL WAR: In England, politically the most advanced country, the impetus which the Revolution gave to progress was exhausted, and people began to say, now that the Jacobite peril was over, that no issue remained between parties which made it worth while for men to cut each others' throat." - Lord Action, Lectures on Modern History, p.287. - Territorial monopoly and coercion is never a rightful and reasonable motive for murder. Its abolition can prevent most political, ideological, racial and religious murders and mass murders, civil wars and wars, revolutions and terrorist actions. One should imagine that in the face of so much current bloodshed and that of history, this simple reverse of present organizational arrangements would at least be discussed as an alternative options. Instead, it is largely passed over in silence or ignored as a possibility. - J.Z., 2.5.94. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM

CIVIL WAR: The American people, North and South, went into the [Civil] war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects … what they thus lost they have never got back.” – H.L. Mencken. - They were already territorial subjects before. Free citizenship was more or less a delusion or self-delusion for most subjects. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – State and local governments may be less wrongful but as territorial organizations they are still fundamentally wrongful and harmful. – J.Z., 13.11.08.

CIVIL WARS, MASS MURDERS, HUTUS, TUTUS, TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY STATE MEMBERSHIP, VOLUNTARISM & PANARCHISM: A-territorial and voluntaristic panarchism would also end the more “moderate” Hutu/Tutu clashes between the supposedly civilized people. Nothing else ever has or ever will. Hutuism only for Hutus. Tutuism only for Tutus – among all the tribes in the world and all their so far compulsory and territorial conglomerations. – J.Z., n.d.

CIVILIANS: True, most dead on both  sides (are) civilians - but are (they) truly innocent? Who permitted continuing rule by megalomaniacs?” - David R. Palmer, Emergence, p.28 in ANALOG 1/81. - As territorialists most people are responsible for the consequences of their territorialism. But this does not mean that all their children are responsible, too and that mere occasional voters are as much to be held responsible as are politicians and generals. - J.Z., 17.8.02. , INNOCENTS, NONCOMBATANTS, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, GUILT, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DIS.

CIVILIZATION & DIVERSITY: Civilization is the encouragement of differences. ... - Gandhi. - Diversity does not have to be encouraged but it must not be territorially outlawed or taxed and regulated, either. - J.Z., 12.12.03.

CIVILIZATION & RESPECT: Respect for others, tolerance of their ideas and foibles. compassion in their misfortunes, are the marks of the truly civilised human being. - IPA FACTS, 12/68.

CIVILIZATION & TOLERANCE, TERRORISM & INTOLERANCE: A-territorial and voluntaristic panarchism would also end the more “moderate” Hutu/Tutu clashes between the supposedly civilized people. Nothing else ever has or ever will. Hutuism only for Hutus. Tutuism only for Tutus – among all the tribes in the world and all their so far compulsory and territorial conglomerations. - J.Z., 04-11. - EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION, USE OF FORCE ONLY AGAINST THE AGGRESSIVELY OR CRIMINALLY VIOLENT.

CIVILIZATION: Actually, what we call civilization is a movement in the direction of privacy. The more we are allowed to mind our own business and keep our own counsel, the better off we will be. I'm speaking about economic reality of course..." Robert LeFevre, Lift Her Up, Tenderly, p.124. - - Since he was one of the very few who reproduced de Puydt's article on Panarchy, he should have included here a hint to the radically extended privacy of private governments or non-governmental societies, all only based upon exterritorial autonomy and with voluntary members only. - The privacy of a private house, garden & business is not enough, while so many liberties and decisions are pre-empted by territorial governments and their institutions, constitutions, laws, administrations, armed forces and jurisdictions. - J.Z., 1.10.02. – PRIVACY, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CIVILIZATION: All despotisms, whether political or religious, whether of sex, of caste, or of custom, may be generalised as limitations to individuality, which is the nature of civilization to remove." - Herbert Spencer, Social Statics, General Considerations. – INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIALISM

CIVILIZATION: And the size and the freedom of the market are the measuring sticks of civilization." - Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.106. – Including the freedom of choice for whole economic, social and political systems! – A consistent laissez-faire society, as De Puydt demanded – even for voluntary monarchists and anarchists, for example. – J.Z., 9.11.10.

CIVILIZATION: Civilization has always been a race between education and chaos." - H. G. Wells. - Territorial organisations did not represent civilization and education but, rather chaos, of a self-maintaining kind. Only a consistent voluntarism based on exterritorial autonomy, introduced through individual secessionism, can break up this chaos. - J.Z., 2.5.94.

CIVILIZATION: Civilization is the encouragement of differences ... Force, violence, pressure, or compulsion with a view to conformity, is both uncivilized and undemocratic. - Mohanda Gandhi. - DIFFERENT FREE PEOPLE & DIVERSITY RATHER THAN CONFORMITY

CIVILIZATION: Civilization is the process of setting man free from man." - Ayn Rand, in O'Neill: Ayn Rand, p.46. - She should rather have said: from oppression by man or from territorial impositions by other men. For "society IS exchange", as Bastiat pointed out. All relationships between men are to be based on voluntarism, exchange and mutual tolerance, even in the sphere of actions, tolerant actions that is. - J.Z., 2.5.94. – Under full exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers this ideal, every ideal that is at least temporarily practical, even at huge costs to the participants, can be realized and it may be required as a learning tool or method. – However, I hold that there should be no experimental freedom for people to fool around with ABC mass murder devices and with “peaceful” nuclear reactors, supposedly clean and harmless or with experiments to recreate the “Big Bang” conditions in very costly laboratory experiments, which might succeed beyond the expectations of their organizers. – J.Z., 16.11.08.

CIVILIZATION: Civilization, too, has its earmarks, and the orderly disposition of property through the medium of deeds, leases, wills, and other contractual arrangements is not only an earmark of civilization but an absolute prerequisite." - Edward P. Scharfenberger, THE FREEMAN, Aug. 74. - The citizen contract between a government and an individual is all too often ignored in such remarks. - J.Z., 2.5.94. – Here, too, “the good is the enemy of the best.” - MARKET, PROPERTY, CONTRACTS & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

CIVILIZATION: Civilized: Ramrod Straight For Freedom. - Standing unflinchingly for righteousness distinguishes a civilized man from a barbarian." – Leonard E. Read, Vision. – Rightenousness can mean quite unjustified intolerance – as long a all the genuine individual rights and liberties are not sufficiently defined and known through a corresponding declaration of human rights. – J.Z., 9.11.10. – RIGHTEOUSNESS, HUMAN RIGHTS, RIGHTS& LIBERTIES

CIVILIZATION: Commandment Number One of any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different." David Grayson.

CIVILIZATION: Exterritorial autonomy, first of all for all volunteers who are already sufficiently civilized, that is moral, reasonable and enlightened and thus correspondingly tolerant towards tolerant actions. They are to set up the civilizing examples for others to be followed. Their examples might be followed more rapidly and with greater success than the Westminster System was. - In other words, full individual liberty for all those already sufficiently grown up, mature and informed. That freedom would also pay them handsomely. Even if for no other reason, it would be imitated. - J.Z., 2.5.94. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIENCE, EXPERIMENTATION, FREEDOM OF ACTION

CIVILIZATION: human development in its richest diversity." - Wilhelm v. Humboldt, quoted by J. St. Mill, on title page of ON LIBERTY. – The richest diversity cannot be provided territorially. – J.Z., 9.11.10. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

CIVILIZATION: I want them to go on being scum, if it's what they want. But they ..., everyone ..., should have the chance for something better. That's what civilization is all about. That's what I want." - W. R. Thompson, Outlaw, in ANALOG, 10/90, p. 169. - Choice, Chance, Panarchy.

CIVILIZATION: If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” - Thomas Sowell. – As long as we do not allow dissenting individuals and minority groups to secede we are not yet sufficiently civilized and all too prepared to use wrongful force, i.e., we are still barbarians or tolerate this kind of barbarism. – J.Z., 23.1.08. - DEFENCE AGAINST BARBARISM, WARFARE, TOTAL WAR, DIS., DESERTION, PRISONER OF WAR TREATMENT, WAR AIMS

CIVILIZATION: In a word, the truly civilized person is a devotee of freedom; he opposes all man-concocted restraints against the release of creative human energy." – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p. 21. – If he is not a freedom advocate and practitioner then at least he ought to be a tolerant and voluntaristic panarchist, doing his things only to himself and like-minded people. E.g., we can go along peacefully with monks and nuns and communist-minded intentional community volunteers. – No enforced equality for all under one legal system, even if it is only that of a limited but still territorial government. – There are xyz varieties even of anarchism and libertarianism, not to speak of statism. To each his own choice, in this respect as well! – People have also the right not to be creative or even destructive, as far as their own energy and property is concerned. – Let them make their own mistakes – and suffer the consequences. - J.Z., 16.11.08. – PANARCHISM, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, RIGHT TO RENOUNCE CERTAIN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES AS FAR AS THE OWN AFFAIRS ARE CONCERNED

CIVILIZATION: In the history of man, there have been a few civilized individuals but no civilized community, not one, ever."- W. H. Auden, I Believe, 19 Personal Philosophies, p.12. - Civilization cannot be built upon the basis of a coercive territorial monopoly. - Panarchy. - J.Z., 2.5.95.

CIVILIZATION: it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not possess and because each individual's use of his particular knowledge may serve to assist others unknown to him in achieving their ends that men as members of civilized society can pursue their individual ends so much more successfully than they could alone.” - F. A. Hayek – If only we were already so free that we could already apply all our knowledge, alone or together with like-minded people. – The common experience with producer and consumer sovereignty has still to be applied to political, economic and social systems and their laws and organizations. – J.Z., 23.1.08. – Even Hayek seemed to have lacked that awareness - except in the monetary sphere. – J.Z., 13.11.08, - 9.11.10. - KNOWLEDGE, PANARCHISM

CIVILIZATION: John Stuart Mill argues this point persuasively in 'Representative Government'. He there points out that 'FREE INSTITUTIONS ADVANCE CIVILIZATION, BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A FREE TESTING GROUND FOR THE ACTIVE SPIRIT.'" - Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, 146. - Alas, Friedrich, too, although a friend of Prof. Heinrich Rittershausen, who was a friend of Ulrich von Beckerath, did not advocate exterritorially autonomous, i.e., quite free institutions, for voluntary members. He stuck with the territorial and limited government model of democracies. The same applies to Dr. Walter Zander & to Henry Meulen, also long-term friends of Ulrich von Beckerath. Under present institutions for ideas, important ideas are not even sufficiently communicated between close friends, even when they are all very intelligent people. That is what makes institutions like an Ideas Archive and an Encyclopaedia of the Best Refutations of Popular Errors, Myths and Prejudices - and a Complete Freedom Library on CD-ROMs, as well as a comprehensive handbook on monetary freedom - so very important for the advancement of civilization. Not even advocates of degrees of monetary freedom have so far managed to enlighten each other sufficiently on this subject, largely because most of its literature is not accessible and not even mentioned in reference works. They actually refuse to participate in a comprehensive enlightenment effort on the subject - by wanting to rely largely on their own and limited knowledge, or that of a few and want to confine themselves to popular writings. - That is not the way to advance the science of society or of money or general enlightenment. If it were, we might as well burn all large or special libraries. Databanks and scholarly publications do have their uses and values - even though they may never be popular. - J.Z., 1.10.02. - FREEDOM, PROGRESS, PANARCHISM

CIVILIZATION: John Stuart Mill argues this point persuasively in 'Representative Government'. He there points out that 'FREE INSTITUTIONS ADVANCE CIVILIZATION, BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A FREE TESTING GROUND FOR THE ACTIVE SPIRIT.'" - Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, 146. - See Freedom, Progress. - Alas, Friedrich, too, although a friend of Prof. Heinrich Rittershausen, who was a friend of Ulrich von Beckerath, did not advocate exterritorially autonomous, i.e., quite free institutions, for voluntary members. He stuck with the territorial and limited government model of democracies. The same applies to Dr. Walter Zander & to Henry Meulen, also long-term friends of Ulrich von Beckerath. Under present institutions for ideas, important ideas are not even sufficiently communicated between friends. That is what makes institutions like an Ideas Archive and an Encyclopaedia of the Best Refutations of Popular Errors, Myths and Prejudices - and a Complete Freedom Library on CD-ROMs, as well as a comprehensive handbook on monetary freedom - so very important for the advancement of civilization. Not even advocates of degrees of monetary freedom have so far managed to enlighten each other sufficiently on this subject, largely because most of its literature is not accessible and not even mentioned in reference works. They actually refuse to participate in a comprehensive enlightenment effort on the subject - by wanting to rely largely on their own and limited knowledge, or that of a few and want to confine themselves to popular writings. - That is not the way to advance the science of society or of money or general enlightenment. If it were, we might as well burn all large or special libraries. Databanks and scholarly publications do have their uses and values - even though they may never be popular. - J.Z., 1.10.02. - J. S. MILL, PROGRESS, ENLIGHTENMENT, EXPERIMENTATION, EXTERRITORIAQL AUTONOMY, CARL J. FRIEDRICH, DR. WALTER ZANDER, Prof. HEINRICH RITTERSHAUSEN, HENRY MEULEN, COMMUNICATION BETWEEN FRIENDS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, TRANSMISSION OF IMPORTANT IDEAS, COMPLETE FREEDOM LIBRARY, CD PROJECT, FREEDOM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES

CIVILIZATION: people will usually choose civilization if they have the choice." - Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.134. - If they want anything else, let them have it, but only among themselves and at their risk and expense. - J.Z., 2.5.94.

CIVILIZATION: Territorial governments are the greatest coercive and monopolistic and destructive forces that are organized against any true civilization or free society. - J.Z., 2.5.94.

CIVILIZATION: The best test of the standard of civilization, to quote Acton again, is the provision that is made for minorities."- G. P. Gooch, Dictatorship in Theory and Practice, p.38.

CIVILIZATION: The essential characteristic of Western civilization that distinguishes it from the arrested and petrified civilizations of the East was and is its concern for freedom from the State. The history of the West, from the age of the Greek city State down to the present-day resistance to socialism, is essentially the history of the fight for liberty against the encroachments of the officeholders." - Prof. Ludwig von Mises. – Alas, he did not advocate secession from them and full exterritorial autonomy for secessionists of all kind. We need full freedom of choice to advance as far as we can and want to. – J.Z., 9.11.10.

CIVILIZATION: The fundamental social value in Western civilization is individual liberty." - Rev. Edmund Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 12/75. – A complete and ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties is long overdue. The governmental ones are all too flawed and incomplete. – It, combined with an ideal militia organization for its defence, full monetary and financial freedom and panarchism, might become the great civilizing forces. – Without them we might perish in the ultimate general holocaust through the mass murder devices of territorialism. - J.Z., 16.11.08.

CIVILIZATION: the greatest problem of the future is civilizing the human race; but we know that already.” - Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future, Book Club Associates, London, 1983, 177. – Civilizing its institutions, building them upon individual rights and liberties rather than upon territorial power, may be enough to improve the behavior of most men, gradually to fast, into that of truly civilized human beings. We are as much captives of territorial institutions as are e.g. convicts in maximum security prisons and conscripts in the armed forces. As victims of such coercive institutions they are, as a rule, not improved as human beings. The liberating political institutions that would fit the diverse human natures and inclinations and civilize their members, as fast as possible for human beings, have mostly still to be established. They would have to be the very opposite of the territorial power institutions. They would have to be freely chosen by their members to have the maximum positive, i.e., enlightening and progress promoting effects upon them – and the outside observers of them. Religions and ethical theories can only change man so far. Institutional changes are required and these institutions should be optional for all human beings aggressors and other criminals with victims excepted. – Territorial institutions with compulsory memberships and subordination bring out the worst in all too many. Exterritorially autonomous institutions with voluntary membership tend to bring out the best in everybody. – Nevertheless, most people are still blind to this alternative, although they act already daily as panarchist in much of their private lives. – In public affairs panarchism or polyarchism is as much required as it is privately and it will have the same progress, enlightenment, peace and wealth promoting results. - J.Z., 29.9.07. - HUMAN RACE & ITS INSTITUTIONS, EXTERRITORIAL VS. TERRITORIAL, VOLULTARY VS. COERCIVE ONES

CIVILIZATION: the highest civilization, materially and in character, has as a matter of fact been developed when there has been the most individualism." - Bliss, Encyclopaedia of Social Reform, quoting the Biological Argument.

CIVILIZATION: The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; ..." – Thomas Paine, Common Sense. – Was there ever any justification or real need for an imposed territorial government? – J.Z., 9.11.10. - SCHISM, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, RULERS, GOVERNMENT

CIVILIZATION: We live in a changing world about which our knowledge is incomplete, and we are finding that the key to civilization is not technology but wisdom." – Leonard E. Read, Talking to Myself, 26. - I admired him in many respects - but he was not informed or wise enough to see beyond the limited framework of a single "limited" but still territorial government for all people in a "country" or "nation" or "federation". I have never seen him replying to Spencer's "Right to Ignore the State". - J.Z., 2.5.94.

CIVILIZATION: Western civilization is not moribund as a result of the failure of its social organisation; (*) it is far more probably moribund through the failure of the individual to assert his resistance to organisation of an irresponsible kind." - Alex Comfort, quoted in Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.587. - (*) An organization based on a territorial monopoly is neither social nor civilized but makes for violence and coercion. Individual secessionism is perhaps the most important act of resistance, - if combined with competition from exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, and the protection of individual rights by ideal militia forces organized and motivated in accordance with these liberties. Every other political, policing and military form of organization is of an irresponsible kind. - - J.Z., 2.5.94, 1.10.02. – PANARCHY, HUMAN RIGHTS, MILITIA

CIVILIZATION: What is the opposite of Utopia?" - Hell? - "No, not hell - civilization!" - Robert Frost, in August 1944, to an audience at Bread Loaf. - Compare what Kant said on the value of utopias as drafts for a free society. - J.Z. 2.5.94. – We might arrive at a genuine civilization only through the free and tolerant practice of all kinds of utopias – among their adherents only. – J.Z., 16.11.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS.

CIVILIZATION: While scholars tend to refer to the emergence of the city and the beginning of urban living as the advent of 'civilization', I do not. To me, civilized life depends on freedom, on peace, on voluntary exchange, on the use of reason and understanding whether one lives in city apartment, suburban dwelling, or rural farm. We can no longer afford the luxury of fighting wars to obtain peace, nor of enslaving some so that others can be free." - LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Fall 75. - I hold that tyrants ought to be executed or enslaved - so that their victims can be freed. - A fight against a tyrant does not require a war. On the contrary, it must absolutely avoid a war against "his" country, "his" nation, "his" people, or even against his system or ideology, by aiming at full exterritorial autonomy for all volunteers, provided only they have not been mass murderers. And even then, in an age of ABC mass murder devices, one might have to grant such beasts of prey, in human form, amnesty, anonymity & protection, if they surrender at least one ABC mass murder device. - J.Z., 1.10.02. – Ulrich von Beckerath used to remark that full monetary freedom could come to spread from a single village where it is free to be experimented with for a sufficient period. However, a comprehensive monetary freedom revolution might be easier to organize in a large city which has hundred-thousands of unemployed or millions of inflation victims – just before another election. Then the contending parties may not dare to suppress these self-help experiments but rather jump on the band wagon. – J.Z., 16.11.08.

CLAIMS: We also reject the idea that people have an enforceable claim on others, for anything more than being left alone. A libertarian society would have no welfare, no social security system. People who wished to aid others would do so voluntarily through private charity, instead of using money collected by force from the taxpayers. People who wished to provide for their old age would do so through private insurance." - D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, XIII. - Why do so many overlook the alternatives of credit and mutual aid arrangements on a contractual or voluntary community basis? - J.Z., 2.5.94. – Under personal laws and full experimental freedom, including exterritorial autonomy, all kinds of self-help methods for individuals and volunteers do become possible and are likely to become experimented with. Then, I very much doubt, that the trend would be to a single territorial “welfare” State. – J.Z., 6.11.08.


CLASS: It seems more reasonable to suppose that there is no ruling class, that we are ruled, rather, by a myriad of quarrelling gangs, constantly engaged in stealing from each other to the great impoverishment of their own members as well as the rest of us." - D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p. 211. His kind of Machinery for Freedom! – J.Z. – TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, WARFARE STATES VS. INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, RICH, WEALTH, CAPITALISM, CONSPIRACY, WELFARE STATE, PLUNDERBUND, CLASS WARFARE? RULING CLASS?.

CLASS: Since government departments and local authorities now employ millions, we are in two quite distinct classes, those who issue forms and those who have to fill them up." - Sir Ernest Benn, The State the Enemy, 116. - If on top of this slave labor, I did not have to pay and obey them that much, I would not mind this so much. - J.Z., 2.5.94. – Those who pass and administer the territorial laws and institutions and those who are forced to abide by them. – Let dissenting individuals and minorities groups secede and do their own things, exterritorially autonomous! – J.Z., 16.11.08.

CLASS: The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." (*) - Lord Acton, Letter to Mary Gladstone, April 24, 1881. – (*) territorially! – J.Z., 9.11.10. - GOVERNMENT, RULERS, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM

CLASS: the U.S. is developing into a rigid class society, with two major classes: producers and parasites... there are now more people on the government pay rolls and relief rolls than there are employed in business and industry." – SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 12/76. – The tax payers and other victims of wrongful laws and institutions are not yet suitably armed, trained and organized, nor sufficiently informed about their individual rights and liberties, to uphold them effectively, best by simply seceding from the rulers and other parasites. – J.Z., 16.11.08. -TAX STRIKE, EXPLOITATION, TAXATION, WELFARE STATE, BUREAUCRACY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION

CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES: To my knowledge, most of the libertarian classification schemes for Ideologies and their institutions (are all of them already sufficiently anthologized, and discussed?) do still exclude the panarchistic options. Who will be the first to clearly point them out in this way? - J.Z., 19.8.11. - I have long wished to compile and publish a collection of all of them, but never got around to even to utilizing all the notes and references I have compiled in a manila folder. By now, through the Internet, this collection and publishing should be much easier. But I doubt that I will still get around to make a start with this project. If a libertarian projects list existed already online, then this project, too, could become fast supported by many, towards its completion. - J.Z., 17.10.11.


CLAUSS, WOLFRAM, Subjektives Recht. Zur Theorie privater Sicherheitsdienstleistungen. eigentümlich frei - Nr. 9 (1/2000), - STATE, SECURITY, PROTECTION

CLEANING UP THE STATE? If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygone, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State, so that it might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; you cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting for one 'good government' after another, and what have we got?" - Frank Chodorov, Out of Step, p.48. - - Not yet its limitation to voluntary members and to exterritorial autonomy only. - J.Z., 1.10.02. – One might as wells try to “clean up” a dung hill. – J.Z., 12.12.11. - PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM

CLEYRE, VOLTAIRINE DE, Anarchism. 1901. - GPdB: Following the suggestion of Richard Johnsson … an essay by the anarchist Voltairine de Cleyre has been recently added to the list under the URL In that essay Voltairine writes: "There are, accordingly, several economic schools among Anarchists; there are Anarchist Individualists, Anarchist Mutualists, Anarchist Communists and Anarchist Socialists. In times past these several schools have bitterly denounced each other and mutually refused to recognize each other as Anarchists at all. ... [H]owever, this old narrowness is yielding to the broader, kindlier and far more reasonable idea, that all these economic ideas may be experimented with, and there is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of them until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to. ... Therefore I say that each group of persons acting socially in freedom may choose any of the proposed systems, and be just as thorough-going Anarchists as those who select another." - For statists, who do no longer claim a territorial monopoly for their various utopian ideals, the same freedom and tolerance should be demanded and tolerated by all kinds of anarchists. - J.Z., 25.9.11.

CLIFFE, R A.: Africa: No easy solution, SMH, 5 Feb. 83, with reply by J. Zube, 2pp, 17, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. - As usual in newspaper articles, the panarchistic alternative was overlooked. - J.Z., 28.8.04.


CO-TERRITORIAL, PRIVATE PROPERTY, CORPORATION & SHARE COMPANY REAL ESTATE: From: "Christian Butterbach",, - To: "Thomas L. Knapp",, et al: Subject: PS 2 to libertarianism revisited, 29 August 2003. - Extract only: Today, for the first time, I ran, and even twice, into the expression "co-territorial", namely on both sites I was talking about (the one I criticized and the one I praised). According to the context, it seems to mean something more or less identical to exterritorial or panarchist. This is very good news. This essential concept seems to finally after all enter the general discussion or awareness in libertarian circles. And if people succeed in being consistent with it, it could greatly "fertilize" the advancement of our cause. Quite different from that example in one article on "Libertarian Underground" by that Charles McDowell ("Possible Contradictions in Libertarian Thought"), where Microsoft buys the whole of Wyoming and the vote of the majority of the shareholders determines what is being done on that whole territory. Based on property of the ground. What would be the difference here with what the government does? Here one can clearly see how people having started with wanting to be enemies of the states transform themselves unwittingly into defenders of the basic principles of the state, by having too few principles, one of them being a certain definition of "property" of which they have made an idol. As a libertarian you can become more totalitarian and monopolistic than any of our enemies. It is great time to re-assess our basic values and sort out our mentors, discover new ones. -  - There are two kinds of principles. The ones that are universal and can and should be applied everywhere, and those that have good results only if they are applied in the area or at the level where they really are adequate. We humans (libertarians and liberals alike) have the tendency to apply this second kind of more limited principles in areas where they can only destroy what they have built in the areas where they are right. This is certainly true of the concepts of "market" and "property". If libertarians started to differentiate, they could find a common ground with the honest better part of the left and advance things. Whereas now they are mainly advancing the Establishment." - At least the owners of land in Wyoming would have voluntarily sold their land to Microsoft at prices attractive to them. - J.Z., 19.9.11. - PRINCIPLES, PROPERTY IN LAND, IDEAS, NAMES, DEFINITIONS, INVENTIONS, WAVELENGTHS, VIRUSES ETC., GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES VS. WELFARE RIGHTS OR HUMAN RIGHTS AS DEFINED BY MODERN LIBERALS OR OTHER TERRITORIAL STATISTS.

COAKLEY, JOHN, Approaches to the Resolution of Ethnic Conflict: The Strategy of Non-Territorial Autonomy. - Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 297-314. - (article consists of 18 pages) Published by: Stable URL: JSTOR Home - This Item is Available for Purchase. Purchase this article from the publisher for $19.00 USD. - ISSN-01925121 - More Rights Options - JSTOR Terms And Conditions - For information about individual subscriptions for this title, please visit the Individual Access page. For information about institutional access to this title, please visit the Institutional Subscriptions page. - International Political Science Review /... - Vol. 15, No. 3, Jul., 1994 - You are viewing the first page/citation. Full-text access may be available if you are affiliated with a participating library or publisher. Check access options or login if you have an account. - - ABSTRACT: Given the essentially territorial nature of the state, it has sometimes been assumed that attempts to resolve ethnic conflict by devolving power to ethnic groups must follow territorial lines. The present article assesses an alternative, "non-territorial", approach that has had some limited success as a device for the resolution of ethnic conflict. The origins of this approach may be traced back to the traditions of certain pre-modern states. A more systematic scheme of non-territorial autonomy appropriate to the modern state was elaborated in Austria-Hungary during its last years, and some instances of its attempted application may be seen immediately before and after the First World War. In the contemporary world, elements of this approach have been present in efforts to resolve the problems of indigenous minorities and in systems of consociational governments. - -  L'Etat ayant une vocation territoriale, on en déduit parfois que la solution des conflits ethniques passe par l'utilisation de la frontière et de la dévolution des pouvoirs. L'article évalue les possibilités qu'offre l'alternative offerte par des solutions non-territoriales dont le succès n'a été, jusqu'alors, que limité. Ayant leurs antécédents dans l'Etat pré-moderne (Empire Ottoman notamment) ces solutions ont été élaborées dans les dernières années de l'Empire Austro-hongrois et dans les décennies qui précèdent ou suivent immédiatement la première guerre mondiale. On retrouve des éléments de ces dernières solutions dans de récents projets destinés à résoudre les problèmes aborigènes comme dans certains types de structures 'consociationnelles'. - - INTRODUCTION: It is often assumed that the devolution of political and administrative responsibility from the central state to minority ethnic groups is feasible only when this is carried out on a territorial basis, and that it is therefore realistic only in the case of groups that are territorially concentrated. While territorial concentration may, indeed, be a characteristic of many (or even most) ethnic groups, it is not true of all; and if it is seen as a procondition [that should, probably, be precondition. - J.Z.] of ethnic devolution, a considerable number of minorities must be prepared to accept that they are unlikely ever to win any kind of autonomy. - - The object of this article is to examine an alternative, "non-territorial", type of autonomy and to illustrate it by reference to groups where its applicability is or … - - 0192-5121 94/03 297-018 © 1994 International Political Science Association. - - International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique © 1994 Sage Publications, Ltd. - JSTOR Home - About - Search - Browse - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy - Accessibility - Help - Contact us - JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization helping the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways. ©2000-2011 ITHAKA. All Rights Reserved. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA.

COERCION: By no process can coercion be made equitable. The freest form of government is only the least objectionable form." - Herbert Spencer. - Only those governments and societies that practise merely exterritorial autonomy among their volunteers - have finally achieved their least objectionable form. - J.Z., 1.10.02. - PANARCHISM.

COERCION: Coercion - the attempt to compel people to associate with others..." - Orval V. Watts, THE FREEMAN, I/76, p. 57. - Sometimes also the attempt to compel people not to associate with others. E.g. Nuremberg Laws interdicting inter-racial marriages and compulsory racial segregation laws and practices. - J.Z., 3.6.94. - Sometimes also the enforcement of non-association by "liquidation", "ethnic cleansing" of "final solutions". - "Und willst Du nicht mein Bruder sein, so schlag ich Dir den Schaedel ein!" (“If you don't want to be my brother, I will bash your head in!” - German proverb.)– INTOLERANCE, TOLERANCE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY SEGREGATION

COERCION: Especially in economics nobody is authorised to impose any coercive system upon his fellow citizens. He may not even impose a free market system. - J.Z., on Tolerance. - Free after several similar remarks by Ulrich von Beckerath.

COERCION: The coercive power of government shall not be permitted (has no right) to be used for any purpose other than that of minimising coercion in human affairs, i.e. for any purpose other than that generally described in the phrase, 'law and order'." - B. R. Rogge, in THE FREEMAN, 3/75. - That is the statist delusion. The involvement of any territorial government with compulsory membership and exclusive sovereignty, even if only in a supposedly limited sphere, tends to multiply coercion. The bloody and very wrong (on both sides) Civil War of the Disunited States of America was the result of "limited" governments interacting - in the usual governmental way. - J.Z., 3.6.94.

COERCION: The State always means coercion." - Mises, Omnipotent Government, p.136. – The territorial State. An exterritorial one could use coercion only towards its voluntary victims, like a monastery disciplining its wayward monks or nuns. – Voluntary soldiers and officers are also under military discipline. – J.Z., 9.11.10.

COERCION: There can be no talk of rights and duties where contracts are concluded under coercion. Unjustified coercion and aggressive force release from any tie to a so-called society, whose executive agents one knows only as administrators, legislators, judges and policemen.” - E. Armand in LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, No. 4. - Such contracts are not contracts. Such societies are not societies. Such agents are not agents. Such representatives do not represent. Such legislators do not provide law. Such administrators do not administrate. Such policemen do not police. Such judges do not judge. Let each, instead, have the government or the no-government society of his or her dreams. Then all such terms, roles and positions will finally become just and meaningful. - J.Z., 3.6.94.

COERCION: There is only one such principle that can preserve a free society: namely, the strict prevention of all coercion except in the enforcement of general abstract rules equally applicable to all." - F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty. - These general rules ought to be reduced to a minimum. They must be just. They must apply only to people with a minimum of rationality - enough to understand them. And they must be explained with many concrete examples. I think that a greatly improved and complete code of individual rights and liberties could provide these abstract rules. Moreover, these rules ought to be unanimously approved by all people with a minimum of rationality. Until such a utopian ideal and the exceptions from it can be clearly expressed and are generally consented to, it should not be coercively applied, either - except within volunteer communities and in their defence. Individuals should be free to secede from any of the present territorial communities, when they have not aggressed already against any individual rights and liberties of involuntary victims. But I somewhat doubt that Hayek thought of the enforcement of individual rights and liberties - among those who consented to them and against those who violate them in others, who are not voluntary members of the community to which the aggressors belong. When Nazis, communist and religious fanatics violate only the individual rights of their own voluntary members then this is their affairs. From this I would except only children and would grant them unconditional asylum, if they ask for help. Our best societies might now be ready for even military intervention in case of child murder or ritual sacrifice but definitely not yet to prevent the abortion of unborn children. - Personally, I would rather concede to them the right to life than to convicted criminals. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 2.6.94. - They had their chance and messed it up. - J.Z., 1.10.02.

COERCION: they resort to coercion to get their way! Unable to reform others by a blink of the eyes, they try to implant their 'wisdom' by physical force - 'Do as we say, or else!' They seize the police power of government and use it to serve their devious and contradictory ends - frustrated genies with guns!" - L. E. Read, Having My Way, 150. - Alas, mostly they are not even very intelligent. Has anyone ever measured the intelligence of Communist Party members and functionaries compared with the IQ of the average population and that of all other "intellectuals" or "reformers"? There was much opposition against measuring the IQ or other capacities of different races. For now, in parts of the "Free" World, it should be safe enough to make such comparisons. To me many of the long-term communists look a bit simple-minded but not as good-natured as e.g. the Sallies. I would like to see some figures to back up my visual and subjective and probably biased impressions. - J.Z., 1.10.02. – INTOLERANCE, INTELLIGENCE, COMMUNISTS, TERRITORIALISM, UNIFORMITY, COERCIVE UTOPIANS, PROHIBITION, ANTI-DRUG LAWS

COEXISTENCE, PEACE, PROGRESSS & PANARCHISM: Panarchism is the organizational prerequisite for peaceful coexistence and assured and rapid progress. - J.Z., 04-11.

COEXISTENCE, PEACEFUL & MILLET SYSTEM: See: ZUBE, JOHN, Peaceful Coexistence through the Millet System versus aggressive and oppressive Nationalism, plan 200, page 22, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507.

COEXISTENCE: alter our methods of coexistence away from power politics." - Michael Bishop, Cabinet Meeting, in ASIMOV'S SF MAGAZINE, Nor. 2, Summer 77. - That cannot be done upon the model of territorial sovereignty and compulsion but only upon the model of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. -J.Z., 3.6.94. - Peaceful coexistence through exterritorial autonomy & voluntarism! - J.Z., 1.10.02.

COEXISTENCE: The only alternative to co-existence is co-destruction." - Pandit Nehru, quoted in OBSERVER, 29 Aug 54. - "The alternative to coexistence is co-destruction." - quoted on radio, 8.10.76. - Probably millions of pages have been written on "coexistence" on the basis of supposedly peaceful territorial sovereignty and separatism. But almost the only pages that proposed clearly the exterritorial alternative of coexistence, and its possibility and rightfulness, appeared in my PEACE PLANS pages and afterwards, some, largely upon my urging, in some obscure journals. When will this plain alternative be finally become fully discussed, even in the mass media and in the academe? Compare my ON PANARCHY sub-series. - J.Z., 3.6.94. - Visit: &

COEXISTENCE: With political power one cannot peacefully coexist. - J.Z., 20.11.78. - Nowadays I always tend to add: "territorial" to "power" or other related terms. - J.Z., 3.6.94.

COEXISTENCIALISM: A French researcher is making a political campaign all over India to present the most innovative political concept since communism.* The most revolutionary project of the XXI century will start not in US or Europe but in India. Anybody may take the chance to create a government in the state of Bihar (East India) as easily as one can register a company. A new step towards freedom will be crossed as any new revolutionary political concepts can lead to a new administration and a new government. The biggest historical step of transfer of power from politician to entrepreneurs will be done! Sociology will really become a practical science and you can help us to bring the concept of *competitive non-territory based government* will enter into the public debate. How can it work? The fact to be “citizen” of a competitive government means that a citizen would have to pay their taxes to the government they choose instead of paying them to the state of Bihar. This will be a major concession done by the local government of Bihar. The concession would be all over a territory of 50 kilometer around the city of Jamshedpur and during 10 years. As all political tendencies are represented in this area, we can to see numerous political innovations. The project will make it possible for every body to be administrated by a*government who shares the same values*. Why is it the best way to find an efficient administration for India ? Then, people will able to change from one government to another. This will induce a necessary mechanism of selection. Th*is selection* between the governments should guarantee the only the less *corrupted governments* and with the most *efficient administrations* will survive. According to the manager of CPCE who have a master degree in econometry and financial mathematics, this would give to the state of Bihar a competitive edge, which will help us to become the most *dynamic state* of India. The members of the surviving governments might then take their chance to run for the succeeded in the national election. To understand how multiple governments can exist and compete on the same territory, please connect to the web site of the CPCE at: *The petition* The CPCE is in charge to evaluate the public interest for this project for the state of Bihar, and so if in answering to this *petition*, you will help us to prove the public interest for such an event: NAME: ADDRESS: ZIP: ____________________ TOWN: _____________________ TEL: ______________________ EMAIL: _______________________________ PROFESSION:____________________________ EXTRA INFORMATIONS: (If journalist, specify the name of the newspaper, radio, web site, …) _____________________________________________________________________ *Email:*  *Seminary and interview* The president of CPCE is free for interview, discussion and seminary everywhere in India. You can invite him at: *Email:* - Probably another failed project. He did not reply to my email of 22.8.11. - J.Z., 13.10.11. - See ARCHYTAS, HECTOR

COF (SOF) OF THE BERBERS: Plan 210, page 15, in PEACE PLANS 12: Peace Promotion among the Berbers - through Exterritorial & Voluntary Associations, compiled by John Zube. Does anyone know of other and better sources and more details on this historical experience? - J.Z., 30. 8. 04. - ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA: 1958: Kabyles, contains a note on the characteristic pairing of their protective associations for political activities, the "sof" OR "COF". - See also PEACE PLANS No. 12, plan 201.

COF or SOF of the Berbers: In my German edition of Peter Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid", on pages 133/134 (4th chapter), I found references to a nowadays rare respect for peaceful exchanges and to the tradition of an exterritorial and competitive form of organization, the "Cof": … "Only in passing I can mention two other, very interesting traits of the life of the Kabyles, their "anaya" or the protection granted in the case of war to wells, canals, churches, market places and some roads - and the "cofs". - The "Anaya" includes a number of institutions as well for the reduction of the evil of war as for the prevention of conflicts. Thus the marketplace is "anaya", especially if situated in frontier areas and a contact point between Kabyles and foreigners. Nobody is permitted to disturb the peace of the market and whenever unrest arises it is immediately suppressed by all the outsiders who visited the market town. The road on which the women walk from the village to the well is likewise "anaya" in wartime, etc. - - … "With regard to the "Cof", it is a widespread form of association, with some resemblance to the medieval corporations or guilds and with associations for mutual assistance and for various other purposes - mental, political or emotional - which cannot be fulfilled through the territorial organization of the village, the clan or the tribe. The "Cof" knows no territorial borders. It finds its members in various villages, even among foreigners and it protects them in all possible situations of life. Altogether it is an attempt to supplement the territorial organization through one independent of territories, a form expressing the contacts of all kinds across all frontiers. The free international association according to individual inclinations and ideas - which we regard as one of the best traits of our own life - has thus its origin in barbaric ancient times. - -  … "The mountain tribes of Caucasia are another, very instructive example of the same kind. Through the study of the present-day customs of the Ossets - their family associations, communities and legal concepts - Prof. Kowalewsky in his important book 'Moderne Sitten und Altes Recht' (Modern Customs & Ancient Law) was enabled to trace pace for pace the corresponding rules of the old law books…" - - Page 157: "The Kabyles have their village community; but as this unity is not sufficient for all political, commercial and personal unification attempts, they founded the closer brotherhoods of the 'Cof’." - - In a travel book on life among the Berbers, published around 1900, called "Lybian Notes" - I possess the photocopy of a chapter I am interested in but lost the slip with the author's name, publishing house, etc., and will have to find these again on my next Sydney visit (I never did, I believe. - J.Z., 28.6.01.) - (Page 4) - I found some very interesting details of their limited, local democratic government and federation concept, both with a minimum restriction of autonomy and without majority despotism - and some further notes on the Cof. The author states that his source of information was the work of General Hanoteau and M. Letourneux, "La Kabylie et les Coutumes Kabyles", Paris, Challamel, 1893, in 3 vols. - Page 17: "Before dealing with the constitution of the Thaddard it is necessary to refer to an organization which disturbs the self-centred isolation of the village and brings it into contact with its neighbours. This is the Sof, a term which may be rendered 'Fraternity'. It is a league of individuals who covenant to render mutual aid to one another in all cases of necessity. 'Assist your own in right or wrong' is the native adage which has been adopted by such associations. Every village is divided into two opposed Sofs, and, as these are seldom equally matched in respect of numbers or of strength, it is common for them to ally themselves with similar fraternities in neighbouring villages, until the league may have ramifications extending through entire districts and may even embrace tribes which are not included within the same confederation. Gradually, however, the various tribes have tended to form groups, and it is only those which are included within a group of this kind that enter into reciprocal relations with one another. - With the walls of the village the members of a Sof are united by the closest of bonds. The honour and advantage of the Sof rank paramount above all personal interests; and even those ties of kinship which knit the members of a Kabyle family so firmly to one another, are violated if the claims of the Fraternity demand such a sacrifice. If a man has a quarrel with another and the Sof decides to espouse his cause, he may feel safe alike from the vengeance of individuals and from the justice of the law; his fellow-members will support him with every resource from perjury to murder. Yet, devoted as he is to his Fraternity, so long as he remains a member of it, the Kabyle thinks little of transferring his allegiance. His adherence is dictated purely by self-interest, and once convinced that his Sof is no longer affording him the advantages which he expects from it, he will at once desert it in favour of another. - With the extension of its range beyond the village, the cohesion of the Fraternity is to some extent weakened. Members of a Sof will, for instance, send armed contingents to support their fellow-members of another village in time of civil war but, unless the quarrel has a more than merely local interest, they will expect to be paid at a suitable money-rate for their assistance. On the other hand, there is no limit to the liberality which fellow-members display in matters other than the bearing of arms. They will freely supply money and provisions to their partisans in another village, and should the fortune of war drive the latter from their homes, they will of their own accord turn out in festal procession to bid them welcome, and will receive them with cordial and unstinting hospitality.- The funds of the Sof are supported by subscriptions which it raises from its members, and the administration of them is entrusted to the heads of the organization, who are not even expected to give account of sums disbursed on secret service, but only of such payments as can be fearlessly admitted and discussed without reserve. The heads of the Sof are called 'Irfaouen-n-es-Sof'. (Note that the word Sof is also Arabic, not Berber.) They are naturally persons of great importance, generally members of powerful families, and always men of sufficient private wealth to be able to meet the various calls which may be made upon them and to subscribe largely to the funds of the Fraternity. - BERBERS, SOF, KABYLES, KROPOTKIN, ANAYA, CAUCASUS MOUNTAIN TRIBES, Prof. KOWALEWSKY.

COHEN, MARK R.: Jewish Self-Government in Medieval Egypt. The Origins of the Office of Head of the Jews, ca. 1065-1126, Princeton U.P., 1980, 386pp, indexed, with an appendix on the Geniza Corpus and 22pp of bibliography of cited works. JZL. Of this bibliography I include here only a few titles of those in which the relevance is already clearly expressed in the title. - J.Z.

COLLABORATION: Able individuals do exist in large numbers. However, if they do not understand how to collaborate then they cannot do anything with each other." - Liae Dse, an ancient Chinese. – They must also be free to collaborate and experiment. In very important spheres territorial governments have monopolized experimentation and never learn sufficiently from their own mistakes. – J.Z., 10.11.10. - DIVISION OF LABOUR, ORGANISATION, ANARCHISM, CHAOS, ORDER, COOPERATION, LIBERTARIANS, ANARCHISTS. COMPARE PROJECTS LIKE THE SUPER COMPUTER PROJECT, THE IDEAS ARCHIVE, WORLD LIBRARY, LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY, LIBERTARIAN ENCYCLOPAEDIA, LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, CONTACTS, FINANCE PLAN (PP 19C), LIBERTARIAN BIBLIOGRAPHIES, ABSTRACTS, INDEXES, REVIEW COMPILATIONS, CD- PROJECT: CULTURAL REVOLUTION, ENLIGHTENMENT, PANARCHISM

COLLAPSE: Collapse is the sudden breaking down of the physical and mental energy of an organism. - The causes can be either a severe internal malfunctioning at the climax of an ever-accelerating deterioration, or an external blow (a catastrophic accident) that severely compromises or even puts an end to the existence of the organism. - With reference to a social organism we can differentiate these two eventualities as: internally engendered collapse - externally provoked collapse. - This differentiation is made only for analytical purposes and should not give the idea that the two aspects (internal-external) are neatly separated in reality. - As to the first eventuality, this is the situation likely to take place in a closed society after a very long period of decadence. A collapse is especially to be expected if the society is decaying while growing in size and complexity to the point of becoming unworkable. - Almost all advanced societies are, presently, semi-open societies in the sense that they are open up to a certain point; in fact there are still several barriers to the free circulation of individuals, goods, ideas. - These barriers are becoming more and more anachronistic and more and more difficult to enforce (especially as far as ideas and goods are concerned) because of the advancement and spread of technology. - So, the most likely scenario of collapse for an advanced society is a severe inner crisis provoked by external interventions in the form of catastrophic occurrences. - In this respect, it is worth remembering that the main rationale for the existence of the state is the defence of the realm and the protection of the population living in the realm. - However, since at least the Second World War and the massive use of the airplane for aerial bombing, the distinction between military and civil targets has practically disappeared. The bombing of Dresden (Germany) and Coventry (England) and especially the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Japan) have shown not only that the state cannot protect the citizens living under its sovereignty but that it might be the main source of situations that put in danger entire populations. - With the advancement of technology also in the area of weapons of mass destruction, the risks of insecurity provoked by the aggressive postures and actions of state governments have multiplied. - We have now reached the age of do-it-yourself bombs and mini atomic bombs assembled in a garage (like the first personal computers). With the coming onto the scene of personal bombs, to think that the (i.e. your) state can protect you from other individuals that are full of rage against the (i.e. your) state which is, more or less brutally, meddling in their lives or in the lives of their fellow human beings, is an idiotic illusion and a macabre joke. - A matter-of-fact analysis of this new development shows that some individuals are only attempting to replicate the strategy introduced by states during the Second World War (and employed in other conflicts, for instance the war in Vietnam) with the bombing of civil populations aimed at spreading terror, weakening morale and forcing the government of the civilian victims to surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the clearest example of that strategy. - In current times and with current technology, that strategy has fallen within the reach of any fully-determined individual who can assemble a personal bomb, in the same way as an expert hobbyist, with a relatively small amount of money, can assemble a personal computer. And as personal computers are as powerful as a mainframe of some time ago, so a personal bomb can/could be as destructive as an atomic bomb of some decades ago. - The collapse of an entire society caused by a small atomic bomb exploded in the centre of any large capital city whose state is carrying out an act of aggression (or what is perceived as an act of aggression or undue interference) is a highly likely eventuality. At the same time it is not an inevitable occurrence or something that is expected to happen in Sankt Gallen or Montecarlo. - Social scientists and especially state rulers are keeping quiet on all this or, what is worse, are sending misleading messages of a civilization under attack from evil forces, plagued by envy and cultural backwardness (see: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, 2005). - This denial of responsibility and self-absolution is, precisely, the attitude that will lead to a disastrous collapse. - The state is incubating/generating the loose destructive cannons/forces that will bring it down, together with everyone and everything around it. It is a suicide strategy, set in motion by paranoid and blind state rulers, and triggered into action by desperate human beings who think they are left with no other way out of their desperate rage. If both of these sets of people succeed in occupying centre stage, the collapse scenario will be the most likely ending for some advanced societies. - That is why we need to dispose quite soon of senseless state rulers and servile social scientists and have a myriad of reasoning social critics, whose unceasing task should be to help making everybody aware about: what might happen: a collapse of an advanced society caused by a man-made catastrophic event for which the technological means already exist and are within the reach of many determined individuals; why it might happen: the existence of aggressive state rulers with their bullying behaviour, masked by bogus good intentions; where it might happen: in the most delicate and complex nodes within those states, for instance in a big city bustling with life and with centres of administration and decision-making; what should be done for it not to happen: to reduce, as soon as possible, the power of territorial states to a bare minimum, prior to their definitive disposal, and to start replacing it with the widest development of other humane and sensible modes of personal and social organization. - If awareness about all these aspects could arise in a substantial number of people, in different places and walks of life, it would mean that we were not any longer under the nefarious influence of state rulers and their servants, the social scientists, and that the power of both was coming to an end. - In this case, the avoided collapse could be the prelude to a total regeneration. ). - Gian Piero de Bellis in: Scenarios for the Future. Scenarios for the Future - NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRORISM, HOME-BUILT NUCLEAR BOMBS, STATE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS AS USUAL, FRONTIERS, BORDERS, PROTECTIONISM, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS, MONETARY & FINANCIAL DESPOTISM

COLLAPSE: Too many economic reformers imagine the economy to collapse unless their particular rostrums or nostrums, (programs, medicines, panaceas, cure-alls) are practised. They use that fear and threat to peddle their particular "medicines" or nostrums. But people can "live" or survive somewhat, at least for a while, even in trenches, caves and slums, without immediately "collapsing". The question is not so much what medicines are to be used but how to restore all natural curative powers - which requires freedom to reject new as well as old and current nostrums. Free choice of doctors, even of quacks, and of medicines! Leave the poor patients alone and they are much less likely to come to the stage of their collapse. At most point out self-help possibilities and sources for sound advice and help. - J.Z., 7.6.82, 3.6.94. - TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, INTOLERANCE, CHOICE



COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: Any killing according to the principle of collective responsibility is murder, not punishment, regardless whether it is done e.g. by a Nazi against a Jew or by a Jew against a German or by anyone against any member of another group "just for being a member of that other group". Killing is mostly only justifiable in self-defence or as the execution of someone who is individually responsible for extreme crimes. - J.Z., 1.11.80. - The current continuous clashes between Arabs and Jews in and around Israel are on the Arab side consistently practised under collective responsibility notions, "authorising" or "justifying", to them, their terrorist actions against innocents, while on the Israeli side at least some attempts are made to single out the major Arab terrorists for counter-strikes, from assassinations to bombing attacks. However, this division is not pure, as was demonstrated e.g. when milk supply for babies in blockaded Palestinian villages was stopped. Israelis, too, have acted on this wrongful principle, at least in some cases - and I miss an open discussion and criticism of it on both sides. As well as a discussion on the exterritorial autonomy and voluntaristic alternatives and the monetary and financial freedom alternatives that could, to a large extent, eliminate the motives for terrorist actions based on collective responsibility notions. This in spite of the fact that Arabs as well as Jews in the area experienced prolonged and large degrees of exterritorial autonomy in their histories. Under modern territorial nationalism and compulsory mis-education this tradition has been largely forgotten. Both subscribe to the faith of territorialism. Both want to dominate whole countries or territories and their whole populations, quite exclusively. This must lead to frequent armed clashes and terror acts, especially when many people, at least on one side, do not even subscribe to religious liberty and tolerance as yet. - J.Z., 1.10.02.

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: Why should subjects - and involuntary ones at that - be punished for the crimes of their rulers? - J.Z. 21.7.87.

COLLECTIVISM: For me it consists largely in extensively or comprehensively collectivising property rights and decision-making. That can be done on either a voluntary or a coercive basis. Volunteers of this kind would not be wise but would act within their rights. Collectivists who try to enforce their system upon dissenters are always not only unwise but wrong and cannot achieve freedom, justice, peace, harmony or wealth. - J.Z., 2.6.94.

COLLECTIVISM: For me no association is collectivistic, no matter how communistic its internal economic arrangement may be and how authoritarian its structure, when its individual members retain enough individual sovereignty to remain free to secede from that group. - J.Z., 15.7.86.

COLLECTIVISM: If it is wrong for one man to live by harming another, then it is that much worse for ten men to do so." - Paul Lepanto, Return to Reason, p. 105. - If the harm is inflicted upon a volunteer of a collectivist society, then this is a lesson that individual needs, sometimes even repeatedly or for a long time. Decisive is: Does the individual member remain free to secede from the group and its policies, without risking his neck, property and liberty or job? Many Muslims, Scientologists, coercive Trade Unionists, military officers (towards their men), totalitarian  regimes and territorial democracies and republics would deny this right of individuals to secede and to act autonomously, exterritorially - J.Z., 2.6.94. If ten men rob one man of some of his property, is that really ten times as bad as if one man did the same to another? The only difference that I can see is that, usually the ten men will encounter less resistance by their single victim. – J.Z., 16.11.08.

COLLECTIVISM: It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisition never dreamed of." - George Orwell, in Tribute to The Road to Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek. - Again, overlooked is the possibility of small and quite voluntary collectives, of like-minded people. who like to decide between them almost everything collectively. That is their right, even though it may result in many mistakes. Only they would have to suffer under them. - J.Z., 3.6.94.

COLLECTIVISM: It is collectivism, not capitalism, which breeds insurrection and revolution." - Hans F. Sennholz, in THE FREEMAN, Aug. 72. – True for compulsory collectivism but also true for every other compulsory and territorially imposed ism. – Even territorially imposed “limited” governments and imposed anarchist societies would lead to some rebellions by the remaining statists. - J.Z., 16.11.08, 10.11.10.

COLLECTIVISM: One of the worst forms of collectivism is territorialism. – J.Z., 10.11.10.

COLLECTIVISM: our rights to life and liberty are placed on the altar of collective caprice and they must suffer whatever fate the political apparatus dictates..." - Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.21. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, LEADERSHIP

COLLECTIVISM: Panarchism, based on individual secessionism, voluntary associationism and non-territorial organisation, making possible the full variety of organisational means and purposes that are wanted by man, as diverse as he is, - is the most anti-collectivist principle and practice imaginable - for human beings as they are now. In a simultaneously reformist and revolutionary, compromising and uncompromising way, it leads away from total collectivism towards total individualism - at the choice and speed of individuals. To accuse panarchistic ideas, precedents and options of being themselves collectivistic, just because associationism or voluntary cooperation is still involved, is absurd. Within such a framework many or even most might still opt, at least for a while, for some collectivistic arrangements for themselves - but that behaviour would carry its own penalties - and enlightenment. - J.Z., 16.7.86.

COLLECTIVISM: The collective mind obtains only what the individual mind abdicates." - Perry E. Gresham, in THE FREEMAN, 6/73. - That hardly applies to the involuntary victims of taxation. - J.Z., 2.6.94. – We are not yet free to opt out of compulsory taxation and out of the territorial State into full exterritorial autonomy. – What is not seen here, by most people, is the equivalent of a great lottery win – for everybody, not to speak of all the other satisfaction that moral people would derive from genuine self-determination, self-government, experimental freedom. – J.Z., 10.11.10.

COLLECTIVIST OBJECTIONS: Two standard collectivist objections are: 1. The old must be destroyed before the new can be constructed and 2. Only large-scale experiments can succeed. - In reality, the old can remain for its adherents while the new can be constructed and used by its followers. Large-scale experiments guarantee large-scale failures and nothing is likely to succeed on a large scale which fails already on a small scale. - J.Z., in Tolerance pamphlet. - OBJECTIONS, PREJUDICES, DIS.

COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA: 5th ed., 1993, Extraterritoriality or exterritoriality, 1p from IN: 208, in PEACE PLANS 1540. – It offers such information free of charge to dozens of millions on the Internet – but still wants to claim copyrights. If only we had better memories all then copyrights claims would be in vain. Maybe there will be a memory pill one day, one that will, indirectly, abolish copyrights. (*) – J.Z. -1/2 page, which is also offered online by Copyright Information Please LLC. – (*) At least when it comes to the spoken word. Words attached to and duplicated in other media could still be subjected to it, in my opinion quite wrongly. Copyrights and patent claims should be applied only among their believers. Which group would then advance faster? There are always better methods than monopolies. – J.Z., 11.12.11.

COMAY, JOAN: The Diaspora Story. The Epic of the Jewish People Among the Nations. Random House, N.Y., 1980, illustrated, indexed, 288pp, JZL. Some information on autonomy is offered at least on pages 32ff and on the millet system on page 190.

COMBINED PURCHASING POWER OF VOLUNTEERS & PANARCHISM: The individual consumer or purchaser of capital assets is, as a rule, not a market force, unless he has capital behind him like Mr. Gates. But millions of consumers or share buyers with the same preference do constitute a market force, although they may not be otherwise associated. Consciously associated buyers or boycotters, in large enough numbers, do constitute a market force and also an exterritorial and autonomous one, of volunteers and they can utilize this market force for a great variety of purposes of their own. E.g. to reproduce, permanently and cheaply, all freedom writings e.g. on microfilm, floppies, CD-ROMs or online. A wide enough tax strike of tax strikers who are also armed, organized, trained and sufficiently motivated, would be an almost irresistible force. The employees, even of large enterprises could mostly buy they enterprise - on terms, using their own and self-issued capital certificates. You name your own and other instances. Such powers need not be as irrational and emotional as are e.g. fashion and music preferences. They can be used for rightful and rational purposes. - J.Z., 13.9.04.

COMMANDMENTS: Write your own commandments." - Alta, quoted in RED & BLACK, 4/73. Or choose the personal law panarchy that suits you. – J.Z., 10.11.10. – PERSONAL LAWS, TEN COMMANDMENTS

COMMISSION ON EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN CHINA: Report, London 1926. Its report includes list of extraterritorial powers and pertinent treaty clauses. (In Macquarie Univ. Library.)

COMMISSION ON EXTRATERRITORIALITY: Publications. A list is found in Keeton's Bibliography.

COMMISSIONS: Don't abdicate your conscience, rights and responsibilities to any commission, committee or board. - J.Z., 30.10.76. – Any priest, general, government or trade union official, either. – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMMITTEES: There are few imaginative committees and virtually no radical ones, which is inevitable because imaginative and radical thinkers have no time for committee work, even if by some chance they should be asked to undertake it.” - Martin Woodhouse, Rock Baby, Pan Books, London, 1970, p.175. – Here, too, panarchism or polyarchism would make a difference. Like-minded volunteers are much more likely to achieve satisfactory solutions between them, for their kind of community than committees representing all the diverse views territorially thrown together by present States. – J.Z., 24.9.07.

COMMON GOOD: To sustain the individual freedom of action contemplated by the Constitution is not to strike down the common good, but to exalt it; for surely the good of society as a whole cannot be better served than by the preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members." - Justice George Sutherland. - Among these liberties is individual sovereignty, which, in combination, is expressed in panarchies: exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers and realized through individual secessionism. - J.Z., 8.6.94, 2.10.02.

COMMON INTEREST: Only win-win games, not zero sum games are in the common interest. All restrictions of free market, free trading, free enterprise, free contract and voluntary and exterritorially autonomous relationships express special and wrongful rather than common interests. - J.Z., 8.6.94, 10.11.10.

COMMON LAW SOVEREIGNTY: Use YOUR Common Law Sovereignty, Learn About the Free Territory of Ely-Chatelaine, 1p, 27, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PEACE PLANS 869. - CHAITLIN

COMMON LAW: resurrect common law as the fundamental basis of the legal system; and... reduce statute law to an absolute minimum." - Economic Policy Statement of the Workers Party, 12/75. - That would be the result, after a while, for many enlightened people, once they were freed to individually secede from any territorial government and to associate in exterritorial autonomy. We may have centuries to wait, if not forever, to see it realized as a result of territorially collective enlightenment and decision-making. - J.Z., 8.6.94. n- Common Law, after more than 1000 years of juridical development, has still not led to a comprehensive, rightful and sensible declaration of individual rights. Thus, to me, it is only of rather limited value. - J.Z., 25.5.93.

COMMUNAL POLITICS IN INDIA, by Rayasam V. Prasad: 2pp, THE FREEMAN, I/1990, 205, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PEACE PLANS 1,051.

COMMUNISM & PANARCHISM: Panarchy means freedom for communists as well as anti-communists to live the way they want to live. Both would be free to follow their beliefs - but only at their own expense and risk, as if they were religious sectarians living under religious tolerance. Perhaps they are such sectarians and ought therefore to be given that autonomy, for this reason alone, if there were not already a thousand moral, political, economic and social other reasons in favor of it. – J.Z., 1986, 2004. – It is at least conceivable that the communists still remaining might become the most active advocates of panarchism for all – to get their chance again, among themselves. – J.Z., 10.1.05.

COMMUNISM, ANTI-COMMUNISM & PANARCHISM: I am an anti-communist but I do favor full exterritorial autonomy for communist volunteers - at their own expense and risk. That will teach them, if anything can, at least the teachable among them. - J.Z., 7.5.01.

COMMUNISM: Adherents of communist economics must realize that it agrees with anarchism only when it rests on strict voluntarism and is not imposed on anybody, who does not want to resign his right to dispose of the products of his labour himself. – K. H. Z. Solneman, (K. H. Zube) LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr. 2, S. 13.

COMMUNISM: Any form of liberty within communism means the end of the ideology." - Djilas. – The small concessions granted by the regimes are not enough to lead to their rapid collapse or overthrow. They must become confronted by fully free societies – outside their borders and, as fast as possible, also inside them. And these alternative societies must get maximum publicity e.g. via broadcasting and the Internet. – But at the same time full exterritorial autonomy should be offered to all remaining communists and socialists everywhere! - J.Z., 17.11.08. - PANARCHISM

COMMUNISM: Communism for all communists. That's a very severe punishment and all unrepentant communists do deserve it. Having to cope with the resulting disasters among themselves, they will have no time, funds and energy left to fight us. - J.Z., 3.5.93.

COMMUNISM: Communism for volunteers only - under personal laws! - J.Z., 14.6.89. – That will teach them! If anything can. – J.Z., 10.11.10.

COMMUNISM: Communists rulers have been lucky for a long time - by not being confronted with all of the complete individual liberty alternatives to communism, anywhere, for any time. - J.Z., 10.7.94. – Territorial statism and with it large degrees of coercive collectivism, is still the general rule everywhere. – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMMUNISM: Communists, too, to have their own exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, nationally and internationally. This could have been a peace and war aim against totalitarian and territorial communist regimes that would have had the potential to deprive them of most of their followers. - J.Z., 4.7.89. – But this is still not the policy against the remaining communist regimes or other despotic regimes. All kinds of alternative governments in exile should be fully recognized against all despotic regimes – but all only for voluntary present and future members. – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMMUNISM: Disarm communists - but let them do their things to themselves. - J.Z., 6.10.93.

COMMUNISM: Exterritorial autonomy for all communist volunteers, everywhere, no more and no less. And the same liberty for the adherents to any other ism or distinction. - J.Z., 1.10.85.

COMMUNISM: Exterritorial autonomy for communist volunteer communities would now have the advantage of undermining their remaining revolutionary enthusiasm, terrorist attempts and bureaucratic obstructionism. - J.Z., 9.6.94.

COMMUNISM: Full exterritorial autonomy even for the volunteer communities of communists. That would rapidly reduce their numbers and their influence. - J.Z., 2.10.02.

COMMUNISM: My vision of the future includes one for all kinds of communist activities ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS, in the same way that I consider primary school classes on a voluntary basis to be a rightful and necessary stage for the mental development of most people. In this respect, too, my notions differ from those of most conventional anti-communists and anti-socialists. - J.Z., 16.10.83, 8.6.94. - PANARCHISM

COMMUNISM: To pacify the remaining communists in Russia, we ought to grant them their wish: communism - but only for themselves and only in form of exterritorial autonomy, with their share of the remaining national assets - in form of personal capital certificates. Otherwise, even a minority of them, using well tried communist methods, might succeed in usurping territorial power and continue to threaten the world's proletarians and citizens with nuclear holocaust or their brand of totalitarianism, again. Furthermore, in order to ideologically disarm them faster, not only by self-responsible experiences of their kind, they ought to become surrounded by all kinds of freedom experiments, undertaken likewise, exterritorially autonomous, by volunteer communities. Then their own failures, blameable only upon their own system and payable only by themselves, and the surrounding successes with economic and other liberties, will finally convert most of them. Our kind of democratic welfare statism will not, because it is already largely collectivistic and communistic and in its territorialism even totalitarian. See Panarchism. - J.Z., 3.5.93.

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, MARX & ENGELS: See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VONOn Panarchy. Alas, for “its” realization,             they proposed opposites to panarchism, like e.g.: Nationalization, monetary despotism and dictatorship of the proletariat, “realized” via a communist one-party State. I assert that they never seriously considered all prerequisites for a genuinely free, just and peaceful societies. – J.Z, 27.12.04, 11.12.11.

COMMUNITIES VS. "COMPETITION" BETWEEN TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS: Competition between panarchies is as a rule genuine competition, unarmed, peaceful and mutually beneficial. Competition between territorial governments is all too often monopolistic, domineering, destructive, obstructive, sometimes even militaristic and imperialistic. - J.Z., 14.9.04. – TERRITORIALISM, COMPETITION, VOLUNTARISM, COMPULSION

COMMUNITIES: Community is in short supply.” Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p. 379. - Only genuine communities are still in short supply or even absent. False, wrongful and flawed “communities”, of the statist, territorial, coercive and monopolistic kind, do now exist by the hundreds and they annoy, wrong, restrict, exploit, misdirect or even kill us. None of them, even the best of them, do deserve the term “community” because of their territorial, coercive and monopolistic nature. All are imposed upon at least some dissenters. All levy tributes from involuntary tax payers. All are more or less warfare States against the own subjects or the subjects of other such regimes. Genuine communities, of volunteers, only exterritorially autonomous and under personal laws, are outlawed and suppressed everywhere. The market is not allowed to operate in the sphere of political, economic and social systems. It is territorially suppressed in the name of supposedly sovereign peoples, all too badly or insufficiently represented everywhere, with individuals and volunteer-groups not free to secede from them. Now too many of the territorial States are even “armed” with mass extermination devices or anti-people “weapons”. - J.Z., 5.12.05, 24.9.07. - ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, STATES & SOCIETIES, COMPULSION VS. VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, STATES VS. PANARCHIES OR POLYARCHIES

COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES: Communities are either aggressive and oppressive or defensive and liberating, they are either centralistic or decentralized, their centralization or decentralization might be territorial or exterritorial, they are either partly independent or fully autonomous, they are held together either by territorial laws or by personal laws, they are either based on compulsory membership or voluntary membership that permits individual secessionism. (Muslims permit entry but not exit from their faith.) They are either closed communities or open communities. They might be closed or open only with regard to immigrants or emigrants or both or with regard to internal and exterritorially autonomous entries and exits of individuals. Their contributions might be voluntary or compulsory. In their organization and outlook and practice they might be merely parochial or local or national or continental or cosmopolitan. They might be unity fanatics or federalist in their internal structures. They might aim at unlimited government, some degree of limitation or attempts to establish non-governmental societies. They might let themselves be guided by only a few, many, most or all people. In other words, they can at least potentially offer a full spectrum of services or disservices to their members. There is no reason why any particular type of them should be granted a territorial monopoly. All could peacefully coexist only on a voluntary, exterritorial and autonomous basis. All are wanted by some and on that basis all should be free to select the one they prefer for themselves: A free market is just and rational also for all community services and organizations. - J.Z., n.d. & 11.12.11.

COMPETENCE: But the fact remains that no man, winner or loser, has the competence to direct the lives of other men. That is the danger with The System - that it gives ordinary men the power to commit aggression." – Robert Ringer, Restoring the American Dream. - VOTING, POLITICIANS, GOVERNMENT, INCOMPETENCE, MEDDLING, LEADERSHIP, POWER, TERRITORIALISM, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, INTERFERENCE, MASTERS, RULERS, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, LEADERSHIP

COMPETENCE: Many people tend to rise beyond the level of their competence and thus become counter-productive on a large scale. (Peter Principle) Seniority systems, personal connections and courting of the mighty see to that. In this “system” these same incompetent but high ranking people do a large extent see to it that many of the competent people are held back below the level of their competence. These are two basic flaws of hierarchically organized and oversized organizations, especially when they possess any kind of legalized monopoly or power. – J.Z., 3.2.00, 24.9.08. – STATES, TERRITORIALISM, BUREAUCRACY, PROMOTIONS, HIERARCHIES, JOB HOLDERS, OFFICE HOLDERS, PUBLIC SERVANTS, MANAGERS, BIG BUSINESS, BIG GOVERNMENT, PETER PRINCIPLE, STATES, CORPORATIONS, RULERS, INCOMPETENTS IN TOP POSITIONS, COMPETENCE IN SUBORDINATE POSITIONS, PETER PRINCIPLE

COMPETENCE: No man who lives, no association, nor any government is competent to decide for any other where he shall work, what his hours or wage shall be, what and with whom he may exchange, or what thoughts he shall entertain." – Leonard E. Read, Who's Listening? 153. - WAGE CONTROL, PRICE CONTROL, RENT CONTROL, CONTROLS, LAWS, SOCIALISM, WELFARE STATE

COMPETENCE: We trust a man with making constitutions on less proof of competence than we should demand before we gave him our shoe to patch." - J. R. Lowell, On a Certain Condescension in Foreigners. – Let us have full consumer sovereignty towards all territorial constitution and power mongers, towards all politicians, political parties, parliaments and bodies of legislation. Let their voluntary victims of followers find out, in their own experiments, whether they reallyl have anything worthwhile to offer or merely more words, more promises, more errors, prejudices and self-delusions. – Free choice of political “doctors” as well! Just as much a free choice among political, economic and social problem writers and their works, for skimming, reading or studying. Why should the writings any others or even a single book or any whole school of thought be imposed upon us? – There are so many of them and the vast majority of them are very flawed or at least incomplete in their proposals. - J.Z., 10.11.10. - BUREAUCRACY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, POLITICIANS, PUBLIC SERVANTS, PLANNING, IGNORANCE, KNOWLEDGE, DECISIONS, RESPONSIBILITY, LICENSING

COMPETING COMMUNITIES, EXTERRITORIAL ONES, VS. TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES. SPORTS CLUBS AS EXAMPLES: Numerous sports clubs of the same type and of different types do exist quite peacefully and they do engage in numerous competitions, locally, nationally and even internationally, with little if any bloodshed, as a rule and only a few bones broken, in the more dangerous sports. There are no battles except those agreed upon e.g. between wrestlers and boxers or between competing teams and there certain and mostly sensible and limiting rules prevail - under supervision of referees and arbitrators in case of offences. The worst penalties they can inflict is excommunications. That can, in some cases, end the career or a professional sportsman - but not his life. The variety of contending panarchies could be similarly peaceful, as peaceful as contending sects and churches wherever religious tolerance prevails. - J.Z., 13.9.04.

COMPETING COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE CONTRACTS & THEIR VARIOUS PACKAGE DEALS: As Ulrich von Beckerath repeatedly pointed out, the best that one could say in defence of governments is that they are insurance companies. But as such they ought to be genuinely competitive, rather than defensive about their wrongful territorial monopolies. - J.Z., 30.8.04. – Instead, they make an unjust entitlement claim to “ territorial integrity”, which suppresses the integrity of all their involuntary members and subjects. – J.Z., 11.12.11.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: All governments, the worst on earth and the most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that portion of the people who voluntarily support them." - Lysander Spooner, in Trial by Jury. - VOLUNTARISM

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: all of a sudden your potential convert cries: 'But ... but that's ANARCHY!!' Do not, repeat, do not, say "What's wrong with that?', as he's liable to walk away and get you into serious trouble with the pigs or pis (pis is people in schools), especially if you go to a public school. The way to get around all this aggravation is to support an alternative to government instead of supporting its elimination. And you can call yourself a Heinleinian Asimovian or something. It works like this: We should have two or more corporations (More than one, of course, to encourage competition.) instead of one government. Instead of taxes, the corporation could sell stocks. Each corporation would provide certain services now provided by the government. (By the way, these corporations would be world-wide.) Of course, nobody would be forced to join a corporation and no one could prevent you from starting your own corporation. Things like postal and electrical service could easily be settled or voted (no, no?) on by the stockholders. - This theory does not scare too many people and it advocates a system which we endorse. It also avoids mention of the elimination of politics, taxes etc. Under the corporation system, there would be NO GOVERNMENT, not even a limited one. (*) EVERYTHING, including patents, courts, etc. would be 'taken over' by private enterprise." - Larry Edell, in THE LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, No.10, page 25. - The form and the name of many States would remain, but not their coercive substance, their exclusive territorial jurisdiction, legislation, administration, police and military power. - (*) While there would no longer be a territorial limited government, there could be xyz exterritorially autonomous ones, just like there would be xyz exterritorially autonomous corporations, communities and societies. With regard to their volunteers they could still call themselves the governments of these volunteers. - J.Z., n.d. & 17.11.08. – See: EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, FREEDOM OF ACTION, TOLERANCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, CORPORATIONS

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: Any government should only be in charge of itself and all its consenting voters. - J.Z., 10.10.01. That means that all dissenters should be free to secede from it - to do their own things for and to themselves. - J.Z., 29.1.02. - PANARCHISM

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: everything the government provides that is worthy of our desires can be provided in a free market, better, cheaper and on a far more moral basis." - Robert LeFevre, Journal, Fall 78.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: In the years ahead all big companies will find it increasingly difficult to compete with smaller, speedier, more innovative companies.” - John Naisbitt, Global Paradox, p.57. – The same applies to large nations, exposed to the competition from small but very active, innovative and enthusiastic panarchies and polyarchies. At least some of them would find out, soon, and show to all others, how to stop inflation and mass unemployment within hours to days at most. – Under territorialism these solutions are outlawed, i.e., cannot be safely practised. – J.Z., 16.9.07. – COMPETING GOVERNMENTS OR COMMUNITIES OR SOCIETIES LIKE COMPETING CORPORATIONS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: Introducing competition among governments would end the nationalistic monopolies and, thereby, would end the ability of nations to apply force to their citizens and to other nations." - Robert Hawkins, LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Summer 77.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: It is true that a libertarian concept of a legislature is largely negative. It envisions the only function of government, and voluntary government at that, as lying in the realm of providing, by community agreement, the sort of protection for individuals which, otherwise, individuals could and would provide for themselves. Sound arguments, of course, can be delivered for the achievement of precisely this same sort of protection by non-governmental means, as through fee-services, voluntary arbitration agreements, commercial protective services, and so forth - or for the existence, side-by side, of competing community and commercial services in all those fields." - Karl Hess, The Lawless State, p.24. - PANARCHISM

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life." - Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 94. - Warfare or cold wars between territorial powers is NOT competition. Competition implies freedom for all participants, entrepreneurs, traders and consumers, especially monetary and financial freedom. Competition from exterritorially autonomous volunteer groups, which are, by their very nature, compatible with each other, is suppressed by territorial states, by democracies as well as dictatorships. Only territorial claims for the same territory are incompatible with each other and borders between territories are almost never permanently agreed upon. Only borders around individuals and the personal law arrangements of autonomous volunteer communities can be trusted to establish and keep the peace. - J.Z. 1.7.92, 15.1.93.  - VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHIES, POLYARCHIES, MULTIGOVERNMENTS ETC.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: Only when “competing” governments and “competing” police forces become or try to become territorial governments, with an “exclusive turf”, i.e., monopolists, do they fight each other. Otherwise they merely compete for more voluntary customers. – J.Z., 15.3.05. - See Ayn Rand: The Virtue of Selfishness. A New Concept of Egoism, Chapter: The Nature of Government, page 112 of the Signet Book paperback edition. Even A.R. could be as mistaken on a major aspect of liberty! - J.Z., 21. 11. 06. - DIS. & POLICE FORCES, AYN RAND’S MISUNDERSTANDING

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: People should be at liberty to reject, for their own individual sphere, as many (or even more of the older laws!) laws every year as modern legislators pass every year. And that would merely mean a struggle to keep their head above the flood or avalanche of laws. - If they totally seceded from a territorial government then only that single and simple basic decision would be required for them – and continuing respect for all genuine rights and liberties of others, to the extent that they are claimed by them in their communities or societies of volunteers or “competing governments”. – But they would no longer have to obey their law, because then and with regard to the secessionists they would have ceased to be territorial laws. - J.Z., 21.11.82, 15.6.94, 17.11.08. - PANARCHISM, IGNORING THE STATE, PERSONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: replacing the existing power mechanism with competing free-market mechanisms which will be called upon to perform the same functions." - Robert LeFevre, The Libertarian. - PANARCHISM


COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: That no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity. Nevertheless, I must admit that, up until the present, one recoiled before this rigorous implication of the principle of free competition." - G. Molinari, The Production of Security. - PANARCHISM

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: The limited governmentist can either drop the notion of moral as meaning the non-initiation of force, or argue that in some metaphysical, even mystical sense, the will of the government is a priori the will of the citizens - and the latter, needless to say, offers numerous difficulties. But if neither of these two approaches are acceptable, the remaining alternative is the acceptance of the conclusion that government is in practice immoral, and thereby allow for competing agencies of protection and defence, each duly authorised by their respective customer's consent, and bound morally to their own incorporation charters." - Don Franzen, Reply to Peter Crosby, in: THE PERSONALIST.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: Views of Ayn Rand, criticized by J.Z., PEACE PLANS 7, 6/66, plan 153, page 26, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. Also by R.A. Childs, Jr., in: Objectivism and the State, An Open Letter to Ayn Rand, 1969, 3 pp: 31, in PEACE PLANS 1430/31. Also in PEACE PLANS 585.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: War means that governments are fighting, not competing. Competition means a peaceful effort to gain more customers and profit by satisfying customers with a better product or service. It leaves the customers free to choose. Not the supplier but the customer is king. Individual consumer sovereignty prevails. (*) Any consumer or citizen may at any time transfer his patronage to another agency. If the same principle is applied to governments and citizenship, then the remaining communities would neither be able nor willing to keep nuclear weapons and engage in nuclear war. They would be no more likely to do so than churches are under religious freedom. An extension of competition into all spheres of non-aggressive human action is essential if nuclear war is to be prevented." - J.Z., in PEACE PLANS 16-17. - (*) Combined with free enterprise, freedom of contract, freedom of association and of individual secessionism, voluntarism, exterritorial autonomy, personal laws. – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: We “younger advocates of freedom”, incidentally, are not “befuddled” by our anarchist theory. The theory which we advocate is not called “competing governments”, of course, since a government is a coercive monopoly. We advocate competing agencies of protection, defence and retaliation, in short, we claim that the free market can supply all of man’s needs, including the protection and defence of its values.” – Roy A. Childs, Jr., Liberty Against Power, Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco, 1994, p. 152. – Apparently, due to his definition, a government of Socialists, one that has only voluntary members and that does exclude or “regulate” free market relationships among them, was inconceivable for him, due to his definition of government and by ignoring the voluntary and exterritorial alternatives. – State socialists, also Welfare statists, have other needs and wants – and they should be free to try to satisfy them among themselves, at their own risk and expense. Why antagonize them, unnecessarily -  Especially while they are still in the majority? - J.Z., 12.12.11. - COMPETING AGENCIES OF PROTECTION, PANARCHISM

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: We are convinced, so far as we are concerned, that one day societies will be established to agitate for the FREEDOM OF GOVERNMENT, as they have already been established on behalf of the freedom of commerce." - G. Molinari, The Production of Security, p.15.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: When the government schools continue to diminish the quality of learning, or the criminal justice system fails to reduce crime, how do most of us respond? By supporting bond measures to put more money into failed systems! We don’t buy cars or computers this way.” Butler Shaffer, The Wizards of Ozymandias, chapter 18. – Alas, so far, to my knowledge, he does not support the concept and practice of personal law and competing societies and governments of volunteers, all only exterritorially autonomous. - J.Z., 13.11.08.

COMPETING GOVERNMENTS: While it is obvious that governments cannot peacefully compete or coexist with each other in the long run - on a territorial basis (just look at the history of wars, civil wars and revolutions), the option of exterritorial autonomy for protective communities of volunteers does make this possible. In almost all matters where no territorial monopoly is claimed, we do already largely compete and coexist peacefully, in spite of our vastly different interests, ideologies and relationships – largely because we are thus unhindered in their pursuit, i.e. in the pursuit of our happiness. - J.Z., 17.6.94, 17.11.08. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

COMPETING JURISDICTIONS & COURT SYSTEMS & PANARCHISM: CONGO TRIBES: Up to 5 competing jurisdictions existed in the Congo - according to a hint by a sociologist. (Melanie Foxcroft.) Private arbitration arrangements are already numerous - but rarely make the headlines. What percentage of all cases is already settled by them? - J.Z., 13.9.04.


COMPETITION IN ALL RIGHTFUL SPHERES: Competition, in religion, in the press and broadcasting, in currencies, in public services, in governments, in everything! Consumer sovereignty and free enterprise for all political and public services, too. - J.Z., 5.2.93.

COMPETITION IN EVERY SPHERE: Especially in those now monopolized by territorial governments, e.g., for whole political, economic and social systems, for reforms, jurisdiction, protection, defence, legislation, constitutions. - J.Z., 17.10.11.

COMPETITION, EXTERRITORIAL & VOLUNTARISTIC, BETWEEN AUTONOMOUS COMPETITIVELY OFFERED PUBLIC SERVICES: If public services are really so important then ALL of them ought to be offered competitively and their consumers should enjoy consumer sovereignty and the user should pay for them. J.Z. 29.1.89. 1.4.89.

COMPETITION: A FREE MARKET FOR ALL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES! No constitutional, legal, juridical or policing monopolies any longer. Naturally, none in economics and social relations, either, except among their voluntary supporters, as long as they can stand them. If they can't any longer, then they can individually end them for themselves. - Territorialism is a dead end, perhaps even literally leads us to death, the final holocaust for mankind, while there still exist any ABC mass murder devices in anyone's hands. We were lucky so far with them - but our luck may run out at any time. No one can be trusted with such powers, which are a natural outgrowth of territorialism. - Individual secessionism, combined with full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, would permit and encourage quite peaceful and tolerant "one-man-revolutions". For that reason alone this kind of voting should be preferred to the present voting for parties or candidates and "representatives" or "misrepresentative" territorial and authoritarian systems, even in their most republican and democratic forms, even in the forms of "direct democracy" or of office appointments by lot, or of a "limited" libertarian government, which is still not restricted in its territorial powers and to that extent an absolutist one. - Even the most reformed and limited Popism would still be a territorial despotism, it if retained a monopoly in the religious sphere. - The same is true for "limited" and "libertarian" governments if they retained the territorial monopoly. Rebellions, civil wars, terrorism and international wars would be bound to follow. - All would be avoidable through full exterritorial autonomy for ALL DISSENTERS. - Let them do their things to and for themselves. Only that would be consistent libertarianism. - How far is the LP still from this position, i.e., from quite consistent and tolerant libertarianism? - For more details on this consult my ON PANARCHY series, 24 volumes so far or my peace books, now accessible under - J.Z., 4.6.03. - LAISSEZ-FAIR, FREE MARKETS IN EVERY SPHERE

COMPETITION: Anti-competition legislation" - a term used by Roger Court, 10.10.76. I added: "covers practically all legislation on economic affairs." - J.Z., n.d. - Least of all do territorial constitutionalists and legislators permit competition with themselves through personal law associations and communities of volunteers, that are exterritorially quite autonomous. – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMPETITION: Bastiat saw in competition the ultimate in genuine democracy." - G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p. 213. - This would require the realization of competing governments, competing currencies and competing production organizations, too. - J.Z.

COMPETITION: C. Northcote Parkinson’s wry books on bureaucracy don’t indict people; they describe life in any monopoly. Without competition, the bureaucracy can’t make government efficient or even sensibly decide what it needs to do. Nor can the situation be magically improved. We know from experience that no unitary social institution can reform itself. Innovation painfully disrupts its way of life. Reform comes only through competitive outsiders who force steady, efficient adjustment to changing situations.” - Richard C. Cornuelle, Reclaiming the American Dream, A Vintage Book, p.79. - DEMOCRACY, POLITICS, PEOPLE, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, PANARCHISM, BUREAUCRACY, TAXATION, MONOPOLISM

COMPETITION: Competition between various political, economic and social systems is even more useful than competition in sports, philosophies, literature and the arts. But for its realization it needs full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, starting with their individual or group secessionism. – J.Z., 10.11.10.

COMPETITION: Competition is the foundation of a free market and a framework for all individual rights and liberties. It is needed most in the supply of the so-called government services, which are now restricted to those 'services’ provided by national gang-leaders on their turfs. - J.Z., 16.6.94.

COMPETITION: Competition is the panacea ... accounts for the contention that immorality is unprofitable." - Peter Crosby, in "The Utopia of Competition" ( THE PERSONALIST ) attacks this notion. - It all depends. When aggressively immoral action may only be exposed to the very limited counter-force which bureaucratic "protective" services can provide, then crime might pay. Alternatively, it might be made to encounter the freely competitive services of a protective, preventative, penalizing, deterrent, reforming and indemnifying kind (at the expense of the criminals with victims ). Under freely competitive crime fighting, crime would not pay but fighting crime would be profitable - at the expense of the criminals. - One should never praise or condemn competition while tacitly eliminating it from consideration or practice in all too large and important spheres. To become truly self-regulating, competition must become free in all spheres. - J.Z., 16.6.94. - COURTS, POLICE, MILITIA, SELF-DEFENCE, GUN CONTROL, PROTECTIVE SERVICES, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, MONETARY FREEDOM, PRISONS

COMPETITION: Competition will tend to bring about the most economical and efficient method of production possible within existing technology - and then it will start devising a still more efficient technology. It will reduce the cost of existing production, it will improve products, it will invent or discover wholly new products, as individual producers try to think what consumers would buy if it existed. - Those who are least successful in this competition will lose their original capital and be forced out of the field; those who are most successful will acquire through profits more capital to increase their production still further. So capitalist production tends constantly to be drawn into the hands of those who have shown that they can best meet the wants of the consumers." - Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of Poverty, 233. – The same applies to all kinds of political social, religious, ideological systems practised freely only among volunteers, all under their own exterritorial autonomy and personal law, after their members have seceded from the chaos and suppression of the territorial States. To each his own system, which means: no physical intervention with the systems practised by other communities of volunteers. However: Full freedom of expression for criticizing the systems others choose for themselves. – And full freedom of expression for the others to criticize the own system – but only in their publications, meetings and associations and in all those accessible to the general public. – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMPETITION: Competition, which can be organized as a beneficial regulating force in an economy, has been stifled and in places eliminated, and competition has been powerfully developed in political life, where it is at best wasteful and at worst lethal.” - H. S. Ferns, The Disease of Government, p.76. - Competition need not be organized, just allowed or left alone! We do not as yet have free competition in politics. At best we have there a competition not of services but of pretences, of lies, of coercion, of pull. Free competition would require the equivalent of consumer sovereignty for government services; individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers: panarchism. The suppression of this alternative is the worst disease of all present governments. - J.Z., 17.7.84. – Present “competition” in political life has "legal tender" power, i.e., forced acceptance and forced value, through territorialism. Thus the bad is enabled, to drive out the good, in a political "Gresham's Law". But to use the term "competition" in this connection, without being applied to "competing governments", “competing societies” and “competing communities” and competing “personal law” systems, all for volunteers only - is actually an abuse of the language. The aggressions and oppressions of individual rights and liberties that are involved, are not contractual and market, voluntary or mutual benefit actions or trades but, rather, outright crimes, invasions and aggressions, destructive rather than helpful acts, single convenience relationships, where force is used towards the dissenters and fraud towards the followers. We should not honor such actions by calling them "competition". - J.Z., 16.6.94.

COMPETITION: Contrary to official dogma, it is the planned and controlled segments of the economy that are most chaotic. The only competition that has been 'improved' by regulation is that between the growing number of government agencies and bureaus fighting over jurisdictional authority." - John Semmens, THE FREEMAN, 2/78. – Actually, the regulation of demarcation disputes should not be done by officials but simply by individual customers, clients, etc., making their own free choices on a free market in this sphere as well, according to the principle involved in “free choice of doctors” and “religious liberty” and genuine and consistent freedom of contract and freedom of association. – To each group of volunteers also their crimes acts and their juridical and penal avenues. - J.Z., 17.11.08. - PANARCHISM

COMPETITION: economic competition is a rightful use of man's freedom..." - Roger Donway in THE FREEMAN, 12/74. – Exterritorial political, economic and social competition are quite rightful as well, although not yet widely recognized as such. – J.Z., 17.11.08. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM ETC.

COMPETITION: Free competition against every large corporation - including governments. - J.Z. 74.

COMPETITION: If you compete with us that is against the law." - common sentiment, critically mentioned by John Singleton, 20.10.76. – It expresses the essence of all territorial governments and legislators, although competition against them is required most of all. – J.Z., 17.11.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT & ASSOCIATION, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAWS

COMPETITION: In the absence of competition and freedom of transactions, producers stagnate. It is only when others are doing better that one attempts to overcome, to gain strength. Competition, combined with free exchange, makes strong giants out of weak infants; this is the password to economic opportunity and well-being - an American idea well worth buying." - Leonard E. Read, ibid, 101. – Laissez-faire, laissez passer – not only in economics but also in politics and social relations and even for those who are opponents of laissez-faire, laissez passer – regarding their own affairs. Let them learn from their own mistakes. Outside observers need deterring examples as well. – Competition in every sphere – except when it comes e.g. to the destruction of the lives and properties of non-consenting victims, to the poisoning of land, waters and the air, to mass extermination devices, to experiments that endanger not only the voluntary participants. - J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMPETITION: It has always been rather strange to me, and has led me to thinking through these issues in the first place, why there has been a general presumption that competition in the private sector is desirable but that competition in the public sector is undesirable. On thinking that through, I was led to conclude that competition in the public sector is also desirable and for very much the same reasons as it is in the private sector..." - William Niskanen, in REASON, Nov. 78. - COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, MINORITY AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION

COMPETITION: May the best man win!” is a fair wish for most competitions when it comes to public affairs under territorialism. It is rarely fulfilled, even in democracies or republics. On the contrary and almost inevitably, by the nature of the selection processes involved and their participants, even there the worst tend to get to the top. - But this wish will be realized, subjectively and soon, under panarchy and also, objectively, for the best men or best systems. But this can happen, regularly, not merely accidentally and rarely, only under panarchy, and, in the long run, with a high degree of certainty. For the good systems will peacefully and gradually, step by step, via one-man “revolutions” or individual consumer choices and acceptances, win more and more consumer and client support, while the worst and inferior systems will tend to lose more and more supporters and individual and free rejections and, while they are still continued, they will be a burden and a risk for their voluntary supporters only. - While the most successful panarchist examples will be attractive to potential new members, they worst ones will also supply an excellent public service, although only as instructive deterrent examples, practical experiences for the believers, until these, too, cease to be true believers. They failed experiments among their volunteers will serve as refutation of and evidence against flawed systems, institutions and methods, although then and thus these, too, can be and will be carried out under the best possible conditions for them, namely, absence of any active internal and external opposition, unanimous support by their volunteers, and full freedom to act self-responsibly, apart from the remaining verbal doubts or objections still occasionally raised even among the own voluntary members. They will then never have any reason to blame non-members or outsiders for the failures resulting from their own free choices, decisions and actions. - May the buyer beware! At most they can then only hold their own leaders or misleaders responsible. If they hang them or otherwise torture them to death, I for one would not blame them. Let the misleaders beware! - J.Z., Dec. 04, 12,12,11. - FREE COMPETITION IN EVERY SPHERE, LEADERSHIP, POLITICIANS, VOTING, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & MINORITY AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY, REPUBLICANISM, POLITICS AS USUAL.

COMPETITION: Mill's socialism was to be the exploratory and experimental operation of mutually competitive voluntary associations or communes of individuals. Competition, for Mill, was essential; the only alternative to competition was, and is, monopoly, the evils of which Mills believed to be far greater than the 'inconveniences' of competition which Mill's socialist contemporaries condemned." - Lauchlan Chipman, QUADRANT, 4/76. - What they actually and unknowingly condemned was the incompleteness of competition. In the political sphere only panarchies: exterritorial and autonomous protective associations of volunteers could provide fully free competition. - J.Z., 18.7.84. - In the economic sphere mainly full monetary freedom, including full clearing freedom, combined with full financial freedom and organisational freedom for cooperatives, partnerships etc., and the expropriation of the bureaucracy, apart from all the other classical economic liberties, could provide full competition, choices and options for employees to become independent and wealthy through their labours and could secure them from the dangers of inflations, deflations, depressions and compulsory tax burdens. - J.Z., 16.6.94. - Still only a tiny minority has become somewhat aware of this extent of competition and its consequences. - J.Z., 3.10.02.

COMPETITION: No restriction on competitive political and economic activities, no more so than in sports or religion, i.e., all to be completely voluntary and at the expense and risk of the participants only. None to be granted any territorial monopoly, privilege or powers, any exclusive territorial sovereignty, wrongly named "territorial integrity". - J.Z., 6.6.80, 16.6.94. - PANARCHISM

COMPETITION: Nothing is more fundamental to capitalism than competition, its very lifeblood." - Israel M. Kirzner, Capital, Competition and Capitalism, in Champions of Freedom, p.69. – It is not only fundamental in economics, in religion, philosophy, arts, sports, fashion, literature, hobbies etc. but also regarding political and social systems of whatever kind that are tolerantly practised only among their believers and at their expense and costs, even if they are, by their ideology, opponents to capitalism. All kinds of socialist and statist acts among consenting adults, just like like all kinds of capitalist acts among consenting adults! – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMPETITION: One of the good things of competition is that its victories are only temporary. Incentives to improve continue and are picked up by others. It has thus been called a leap-frogging competition. Sometimes one, then someone else is ahead - and the race goes on. - J.Z., 14.12.76, 17.7.84, in reply to a saying by George Orwell: "The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them." - The benefit of competition is that always somebody wins. Indeed, more and more victories over nature are won, making life easier and better all the time, and that such victories goon and on, in every field, to the benefit of everybody. Each defeated gets other chances, in the same or some other business or job, the chance to be as serviceable towards others as he can be. However, the tax and power enforced demand for disservices, e.g. the advanced weapons of power seekers, has engendered an unhealthy competition for the production of anti-people mass-murder devices. Competing governments and societies, with voluntary members only, who would merely be exterritorially autonomous, would end that strife and almost perpetual cold or hot war. - See Peace Plans 16-17 and 61-63, now on - J.Z., 16.6.94. – LEAP-FROG COMPETITION

COMPETITION: Open all areas of government to private competition." - Progress Party, Queensland. – The governments themselves, not only their branches, departments etc., should be opened to competition by exterritorially autonomous communities and societies of volunteers. – J.Z., 10.11.10.

COMPETITION: Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his mercy. And an authority directing the whole economic system would be the most powerful monopolist conceivable." - F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1944. - Alas, he still wanted to give a territorial government, although an as limited one as he thought to be ideal, the exclusive monopoly to provide government services not only to voluntary but also to involuntary subjects.- J.Z., 15.6.94. - This in spite of the fact that he had been in contact with radical libertarians like Rothbard. This tends to prove my case that even some of the finest heads are not ready for all aspects of liberty. Rothbard, in turn, was behind Hayek, with regard to monetary freedom options. - J.Z., 10.7.94. – TERRITORIALISM, CHOICE, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, MARKET, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIALITY, LIMITED GOVERNMENT

COMPETITION: Regardless of all the noisy arguments to the contrary, everyone known to me favors both competition and free trade. Name one who does not favor competition among those from whom he buys. Logically, then, how can one favor competition among millions of others and be against it for himself! This is irrationality, not disagreement." - Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, 101. – But just as people are at liberty to carry contradictory ideas in their own heads and engage in contradictory actions, at their own risk and expense, they should be free to commit all kinds of inconsistencies in their own communities, make mistakes and practise errors at their own risk and expense. Christians and other religious people have done that for thousands of years. But only they should suffer the consequences. To each the own system and the results of his own actions. If they want to waste their lives, earnings and property in their way, so be it. – J.Z., 17.11.08.

COMPETITION: The one organization which is not under any competitive pressure to improve, is the government." - Marc Stiegler, letter, ANALOG, Oct. 89, p. 186. - There is some "competition" for votes, for tax funds, for government funded jobs and projects. But they deceive the tax payers, the distributors and the beneficiaries alike and reduce rather than increase their productivity. Competition among parties to rule, among politicians for positions, are all instances for imperfect competition within territorial, coercive and monopolistic power-systems. - J.Z., 7.5.91, 15.6.94. - TERRITORIALISM

COMPETITION: The urge for freedom is a built-in habit of Americans more than of any other people. Professor W. A. Paton sheds light on why this continues to work its wonders: 'Competition, it must be insisted, is not a cruel or baneful influence; it is rigorous, but neither unfair nor destructive.'" - Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 7/77. - But if one is only free to compete for the possession of essential and monopolised exchange media, then competition is incomplete and thus unfree and what remains of it approximates the struggle for water in a desert. Those who have it are well off. Those who haven't are dependent upon them and will tend to be short supplied, and at too high a price. - It is hard for me to comprehend how hundreds of remarks pro and con competition can be made without touching on this aspect of it at all. - But e.g. with the threat of war through territorial monopoly and coercion and the peaceful alternative of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers it is quite the same. - J.Z., 18.7.84, 10.7.94.

COMPETITION: There exist only some types of competition of which there exists too much and these types are due to certain natural rights competitions being coercively and territorially suppressed. E.g., the are too many beggars and homeless people, too many unemployed, too many lawyers, politicians, their voters, too many bureaucrats, too many armed state forces, too many legalized monopolies, in forms of e.g. movies or songs or patents competing with each other, all on monopoly terms. – J.Z., 30.3. 03, 8.9.070. – Too much competition for monopoly money! In other spheres we have too little competition, e.g. from panarchies, free banks, free experiments with social, economic and political systems.– To little competition in the supply of better exchange media and value standards, better war and peace aims, better human rights declarations. – J.Z., 13.11.08. – TOO MUCH COMPETITION OR TOO LITTLE OR BOTH?

COMPETITION: There is a need for free competition, first of all between individuals, later internationally. Freedom to invent, work, exchange, sell and buy. Freedom to price one's products. And simply no intervention by the State outside of its special sphere. In other words: 'Laissez Faire, Laissez Passer'." – P. E. De Puydt, Panarchy, p.3. – - Here he still seems to concede a special sphere to the territorial State. But he may here only have intended to describe the conventional sphere of laissez faire, free trade and free enterprise capitalism. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

COMPETITION: They take office to enjoy its honors and emoluments, not to get their living by the sweat of their brows. They are too well satisfied with their own conditions, to trouble their heads with plans for improving the accustomed modes of doing the business of their departments - too wise in their own estimation, or too jealous of their assumed superiority, to adopt the suggestions of others - too cowardly to innovate - and too selfish to part with any of their powers to reform the abuses on which they thrive. (*) The consequence is, as we now see, that when a cumbrous, clumsy, expensive and dilatory government system is once established, it is nearly impossible to modify or materially improve it. Opening the business to rivalry and free competition, is the only way to get rid of the nuisance." – Lysander Spooner, Works, I/24, on the Post Office. – The same applies, naturally, to the greatest monopoly of all, the territorial monopoly of governments. – J.Z., 19.11.08. - And this requires that individuals become free to secede, and to associate exterritorially and autonomously and that all minorities are free to likewise secede and thus to realize full minority autonomy for themselves, also exterritorially. - J.Z., 18.7.84. - A counterpart would be the right of a majority to "throw out" of their combination any minority that does not suit them. But it could not rightly throw them out territorially, i.e., deport them, but only exterritorially, comparable to the excommunication from a church. Then these minorities would almost have to establish their own panarchies, which otherwise they might not have done for decades. - J.Z., 16.6.94. – (*) The contrary also happens. They are so deluded of their power to reform things, along the same utopian, interventionist, coercive lines, that they snow under their subjects with an avalanche of tens of thousands of “reform” laws, which, basically, change the situation only in one respect: they tie down their subjects still more, make them still more unproductive and irresponsible and helpless. - J.Z., 18.7.84

COMPETITION: We trust a man with making constitutions on less proof of competence than we should demand before we gave him our shoe to patch." - J. R. Lowell, On a Certain Condescension in Foreigners. (Initially, I wanted to list this under 'competence' and the card slipped accidentally into 'competition' cards. But it does fit for 'competition', too. - J.Z.) – All territorial constitutions are proof of incompetence in the constitutions makers. – J.Z., 10.11.10.

COMPETITION: Without liberty and without competition, nothing can approach perfection." - Charles Moran, Money, 155/156. - Least of all a territorial State. - J.Z., 11.7.91. – Unless one means by “perfection” the utmost in the repression of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 18.11.08.

COMPETITION: Without monetary freedom competition is not free. It becomes then largely a difficult struggle for the monopolised medium of exchange of monetary despotism, and becomes largely confined to using only the more or less fictitious, depreciating and manipulating "standard" of value that it prescribes. The resulting crises and poverty and lack of opportunities are what gave the supposedly free competition a bad name. Under monetary freedom the antagonism to competition in the economic sphere will largely disappear. Freely competitive societies and communities and governments will only come into existence through voluntary state membership and complete autonomy on an exterritorial basis, introduced through individual secessionism and associationism under "personal laws". - J.Z., 15.6.94.

COMPLACENCY: Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted." - Aldous Huxley, Variations on a Philosopher, Themes and Variations, 1950. – Just five instances: Territorialism, collective responsibility, the employer-employee relationship, war and monetary despotism. – J.Z., 19.11.08.

COMPLEXITY: I will not doubt be accused of over-simplification, but here again I would like to point out that it must be easier to allow people to do what they want, than it is to decide for them and then order them to do what you think they should. In order to change legislation from the second of these two positions to the first is and must be a much simpler act than one in the reverse direction ..." - Anthony Fisher, The Case for Freedom, p.85. - Compare the popular reminder: "That is YOUR problem!" - Let people be free to solve their own problems, alone or in voluntary associations. No one and no association can solve all problems for all people in the world. - J.Z., 17.6.94.

COMPLEXITY: The problem of our society is not its complexity, but its authoritarian nature." - Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p.58. - Let individuals and their voluntary teams try to deal with all the complexities that interest them, as well as they can, independent from any centralised and territorial controls by people they have not authorised for themselves. - J.Z., 10.2.02.

COMPLIANCE: And so, to some degree - as wives, or students, or children, or employees or subjects of government - we are diminished. We have all been housebroken, or trained or oriented to act out rigid, constricting roles. We do it because we believe society will come apart if we don't. WE ARE CORRUPTED BY COMPLIANCE. (*) We believe that an unmanaged man is a menace." – Richard C. Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.48. - (*) Stressed by me. - J.Z.

COMPLICATIONS: Their worst complications are government created: complicated tax laws, labour laws, property and development laws. Governments create the complications which baffle us and then claim the resulting confusion as the reason we need still more paternalist government." - Rhodes Boyson, Paternalism..., in: Champions of Freedom, vol. 4, p. 15. - How "simple" governments make everything is indicated by their tax codes. - J.Z. 11.7.94. - The simple solution of voluntary taxation and voluntary subjects, under personal laws only, is not appreciated at all by territorial governments. Most of them would lose much in revenue, membership and authority under this condition. On the other hand, many other governmental and societal as well as utopian aspirations would get their chances. - J. Z., 3.10.02. - PANARCHISM.

COMPLICATIONS: We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms of civilisation, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become." - Benito Mussolini. - The greater the complications, the freer must individuals and voluntary associations become to deal with them. - J.Z., 3.4.89. – DIS., FREE ECONOMY VS. PLANNED, CENTRALIZED & COMMAND ECONOMY, DECENTRALIZATION

COMPREHENSIVE PRIVATISATION: Privatize governments and give each former involuntary subscriber his share in the value of the remaining public assets. - J.Z., 17 Sep. 89.

COMPROMISE, PRINCIPLES, CONSISTENCY ADAPTATION: It is a very great mistake to imagine that mankind follow up practically any speculative principle, either of government or of freedom, as far as it will go in argument and logical illation. All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; w give and take; - we remit some rights that we may enjoy others ... Man acts from motives relative to his interests; and not on metaphysical speculations. - Quoted by John Morley, in On Compromise, 228, from? - It was largely lack of individual sovereignty which forced us into habitually accepting compromises in all too many spheres of our lives, while preventing us from fully maturing in our individual talents, abilities and own choices, daily practiced in all our own affairs. Panarchistically, i.e. exterritorially, autonomously and voluntarily, we could avoid many to most compromises - at our own expense and risk - and begin to live in accordance with our more or less radical principles, among likeminded people, regardless of whatever principles our neighbours might exterritorially apply among themselves. - J.Z. ,7.1.93, 12.12,11.

COMPROMISE: Assume two lovers, in their spare time, want to decide whether they go today and tomorrow either to a cinema or a theatre. Various compromise solutions are possible. They might agree that today the one and tomorrow the other might decide for both. Or that today both go to the cinema and tomorrow both go to the theatre. They might also decide to go to neither, today and tomorrow. Or to go on both days first to the cinema and then to the theatre. Only the individualistic and non-compromising solution could achieves maximum satisfaction - out of such entertainments - apart from the pleasures they derive from being in each other's company: Each chooses and goes separately, for these short periods, either to the theatre or to the cinema, today and tomorrow. As genuine lovers they should be able to concede to each other that much freedom for different choices for themselves. Then they would also have more different experiences to talk about between them. Governmental compromise solutions are all operating under the wrongful premise that: "one shoe fits all!" or that it ought to fit all. - J.Z., 2.10.02. - TERRITORIALISM

COMPROMISE: Compromise is the negation of individual freedom of action and as such it is wrong whenever individual freedom of action would not infringe the equal liberty of others. - J.Z., 17.6.94.

COMPROMISE: If you believe in conscription and I believe in volunteers, do we compromise by retaining conscription and turning a blind eye to deserters?" - Viv Forbes, COMMON SENSE, Aug. 81. - No, but we could be tolerant toward exterritorially autonomous communities that would conscript some of their own members for military services, as long as they do not commit aggressions against outsiders, as we should be tolerant towards those communities with volunteer forces only. Especially, since this very form of organization would largely and soon tend to destroy most motives, means and targets for warlike actions. - J.Z., 17.6.94.

COMPROMISE: If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair;..." - George Washington. - Let volunteers act among themselves according to their beliefs, customs and principles. - J.Z. 31.7.92. - In every sphere, even those presently pre-empted by territorial governments. - J.Z., 17.6.94. - In his dealings G. W. did not always act according to this principle. E.g., he wanted to be paid in gold by his tenants, while he paid his debts in depreciated paper money at face value and he saw to it that his troops were dispersed in the wilderness when discharged and then so wrongfully "paid", so that they would not mutiny upon such unjust treatment. For some details see Pelatiah Webster's main book, which I micro-fiched. – P. W. is largely regarded as the first American economist. - J.Z., 2.10.02.

COMPROMISE: It is good to compromise with persons; 'there is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us...' etc. But I think it is wholly wrong to compromise with ideas." - Rose Wilder Lane, A Revolt in a Teaspoon, PINE TREE, Spring 1970, p. 27. - At least one should try to think all of them through to their logical conclusions and all their linkages. - Full freedom of action, on the basis of voluntary and exterritorial autonomy, would reduce the need for compromises, in practice, to a minimum, even in spheres now pre-empted by territorial governments. - J.Z., 17.6.94. – If one can tolerate them and they are tolerant enough, then one does not have to compromise with them. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

COMPROMISE: It's wrong to compromise when you are right. - J.Z., 20.5.78. - But you have to grant others the freedom to act upon their errors among themselves, at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 17.6.94. The more you concede others the right to do their own things to themselves, the less you will be forced to submit to their wrongs. – J.Z., 19.11.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT

COMPROMISE: Panarchism makes most compromises in public affairs unnecessary. It allows each to become happy or unhappy in his own fashion." - J.Z., 19.11.92. - Each gets what he wants for himself - at his own expense and risk. No one gets what he wants for himself and all others in a territory, largely at their expense and risk. - J.Z., 2.10.02. – PANARCHISM

COMPROMISE: Panarchism of exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, is a compromise that helps to avoid compromises, by providing a framework for free and self-responsible actions in all spheres, i.e. a compromise to avoid compromises. - J.Z., 17.6.94. - It is fully in accordance with the ancient Roman principle of justice: “To each his own”! - J.Z., 3.10.02. - PANARCHISM

COMPROMISE: There can be no compromise between freedom and tyranny." - Source? – Panarchism offers any degree of authoritarianism to the statists and any degree of freedom to the freedom lovers. To that extent it is an uncompromising compromise, achieving a peaceful maximization of satisfaction to all who adopt it. – J.Z., 19.11.08.

COMPROMISE: There must be no compromise with slavery - none whatever. Nothing is gained, everything is lost, by subordinating principle to expediency." - William Lloyd Garrison, THE LIBERATOR. - While one should absolutely fight compulsory taxation (tax slavery) in principle and avoid taxes as far as is possible, absolute and open tax refusal, under present conditions, will soon put you 6 feet under the ground. That you have not compromised your voluntarist principles will then be no consolation for you. - But by all means, let us prepare for a tax strike that has a chance to succeed. - J.Z., 17.6.94. - It would have to include full monetary and financial freedom, ideal militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties, individual and group secessionism and full experimental freedom for all in form of panarchies or polyarchies. That it would also do away with the threat of nuclear war or conventional warfare, violent revolutions, civil wars and terrorism is certainly no drawback. – Alas, most minds are not yet prepared for such changes, although the technical means to achieve such enlightenment are now better than ever before. - J.Z., 19.11.08.

COMPROMISE: While compromise is certainly an important aspect of politics (*), it is surely not the beginning and the end, as Bentley seems to assume. If half the population wishes to exterminate all the Jews and the other half wishes them to be left alone, how (if they have no belief in right action, but merely in amoral compromise) are these ethical pluralists to decide whether to kill half the Jews or half kill all the Jews? That is, to say the least, an unsatisfactory theory of ethics and politics ..." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.16. – (*) only of territorial politics! - J.Z.

COMPROMISE: While it is true that each compromises leads away from the pure principle or truth, but the question should rather be: How many human beings should we risk realizing for the immediate realization of a truth? – J.Z., 84. – If we adopt the “uncompromising compromise” of panarchism then pure truths and principles, to the extent that they can be realized, can immediately be realized at least among all their voluntary supporters. – J.Z., 23.9.08. - PANARCHISM

COMPROMISE: While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom." - F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. - That is true if they had to remain within a single common community. However, exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, under personal laws, would be a peace-, freedom-, justice - and enlightenment - promoting compromise. It could form the basis for their independent practice, continuance and coexistence, in each case only on a voluntary basis, i.e., respecting the right of individual members to secede. - J.Z., 6.4.89.

COMPROMISE: You can't be just a little bit pregnant with liberty. - J.Z., 3.11. 75. - However, most people manage to do just that, even those calling themselves anarchists and libertarians. - J.Z., 21.4.94. - Everyone's choice of liberties for himself is the maximum liberty for that individual at his stage of development. - J.Z. 21.4.94. – For some this “pregnancy” lasts their whole life and never leads to the birth of a complete and healthy “baby”. – J.Z., 19.11.08. -  They move about, as far as they can, in accepted fetters and think them to be necessary and justified. – J.Z., 12.12.11. – STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, VOLUNTARY SUBORDINATION

COMPROMISE? OR NO COMPROMISE? While to the Nazi the Communist, and to the Communist the Nazi, and to both the Socialist, are potential recruits, who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromises between them and those  who really believe in individual freedom." - F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. - It is true that within a single territorial community there could be no such compromise. But when all have the choice of their favourite exterritorial and autonomous community, all with their particular uniformity, achieved by voluntary but non-territorial segregation (separate clubs etc. not being considered a separate territory), then there would be no need for compromise. Each would run his own show, anyhow and would be rid of all sabotage, resistance and internal criticism. Each would also be so busy with internal affairs, for which he could no longer blame others, when things go wrong, that little time and energy would be left for squabbles with members of other panarchies. This institutionalization of personal laws could not help but favour internal and external peace, freedom, justice and enlightenment. It would itself constitute a major kind of compromise but one in which no side would have to lose face or make a concession of its desired liberties. In this way they could all get their independence at the same time and in the same country, without a political, revolutionary, terrorist or military struggle. They would tend to excommunicate heretics if these would not prefer to make use of their individualist secessionist option before that. As I see it, this kind of "to each his own", is a non-compromising compromise. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 8.4.89.

COMPROMISES & “REALPOLITIK”: If, amid all these compromises which the circumstances of the times necessitate, or are thought to necessitate, there exist no true conceptions of better and worse in social organization - if nothing beyond the exigency of the moment is attended to, and the proximately best is habitually identified with the ultimately best, - there cannot be any true progress ..." - Herbert Spencer in Postscript to The Man vs. the State, in Hutchinson Harris, The Doctrine of Personal Right, 390. – PROGRESS, UTOPIAS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

COMPROMISES & PANARCHISM: Panarchism makes most compromises in public affairs unnecessary. It allows each to become happy or unhappy in his own fashion. - J.Z., 19.11.92. - And yet it amounts to a great compromise itself, namely, the agreement to let everyone advance, stagnate or decline in his own way, at his own risk and expense, seeing that words, arguments and ideas, even when extensively published, do not suffice on their own to make sufficient converts and to prevent strife between dissenters. - J.Z., 9.12.03.

COMPROMISES: If the minority are to be uncompromising alike in seeking and realizing what they take for truth, why not the majority? - John Morley, On Compromise, 242. - Quite right! Full exterritorial autonomy for both. Territorially full autonomy for both cannot be achieved. One of my boys said many years ago: Why should the 49 rule the 51, too, or the 51 rule the 49, too when the 49 could rule the 49 and the 51 could rule the 51, with both groups, finally, leaving each other alone? - J.Z. 6.1.93.-  In e.g. soccer and other team games we are individually free to support and bet on our favorite team. Why not also when it comes to whole political, economic and social systems? All compromises should be confined to those actions where they are quite unavoidable. Individual and minority group preferences for themselves should be allowed in all spheres where they are possible and do not threaten the genuine individual rights and liberties of outsiders. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

COMPULSION: Among the important corollary principles of the science of freedom proposed by Andrews was the rule that 'Objects (Subjects? - J.Z.) bound together contrary to their nature, must and will seek to rectify themselves by breaking the bonds which confine them, while those which come together by their own affinities remain quiescent and content. The violent social upheavals experienced from time to time by mankind, on this view, are the consequences of the violation of this rule, just as social peace and order is the fruit of its faithful observance. In order to develop a widespread condition of peace among men it is necessary that the principle of universal self-election be made applicable to the day-to-day affairs of life instead of being reserved solely for election day as it is in American democracy. If you would have freedom, Andrews urged, 'make the pulpit, the school-room, the workshop, the manufactory, the shipyard, and the storehouse the universal ballot-boxes of the people. Make every day an election day, and every day and hour its full and unlimited franchise." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.85. – Every individual to be free to vote decisively, i.e. to enjoy individual choice, on his connection to others, societies, communities, systems, ideologies, just like in religion, under full religious liberty or tolerance. – J.Z., 11.11.10. - VOTING, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, VOTING, PEACE

COMPULSION: An end to compulsory disservices to individuals and minorities. - J.Z.,.n.d. & 19.11.08.

COMPULSION: And Oakesshott attacks those who seek 'to turn a private dream into a public and compulsory manner of living.'" - Source? - Somebody called them the "utopians with the guillotine".

COMPULSION: As Capt. B. H. Liddell Hart has put it (Why Don't We Learn from History? 1944): 'We learn from history that the compulsory principle always breaks down in practice. The principle of restraint or regulation is essentially justifiable insofar as its application is needed to check interference with other's freedom. But it is not, in reality, possible to make men do something without risking more than is gained from the compelled effort. The method may appear practicable, because it often works when applied to those who are merely hesitant. When applied to those who are definitely unwilling, it fails, however, because it generates friction and fosters subtle forms of evasion that spoil the effect which is sought...." - Yale Jay Lubkin, in OPTION, June 77. - Compare: EFFICIENCY, CONSCRIPTION, VOLUNTARISM

COMPULSION: Authority intoxicates, And makes sots of magistrates; The fumes of it invade the brain, And make men giddy, proud and vain." - Samuel Butler, English poet and satirist. – RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, LEGISLATORS, POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, INTERVENTIONISM, POWER CORRUPTS

COMPULSION: Benefits don't have to be compulsory. Only disservices have to be. - J.Z., 20.6.76. - Otherwise, they cannot be continued. - J.Z., 11.7.94.

COMPULSION: Compulsion can never put things right. It must be abolished." - Proudhon. - Generally true. However, protection of individual rights by rightful individual self-defence or by an ideal militia is still right and advisable. Defensive compulsion is not the same as aggressive compulsion. - J.Z., 19.6.92, 19.11.08. - MILITIA

COMPULSION: Compulsion destroys initiative and saps independence. Conversely - liberty creates initiative and fosters independence." - Josiah C. Wedgwood.

COMPULSION: Compulsion does not unite, compulsion separates men; for it lacks the inner drive of all social unions - the understanding which recognises the facts and the sympathy which comprehends the feeling of the fellow man because it feels itself related to him. By subjecting men to a common compulsion one does not bring them closer to one another, rather one creates estrangement between them and breeds impulses of selfishness and separation. (*) Social ties have permanence and completely fulfil their purpose only when they are based on good will and spring from the needs of men. Only under such conditions is a relationship possible where social union and the freedom of the individual are so closely inter-grown that they can no longer be recognised as separate entities." - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.246. - (*) One should not ignore, though, the phenomenon of comradeship even of conscripts, who have been under fire together, nor the artificially stimulated allegiances to a flag or a military unit or to vague concepts of a nation and fatherland, although neither are voluntary associations and do not, e.g., permit individual secessions. I do admit that voluntary loyalties are more reliable in the long run - when given to rightful associations. However, in the sphere of political, economic and social systems they are presently still rather rare and even mostly outlawed and unconstitutional and they have as yet gained little ground in public opinion. - J.Z., 17.6.94.

COMPULSION: Compulsion is a negative triumph of liberty." - Kudszus. – It is hardly a triumpf of liberty but, indirectly, a recognition of its attractive force. – J.Z., 19.11.08.

COMPULSION: Compulsion is almost always the way to go wrong - and down.- J.Z., 5.6.92, 17.6.94, 19.11.08.

COMPULSION: Compulsion is powerless compared with voluntary efforts and voluntary cooperation. With terror methods one can achieve some action but rarely some positive action or more than could be achieved by voluntary cooperation. - J.Z., 17.6.94.

COMPULSION: Compulsion kills something that may be very worthwhile in itself - as easily as rape kills love. - J.Z., 26.5.74.

COMPULSION: Compulsion only mismanages! - J.Z., 10/73. - COERCION, FORCE, VIOLENCE, MIGHT, POWER

COMPULSION: Do you not see, first, that - as a mental abstract - physical force is directly opposed to morality; and, secondly, that it practically drives out of existence the moral forces? How can an act done under compulsion have any moral element in it, seeing that what is moral is the free act of an intelligent being? If you die at a man's hands, there is nothing moral about his not committing murder. Such an abstaining from murder is a mechanical act; and just the same in kind, though less in degree, are all the acts which men are compelled to do under penalties imposed upon them by their fellow-men. Those who would drive their fellow-men into the performance of any good actions do not see that the very elements of morality - the free act following on the free choice - are as much absent in those upon whom they practice their legislation as in a flock of sheep penned in by hurdles." - Auberon Herbert, in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p. 408/9. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, LEGISLATION, CONTROLS, REGULATIONS, BUREAUCRACY, GOVERNMENTS, NATIONALISM

COMPULSION: First, if those who claim to speak for the collective or band believe that a member's commitment to what the spokesmen see as the band's interest, need not result from voluntary association, then that band is construed as a basic unit. Thus many trade unions believe, and act on the belief, that they may legitimately frustrate the attempts of non-unionists to voluntarily enter into certain, or even any, contracts of employment." - L. Chipman, QUADRANT, 1/78. - And they try to enforce compulsory membership, compulsory dues and compulsory participation in their strikes. - J.Z., 17.6.94. – Just like territorial governments enforce citizen participation their brawls, called wars. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

COMPULSION: Government Has Made An Offer You Cannot Refuse." - From a catalog of mini-posters by SLL.

COMPULSION: Government makes even democracy compulsory. Even democracy is compulsory government. - J.Z., 24.9.75, after a suggestion by D.Z., 24.9.75.

COMPULSION: Government's standard operating procedure is to use coercion first and discuss matters afterward: 'Under penalty of three years in the federal penitentiary or $ 10,000 fine, or both, you are herewith required to..." etc. This reversal of proper order, and exaggerated tendency to resort to force, is completely typical of governments; the tendency to place social compulsion uppermost is certainly not natural or justified. It should be noted that even those people who defend government get along fine without it in their relations with friends or neighbors, most of the time, and would think a person rude, insulting and violent who behaved privately as governments do publicly." - Fred Woodworth, Anarchism, p.13.

COMPULSION: If one knows that the good is objective - i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind - one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its roots by destroying man's capacity to recognise the good, i.e. his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyses a man's judgement, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one's mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full contexts of a man's life, needs, goals and knowledge." - Ayn Rand, THE OBJECTIVIST, Dec. 65. - If she had pondered the rightfulness of tyrannicide, as a defensive measure, she would have worded the above differently. - J.Z., 17.6.94. – Has anyone ever compiled all the wrongful omissions and false premises and conclusions in her freedom philosophy and replied to them sufficiently? – J.Z., 19.11.08.

COMPULSION: In my vocabulary, obligation and compulsion are not the same things." - Alister McLean, The Way to Dusty Death, p.65.

COMPULSION: In the spring of 1919, Baron Wrangel, addressing a small international gathering of idealists in Bern, put forward the demand that in future no man must be compelled to kill another man - 'not even in the service of his country.'" - Herman Hesse, Thou Shalt Not Kill, 1919. – As if countries were really served by killing the countrymen of other countries. – J.Z., 11.11.10. - KILLING, MURDER, CONSCRIPTION, NON-VIOLENCE

COMPULSION: It is as absurd to expect good clean unionism in conditions of extensive compulsory unionism, as it would be to expect good government in a society where the divine right of kings or the dictatorship of the proletariat was the central political principle." - Sylvester Petro, Can Labor Clean Its Own House? Quoted in THE FREEMAN, 11/74. – Is majority despotism any better than minority despotism? According to Herbert Spencer only by being despotic over the smaller number. – J.Z., 11.11.10. - UNIONS

COMPULSION: It is self-evident that individuals, by banding together and calling themselves a government, have no more and no less rights than they did as unassociated individuals. Thus, whenever such a group of men, calling themselves a government, does anything which they have not the right to do as individuals, they declare themselves trespassers, robbers, murderers, or invaders, according to the nature of their acts. Individuals or groups of men may compel others to obey the law of justice. This is the only law which any man can be rightfully compelled to obey by his fellow men." - Carl Watner, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p.133. – Even now the laws of justice are different under different territorial governments. Let each community of volunteers choose its own justice system and let them have their agreements on how mixed cases are to be settled. That was done alreadylong before most people could read and write. The territorial principle is not the only one for such settlements. – J.Z., 11.11.10. - TERRITORIALISM

COMPULSION: Just think what compulsion does to anything. Just think of one of the most beautiful things in life, sex, and what compulsion does to it!" - Dr. David Cunningham.

COMPULSION: Let no man of good will take it upon his conscience to advocate the rule of force - outside or INSIDE his own country. Let all those who are actually concerned with peace - those who do love man and do care about his survival - realise that if war is ever to be outlawed, it is the use of force that has to be outlawed." - Ayn Rand, in The Roots of War, from THE OBJECTIVIST, June 66. - Here she does not even distinguish between initiated and defensive use of force. - J.Z., 17.6.94. – She did not realize that only the coercion of territorialism ought to be done away with and that it should not be upheld even for supposedly “limited” governments. – J.Z., 19.11.08. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, FORCE, COERCION, GOVERNMENT

COMPULSION: Men do not naturally go an extra mile when they have been compelled to go one. Indeed, they naturally resist compulsion in the first place." - Clarence B. Carson, The Flight from Reality, THE FREEMAN, 11/65. – I wish they always did, sufficiently. But most are descendants of slaves and serfs. They have to become gradually accustomed to all their rights and liberties. Let the most advanced people set attractive examples to them, under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. Then “resistance” would only require individual secessionism and voluntary entry and acceptance in another community, which the secessionist prefers. If he is very enterprising, then he might even start a new one. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

COMPULSION: Men, as individuals, may rightfully compel each other to obey this one law of justice. And it is the only law which any man can rightfully be compelled, by his fellow men, to obey." – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.7. – To each community and society its own justice system! Here, too, we need competition and consumer-sovereignty. And also extreme caution when interfering with members of other communities. They might have the death penalty for something that is considered a trivial offence within the own community. – So far all people, all communities, have not yet agreed upon a single and ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties, although it is high time for it. Libertarians and anarchists should be in the forefront of such a project – but are they? - J.Z., 11.11.10. – JUSTICE, RIGHTS, FORCE

COMPULSION: Men, oppressing others, assure them that the compulsion is necessary in the interest of the government, while the government is indispensable to the liberty and welfare of men. - According to this, the oppressors force men for their own freedom and do them wrong for their own good. But men are rational beings and hence ought to understand wherein is their good, and to have liberty to do that...." - Tolstoi, in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians p.325. – Only territorially imposed compulsion is wrong. Compulsion within societies and communities of volunteers, agreeing on certain forms of compulsion among their own voluntary members, is quite another matter. Some may favour, e.g., compulsory vaccination or a particular form of marriage, while others don’t. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

COMPULSION: No more compulsions, ordered Douglas Bailey. Let's have the world's first genuinely free civilisation." - Poul Anderson, The Fatal Fulfilment. – But only set as an attractive example by volunteers among themselves. Trying to enforce that rule upon the whole world could result in a major and very violent conflict. – J.Z., 11.11.10. - TERRITORIALISM

COMPULSION: Nothing that is compulsory is social. - J.Z., 15.10. 74. - Well, one might except here: mutual tolerance or respect for the rights and liberties of others. For an enlightened person reasonable decision-making should be compulsory, or self-imposed, on important subjects, rather than knee-jerk reactions or emotional decision-making. - J.Z., 2.10.02.

COMPULSION: Of Switzerland he said once that in it the tradition of the old German Empire was preserved: the protection of the small tribes from the large ones, the security of the rights of the individual from attacks by any coercive community." - Otto Dibelius, speech, 20.3.55. - The protection of the rights of individuals from all assaults by any coercive community (“community” with compulsory membership and a territorial monopoly) can only be done away with when this compulsory membership and territorial monopoly are done away with. - Full recognition of individual rights does not have such an ancient precedent. In fact, it is not even achieved now, not even among libertarians and anarchists. - J.Z., 5.6.82, 17.6.94.

COMPULSION: One can do many things with bayonets - but one cannot sit on them." - Source? - Give me a dozen bayonets and a wooden wall & I could hammer them in, side by side, with the flat side upwards, to form a primitive seat. Give me 144 of them and I could hammer them into the ground, point first, and the flat ends of the bayonets might also form a primitive seat. However, I would prefer most other kids of seats, e.g. easily movable ones. So much of what is meant in a sentence is usually unstated. Here: One can hardly sit directly on the single "working" point of a bayonet. - J.Z., 17.6.94.

COMPULSION: One can force something upon society - but nothing that lasts." - Goethe. – While not lasting permanently, often it does already last all too long, like e.g. Nazism and territorially imposed communism and wrongful laws in democracies. – How long has compulsory taxation lasted by now? - J.Z., 11.11.10.

COMPULSION: Our wisdom is slavish prejudice, our customs consist in control, constraint, compulsion. Civilised man is born and dies a slave. The infant is bound up in swaddling clothes, the corpse is nailed down in his coffin. All his life man is imprisoned by his institutions." – J. J. Rousseau, Emile, quoted in B. R. Barber, Superman & Common Men, Pp.47. - FREEDOM, MAN, INSTITUTIONALISATION, TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, PANARCHISM

COMPULSION: Pay premiums to deserters from the other side rather than bomb or shoot them before they had a chance to freely choose the better or best possible side - and make sure that this is the one you are fighting for. - J.Z., ca. 1975. - Let all deserters from an enemy regime become voluntary members of those governments in exile, or non-governmental societies, that they like best and the soldiers of that enemy regime will lose most of their motive to fight you and will rather become neutrals or allies. - J.Z., 3.10.02. – DESERTION, PRISONERS OF WAR, APPEALS, WAR AIMS, TURNING ENEMIES INTO FRIENDS, ALLIES OR NEUTRALS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, PANARCHISM

COMPULSION: Seduction results in more ... for everybody. Rape results in less ... for all but the ruling elite." - FEE Australia, leaflet. - CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, PROFIT, INCENTIVES, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

COMPULSION: Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden." - Robert Heinlein, The Moon Is A harsh Mistress. - All too many freedom-lovers make tacit or explicit concessions to Robert Ardrey's thesis: The Territorial Imperative, while failing to explore The Exterritorial Imperative and its freedom tradition. - J.Z., 17.6.94.

COMPULSION: the coercive intrusion of the collective into the life and mind of the individual." - Ben Rogge, quoted in THE FREEMAN, Aug. 74, p. 502, on compulsory schooling, one of the many examples of territorialism. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

COMPULSION: The eloquence of power." - Ambrose Bierce.

COMPULSION: The folly of compulsion. Compulsion is a disruption of Nature's harmony." - L. E. Read, Leonard E., Vision, ch. 10. – For moral, rational and civilized beings, among themselves. Otherwise nature is, largely, “red in tooth and claws” and even the ‘peaceful” vegetable eaters feast on these other forms of life. – J.Z., 19.11.08.

COMPULSION: The ideal development of civilisation is to do away with compulsion, in order to achieve the results of compulsion (*) by the free will of the individuals." - Josiah C. Wedgwood. (*) and much more! - J.Z.

COMPULSION: The magistrate, for the Chinese, is a friendly arbitrator, rather than a dominating authority bound to declare the law and to secure its respect. In the current practice of the interior districts (1920's), a court decision in a civil case is executed ONLY WHEN THE LOSING PARTY SIGNIFIES HIS ACCEPTANCE OF IT; FOR IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO NATURAL LAW TO USE COMPULSION ON A FREE MIND.'" Emphasis added. - LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Winter 75. – CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, JURISDICTION, COMPETING JUSTICE SYSTEMS

COMPULSION: The nationalists and other collectivists seem to think that nothing but what is coercive or compulsory deserves the name of “social”. - J.Z., 24.5.75.

COMPULSION: the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he does otherwise." - J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Great Books edition, p.271. - Harm and wrong should be distinguished. By free competition you might harm the business of others, reducing their profits, but you do not do them wrong, while you serve their former customers better than they did. - J.Z., 15.10.11, 12.12.11.

COMPULSION: thinking and acting for others had always hindered, not helped, the real progress; that all forms of compulsion deadened the living forces in a nation; ..." – Auberon Herbert, Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine.

COMPULSION: To be compelled into virtue is only to live in order to die of dry rot." - Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p. 92. - VIRTUE, MORALITY, DUTY, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, CHARITY, WELFARE STATE

COMPULSION: To describe ... 'our liberty to compel others' (*) denotes an utter misconception. It is simply the exercise of our liberty to keep others from compelling us. - But who is to judge where the invasion begins? ... Each for himself, and those who combine do agree, I answer. It will be perpetual war, then? Not at all; a war of short duration, at the worst. I am well aware that there is a border-land between legitimate and invasive conduct over which there must be for a time more or less trouble. But it is an ever-decreasing margin. It has been narrowing ever since the idea of equal liberty first dawned upon the mind of man, and in proportion as this idea becomes clearer, and the new social conditions which it involves become real, will it contract towards the geometrical conception of a line. And then the world will be at peace." - Benjamin R. Tucker, Instead of a Book. - (*) It could be that this was just a mix-up in terms with the Kantian idea of rights, as being accompanied by the authority to enforce them! - J.Z., 17.6.94. – DIS.

COMPULSION: We never can be made happy by compulsion." - Emerson. - Happiness. – If the conditions of individual rights and liberties were compulsorily upheld against any attackers then the maximum of happiness would also be achieved – for all but criminals with victims, aggressors and other meddlers with the affairs of others. Most libertarians do wrongly believe that a “limited” but still territorial government could realized that ideal and have not yet seriously considered a free market for all kinds of governmental as well as non-governmental societies of volunteers, under personal laws and each without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 19.11.08. – PANARCHISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM

COMPULSION: what she wanted was no organisational compulsion at all." - John Chamberlain, on Rose Wilder Lane, REASON, 8/79, p. 47. - Still, she did not clearly come out for panarchism or exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities. - J.Z., 17.6.94. – And this in spite of the ancient personal law and voluntaristic tradition in Arab countries. Admitted, the “millet system” or the “dhimmies” were not perfect or quite consistent but they were large steps towards individualism, voluntarism and religious tolerance and community autonomy on an exterritorial basis. – J.Z., 19.11.08. – ORGANIZATIONS, TERRITORIALISM.

COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR ENDING IT: During one stage of the French Revolution, the National Guard forcefully opened and inspected all monasteries and nunneries - to make sure none of the inmates were kept there against their will. I do not recall any indication of the numbers of people who made use of this opportunity to opt out of this lifestyle. - J.Z., n.d. - In some countries its "mental institutions" deserve a similar compulsory "opening". Officers, in many countries and for centuries were entitled to resign. Ordinary soldiers almost never. Caesar, according to his writings, permitted his soldiers free choice during his civil war, between him and his opponents. Was that offer merely a verbal propaganda attempt and were no measures and pressures applied at all, to those who wanted to defect from him? I do not know. Do you? - J.Z., 9.12.03.

COMPULSORY TOGETHERNESS & PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, TERRITORIALISM: The enforced territorial and organizational togetherness can be changed into a peaceful because voluntaristic coexistence – but only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 8.12.93, 28.3.94, 7.1.99. No verbal formula should remain indefinitely fixed. One should always try to optimize it. – J.Z., 7.1.99.



COMPUTERS: Zube’s first law on computers: Neither their hardware nor their software, their help or their guides or services can be relied upon at all or for a long time. (Just like politicians and bureaucrats? – J.Z., 21.10.07.) They become rapidly dysfunctional or obsolete and cannot be easily enough maintained by most users. As compared with them: My fridge, bought second-hand, was still working after more than 30 years. Once I had a working car that was over 25 years old, the present one is about 14. But my computers, printers, drives, software etc… .- J.Z., 23.2.03. – At least we have already free choice among computers and software. For governments, societies and communities and whole political, economic and social systems we still have to introduce free choice for individuals. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

COMRADESHIP: War is too terrible a price to pay even for the advantages of comradeship." - W. H. Nevinson, JOHN O'LONDON'S WEEKLY, reviewing Edmund Blunden's Undertones of War, 22 Dec. 1928. - Rather than comradeship arising out of suffering and trying to mitigate that suffering, we need the kind of thoughtful and disobedient comradeship that would end the senseless suffering from wars and civil wars. - J.Z., 20.6.94.

COMRADESHIP: What some refer to as unity is often but a bond of common hatreds and prejudices." - D. Runes, A Dictionary of Thought, p.20. - Also in: A Book of Contemplation, p. 23. - The comradeship of conscripts in the trenches should be directed against those who sent them there, rather than against the conscripts in the opposite trenches. - J.Z., 20.6.94.

CONCENTRATION CAMPS & NATIONS: 30, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. From the panarchist point of view, territorial nations are nation-wide prisons or concentration camps in which innocents are compulsorily mixed up with criminals - under domination of the worst criminals. - Territorialism provides the walls - or their equivalents. - J.Z., 13.9.04.

CONCENTRATION CAMPS: The concentration camp is the 'law school' of socialism." - Clarence B. Carson. - All territorial nations are, to some extent, nation-wide concentration camps. - J.Z., 20.6.94. - Nuclear "weapons" are "extermination camps" in small, scientific and convenient packages, camouflaged as "defensive" weapons. - J.Z., 2.10.02. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, NATIONALISM, GOVERNMENTS

CONCENTRATION OF POWER: The fatal flaw of governments, including 'majority rule' democracies, is the cumulative effect of THE CONCENTRATION OF POWER AND AUTHORITY on the instalment plan." - Stormy Mon, A Liberty Book, p.22. – Subjection to an instalment plan still requires voluntary and individual signatures. We are born or otherwise subjected to territory-wide prison systems, from maximum to minimum security type and not free to escape from them or to secede from them. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONCENTRATION OF POWER: The greatest single threat to freedom is the concentration of power. It attracts the power freaks whose egomania drives them to impose their every mad whim upon the people they can control. Power rightfully belongs only to the individual. As he comes into conflict with others and disputes develop, he finds it in his interest to form voluntary associations to settle such disputes.” - Rod Manis, in: Outside Looking In, p.432. – Territorialism is the fertile ground for the growth of wrongful power systems. Individual secessionism, personal law and exterritorially autonomous communities would greatly reduce power concentration and abuses. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONCESSIONS: If the constitution does really, or naturally, give rise to all this 'strife', and requires all this 'spirit of amity and mutual concession,' - and I do not care now to deny that it does, - so much the worse for the constitution. And so much the worse for all those men who, like yourself, swear to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.'" – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.22, Works I. - Most concession requirements arise out of the territorial State model. They would obviously no longer be needed for the internal politics of panarchies. For their international relations they would merely have to concede to each other that degree of the practice of individual rights which the volunteers of any particular and exterritorially autonomous community agree upon, among themselves. – J.Z., 20.6.94. - CONSTITUTIONALISM, VOLUNTARISM, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

CONCESSIONS: Make no concessions to archy." - Walter Grinder, Books for Libertarians, 4/73. – None to territorial archies. All to exterritorial archies and anarchies of volunteers only. – J.Z., 11.11.10. - COMPROMISES, STATE, ANARCHISM

CONCESSIONS: Today, there are two major processes occurring in the world. One is that of short-sighted concessions, a process of giving up, giving up and giving up, in the hope that at some point the Russian wolf will have eaten enough." – A. Solzhenitsyn, READER’S DIGEST, Nov. 75. - I have never conceded to the Soviets that they represent the "Russians". Concessions to oppressive regimes must be distinguished from concessions to their victims, the various captive nations, communities and individuals. - J.Z., 20.6.94. – One should never speak of despotic regimes as if they really represented the peoples they dominated & exploit. – J.Z., 19.11.08. - CAPTIVE NATIONS, WAR AIMS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, NEGOTIATIONS, DESERTION, REFUGEES, AMNESTY, ASYLUM, OPEN ARMS POLICIES, APPEASEMENT, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS & THEIR VICTIMS

CONCISE COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA: 3rd. ed., 1994, Columbia U.P., Exterritoriality, 1p: 103, in PP 1539. This site gives not only a short definition but provides links to relevant recent press releases, to 1997. - J.Z.

CONDEMNATION OF OTHERS: No man can justly censor or condemn another, because indeed no man truly knows another." - Sir Thomas Browne. - Even self-knowledge is difficult to impossible. - J.Z., 17.6.80. - However, one should distinguish between actions without victims (except the freely acting self) and actions that victimize other, non-consenting people. Only the involuntarily victimized people justify the condemnation of the victimizers, the punishment victimizers and the enforcement of all indemnification claims against the victimizers. - J.Z., 20.6.94, 19.11.08. – TERRITORIALISM, DRUGS, CRIMES, VICES, PROHIBITION

CONDITIONING: People always blame circumstances for what they have become. I do not believe in circumstances. People who advance in this world are those upright ones who everywhere seek to find the circumstances which they need and when they cannot find them then they establish them." - G. B. Shaw, retranslated from the German version. - One-man revolutions have their chance only under panarchism and innovators need at least ideas markets like an Ideas Archive could provide - apart from the experimental freedom that panarchism would provide them with. - J.Z., 20.6.94. - SUCCESS, ENVIRONMENT, SOCIETY, CIRCUMSTANCES, FATE, EXCUSES, RATIONALISATIONS, HUMAN NATURE, MAN

CONDUCT: We are where we are, and what we are because of our conduct." - J. J. Collins, Desk Calendar. - That would be a consequence of really free individual choices in a free society but is not present reality. True, we do not make optimal or full use of all choices remaining to us but should not ignore the numerous rightful and useful choices that are now made territorially illegal. - J.Z., 20.6.94. – The victims of concentration camps and extermination camps and the other victims of totalitarian territorial regimes would certainly not subscribe to that quote. – J.Z., 19.11.08. – DIS., COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

CONFERENCE ON THE LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT: Washington, Nov. 12, 1921 - Feb. 6, 1922, Washington, 1922. (Also on extraterritoriality, according to Millard.)

CONFIDENCE: Confidence is what you feel when you don't really understand the situation." - James P. Hogan, Mirror Maze, p.318. - This applies particularly to confidence in politicians, their laws, institutions and currencies. - J.Z., 27.5.91,20.6.94.

CONFLICT OF LAWS: [6] Moreover, it isn’t plausible to demand that others should keep themselves informed of the details and changes in the law under which you live, and they don’t. Also, some of those considering personal or private law today seem to be unaware of the principle actor sequitur forum rei. For example, Benson (1990) believes that arbitration would be the likely solution, "likened to formal or informal extradition treaties among political entities" (p. 32). This even seems to be the exact opposite of the principle at hand. Also Friedman (1973) seems to be unaware of this principle. He means that there are three ways in which a conflict between laws could be handled, none being the principle at hand: "The most obvious and least likely is direct violence – a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishments for their actual crimes. When a conflict occurs, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one will or will not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other. // A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them - a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled." – Richard C. B. Johnsson. - PERSONAL LAW, Q., OBJECTIONS, WHOSE LAW IS TO BE APPLIED? WHOSE JURISDICTION? DIS.

CONFLICT: Although a hundred individuals may have as many different goals, conflict among these individuals is minimised through exchange in the market and the exercise of their individual rights. For example, if one person wishes to live in a commune where all property is shared and another wishes to live alone in a house, both goals can be realized by the people involved without recourse to conflict between them." - WORLD RESEARCH: The Role of Government. - Realize that in the “public” or “governmental” spheres we need free individual choice among governments over volunteers only, competing governments or exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities and personal laws, too, not only the limited marketing which some territorial governments permit. - J.Z., 20.6.94, 11.11.10. - PEACE, PANARCHISM, CHOICE, MARKETS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS

CONFLICTS: Conflict of interest is normal. Compromise is too, …” - Poul Anderson, A Knight of Ghosts and Shadows, p.121. - But one should try to eliminate conflict situations, i.e., systematically reduce the number of conflicts to a minimum e.g. via the exterritorial imperative. - J.Z., 6.9.87. - Conflict isn't normal when it comes to the possibilities of free exchange, of voluntary cooperation, voluntary integration, voluntary segregation, free competition in all spheres and quite diverse but only exterritorially autonomous actions. - J.Z., 16.7.01. The possibilities of compromise are not exhausted until all panarchistic options are realized. They amount to a "non-compromising compromise" - with the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams for everybody. - J.Z., 26.1.02. - If a whole country were only one football field or divided into as many football fields as it could hold and if only football were allowed to be played there, then this would simply be the only game allowed. But sports in general, shows how many alternatives are possible, in a country and world-wide, without the voluntary participants coming into conflict with each other (apart from their fair competitions) and without having to engage in many significant compromises. However, if some authority tried to force all footballers to play only cricket or all cricketers were forced to play only football then the scene for a civil war would be set. - J.Z., 9.2.02. - COMPROMISE, SPORTS, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, HARMONY

CONFORMISM: Conformism as well as dissenting autonomy - only among volunteers! - J.Z., 28.6.92.

CONFORMISM: Men need not conform - neither in beliefs nor in behavior. - J.Z., 24.7.87. - In many more situations than most people presently dream of. - J.Z., 20.6.94. - Written after reading Poul Anderson, Past Times, p. 90: "But the poison remained: The idea that men must conform not only in behaviour but in belief." – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, NON-CONFORMISM, DIS.

CONFORMISM: resist conformity to some collectivised norm." - Robert LeFevre, The Libertarian, p. 63. - Voluntary and non-territorial collectivism need not be resisted. It can be tolerate just like any other voluntary and non-territorial activity or organization. – J.Z., 19.11.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, COLLECTIVISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS.

CONFORMITY, AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM & DISSENT: Conformity as well as dissenting autonomy - only among volunteers. - J.Z. 28.6.92. - Territorialism can only offer compromises and conformity and powerless dissent, all under the pretence of voluntarism and representation. Exterritorialism can make the supposed ideals of territorialism practical realities - but only among their voluntary supporters. - J.Z., 11.12.03.

CONGO TRIBES: Up to 5 competing jurisdictions - according to a 1970’s hint by a sociologist. (Melanie Foxcroft.)

CONGREGATIONAL COMMUNITIES: Term used by Spencer Heath McCallum on 6 Dec. 90. - Alas, it does not clearly indicate, either, the exterritorial autonomy aspect. Spencer Heath McCallum advocates especially "proprietary communities" for the realization of Georgist ideas, i.e., small real estate enterprises offering public services via private property and its management, like e.g. many shopping centers and gated communities do. - J.Z., 9.12.03, 12.12.11.

CONNECTION, THE: A short and still incomplete guide to point out the issues of THE CONNECTION that have previously been somewhat discussed in this series: TC 4-7 in PP 585, OP VI, TC 107/108 in PP 554, OP V, TC 109/110 in PP 507, OP III, TC 111-118 in PP 505, OP I, TC 121 in PP 671, OP VII, TC 126, 128, 129, 131 in PP 585, OP VI, TC 133-137 in PP 671, OP VI, TC 138-140 in PP 672, OP VIII, TC 142-143 in PP 689, OP IX, TC 144-147 in PP 755, OP X. - Others may be dispersed in different PEACE PLANS issues. It will be still a while before my On Panarchy (OP) Collection will be somewhat complete and indexed. Either be patient or help instead of complaining! - J.Z. - Formerly: THE LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION. I believe that by now someone has digitized the back issues of THE CONNECTION and put it online - but I do not have the relevant URL on hand. - J.Z., 13.9.04.

CONNECTION, THE: Discussion on Panarchy, John Zube with "Connectors": DIOGENES OF PANARCHIA, 7, 10, 49, 50, 76; DOWNARD, JIM, 8; DUBOIS, J. EDWARD, 5, 13; FILTHY PIERRE, 7, 18, 21, 25, 32, 35, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, 60, 61, 67, 68, 79; FOLDVARY, FRED, 28, 30, 63; FULKS,JOE, 20, 61/2; GUNDERLOY, MIKE, 17, 18, 36, 38, 39, 49, 71; INFORMATION PAPER, 42; JACOBSON, PHILIP E., 10, 11, 25-27, 43, 60, 78; KNESE, FRITZ, 14, 33-35, 69; KYSOR, GEORGE, 12, 13, 35, 60, 65; O'KEEFE, STEPHEN, 49; PARADISE, SAL, 20; PYRRHO, 5, 31, 42, 44, 66, 77; REITH, EDWARD B.,6; REITH, GERRY, 22, 43, 60; STUMM, JIM, 5, 14, 15, 23, 40, 41, 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 65, 73-75; WELLING, WOODY, 16, 52, 53, 72;  WITHAM, STEVE, 5, 13, 42, 47, 73, 76; WOODWARD, WAYNE WALLACE, 19. - in PEACE PLANS No. 505.

CONQUERING & OCCUPATION FORCES: They do also operate, in other countries, under their own laws. Only to that extent do they represent exterritorialism or extraterritorialism. Mostly they do not possess a panarchistic platform. At best they support one or the other alternative and not too despotic government-in-exile. In worse cases they merely support a puppet regime that acts as their ally or local mouthpiece. See: PRECEDENTS.

CONSCIENCE: Conscience is the law of law." - Lamartine. – One’s territorial laws to be changed to personal laws, individually chosen with the political, economic and social system and community or society that one prefers for oneself. – J.Z., 27.11.08, 11.11.10. - PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP

CONSCIENCE: Conscience should dictate all our actions." - Source? - Yes, provided it is based on a rational morality and this requires at least that the actions are confined to one's own affairs. - J.Z., n.d., in seventies.

CONSCIENCE: Conscience, or Law and Order. Manifestly, you can no longer adhere to both." - Terry, Mike, Del, in RESISTANCE, U.K., vol. 4, No. 4.

CONSCIENCE: Even towards the law, the duty of the citizen to collaborate is not absolute. For his supreme duty, at least in an individualist culture, is not towards the law but towards his conscience." - Leopold Kohr, Weniger Staat, p.74. – Panarchism amounts to conscientious objection, recognized and generalized. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSCIENCE: Henry David Thoreau, the famous civil resistant, was most sympathetic to the abolitionist cause. Thoreau was influenced by his friendship with Ralph Waldo Emerson, who in turn was an admirer of William Lloyd Garrison. All three shared in common the idea of individual conscience standing in opposition to the State. The core of Thoreau's argument is that men become machines when they obey orders without thinking or when they give the government authority to speak or act on their behalf. 'Must the citizen... resign his conscience to the legislator?', Thoreau asked. 'Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first...'" - Source?

CONSCIENCE: I am a conscientious objector against military-, school-, union- , tax- and State-slavery, also a conscientious objector against the notion that such a conscientious objection would require official recognition and sanction before it can be considered as conscientious. - J.Z., 27.5.83. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

CONSCIENCE: I do not want to please anyone but my conscience." - Dagobert D. Runes, Handbook of Reason, p.45.

CONSCIENCE: I trust nobody with my conscience but myself! - J.Z., 26.4.83.

CONSCIENCE: If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention when I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could not conceive that the general government might be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every specious of religious persecution." - George Washington. - Too many people want to confine liberty of conscience only to religious prosecution and not to conscientious dissent with imposed political, economic and social systems. - Government "laws" have by now assured that in practice the tax department decides who is allowed to form a sect or church that is recognized by it and safe from some of its tributes. - J.Z., 21.6.94. – There are still too many who see only the religious or anti-religious aspects of “freedom of conscience”. – J.Z., 19.11.08.

CONSCIENCE: In one of his challenging aphorisms Lord Acton declared the emancipation of conscience from authority to be the main content of modern history. In Communist states the flowering of the individual is frustrated and the claims of conscience contemptuously ignored." - G. P. Gooch, quoted in: C. Bingham, Men & Affairs, p.254.

CONSCIENCE: JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery, 1984. Page 306: "... the policy against government involvement in matters of individual conscience." - To us it is obvious that individual conscience goes beyond matters of religion and of conscientious objection against military servitude. - J.Z., in letter to GPdB & C.B., 11.11.04. - INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE:

CONSCIENCE: Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? – Why has every man a conscience then?” – Henry David Thoreau, 1849. – CONSCIENCE, LAWS, LEGISLATORS

CONSCIENCE: Never do anything against conscience even if the State demands it." - Albert Einstein, SATURDAY REVIEW, obituary April 30, 1955. – Men with a sufficiently developed conscience would not tolerate any territorial State but work towards the abolition of all of them. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSCIENCE: No man can be justified in setting up his judgement as a standard for others. ... (Man) must consult his own reason, draw his own conclusions, and conscientiously conform himself to his ideas of propriety. ... For that purpose each must have his sphere of discretion. No man must encroach upon my province, nor I upon his. He may advise me, moderately and without pertinaciousness, but he must not expect to dictate to me. He may censure me freely and without reserve; but she should remember that I am to act by my deliberation and not his." – William Godwin, Justice.

CONSCIENCE: Nobody has the right to substitute his own conscience for that of another, for progress depends on PERSONAL EFFORT, and to suppress this effort constitutes a crime." - Lecomte du Nouey, Human Destiny, 87, quoted by Leonard E. Read, Deeper Than You Think, p.24.

CONSCIENCE: Refuse to abdicate your conscience to the government. - J.Z., free after a remark by barrister Mr. P. Cummings regarding draft resister Ian Turner, THE AUSTRALIAN, Jan. 22, 72.

CONSCIENCE: That every man should regulate his actions by his own conscience, without any regard to the opinions of the rest of the world, is one of the first precepts of moral prudence." - Samuel Johnson, The Rambler, p.23.

CONSCIENCE: The fact that human conscience remains partially infantile throughout life is the core of human tragedy." - Erik H. Erikson, Childhood and Society, 1950, p.7. - With so many spheres for rightful actions partly or completely pre-empted by governments, the moral sense or conscience remains under-exercised and we remain immature and irresponsible to some extent, in a nation-wide and monopolistic governmental kinder-garden with compulsory attendance and obedience until we die. - J.Z., 21.6.94.

CONSCIENCE: The First Amendment, which forbids affirmative government promotion of religion as such as well as interference with free speech, symbolizes the policy against government involvement in matters of individual conscience.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.306. – Alas, he did not consider, that freedom of conscience requires much more than non-involvement and non-intervention with religious beliefs and convictions and free speech etc. It should include non-intervention with any ethical, moral or ideological system, even in the political, economic and social sphere, that is confined to voluntary members and subjects, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. To keep the peace between us we need now full freedom and tolerance for such secular “churches” or movements as much as we did need it once in the sphere of religion. – But here JFJ is still stuck upon territorialism and the limited government concept, as if all people were prepared to subscribe to it. As if some people were not prepared to go beyond it, for their own affairs. - J.Z., 2.10.07. – INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE GOES MUCH BEYOND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

CONSCIENCE: The only tyrant I accept in this world is the 'still small voice' within me." - Mahatma Gandhi, READER’S DIGEST, Jan. 64. - MORAL SENSE, SELF-CONTROL, SELF-DISCIPLINE, SELF-RELIANCE, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, DUTY, ETHICS, MORALITY

CONSCIENCE: There is no reason why I should let my freedom be called in question by another man's conscience." - St. Paul, Corinthians, The Bible. - Conscientious people are all too often not sufficiently conscious of the own rights and liberties and of those of others. So far only very few understand the conscience case in details and apply it as the law of equal freedom, and of equal rights for all, or as the 'categorical imperative'. - J.Z., 4.4.89. – However, no one should be forced to practise all of his genuine individual rights and liberties. It suffices that he respects or at least tolerates the practice of these liberties and rights among those, who do appreciate them. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSCIENCE: Toleration means freedom to follow the dictates of one's own conscience, reason and belief - as long as one can do so at the own risk and expense. - J.Z., in pamphlet on Tolerance.

CONSCIENCE: You contend that I am wrong to practise Catholicism; and I contend that you are wrong to practise Lutheranism. Let us leave it to God to judge. Why should I strike at you, or why should you strike at me? If it is not good that one of us should strike at the other, how can it be good that we should delegate to a third party, who controls the public police force, the authority to strike at one of us in order to please the other? You contend that I am wrong to teach my son science and philosophy; I believe you are wrong to teach your's Greek and Latin. Let us both follow the dictates of our conscience. Let us allow the law of responsibility to operate for our families. It will punish the one who is wrong. Let us not call in human law; it could well punish the one who is not wrong." - Bastiat, quoted in Roche III's biography, Bastiat, 193. - We should become free to follow our own conscience in secular matters as well, as long as we allow the others to do the same. - J.Z., 15.10.11. - You will go your way, while I go my way. - You do your things, while I do my things. - Proverbial wisdom.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM: Conscientious objection is no more than an incomplete and thus insufficient individual secession. - J.Z. 18.8.92, 4.1.93.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION & PANARCHISM: Conscientious objection and alternative self-help services all around. – J.Z., 29.8.88, 21.6.94. – One should not only be free to opt out of the armed forces of governments, out of compulsory unions, State religions, governmental school systems, imposed jurisdictions and police and penal services, but out of the whole constitution and out from under the legislative and bureaucratic avalanches of any territorial government. Full autonomy for all dissenters in every sphere, as long as they can practise it at their own expense and risk. I for one would not tolerate it if one of my neighbours were to keep a nuclear weapon or reactors in his backyard, because they would greatly endanger me, even while he might feel safe with them. Better court, defence and protection systems than any territorial governments can supply are to be provided, too, competitively or cooperatively, to settle remaining or new disagreements as non-violently as possible. – J.Z., 7.1.99. – However, by making no claims to territorial rule conflicts are already greatly minimized with all others, who, likewise, make no such claims and try to enforce them. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION & PANARCHISM: Panarchy would, so to speak, universalize the principle of conscientious objection against military servitude, against tax slavery, compulsory education, medication or prohibition. It would realize freedom for dissenters and non-conformists, not only in the religious sphere but also in the political, social and economic spheres. – J.Z., 1986, 2004, 12.12.11.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: Conscientious objection against compulsory State membership and subjugation to territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdiction, police and penal systems. - J.Z. 13.1.93.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: Conscientious Objection and Alternative Self-Help services - All Around! - J.Z., 29.8.88, 21.6.94.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: Conscientious Objection is incomplete if confined only to armed services and thus not opposed e.g. to taxes, compulsory unionism, central banking, protectionism, compulsory State membership and, quite generally, to territorialism. - J.Z., 9.12.87, 21.6.94, 19.11.09. - PANARCHISM.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: Conscientious objection ought to be comprehensive and include conscientious objections - and actions - against ANY suppression of individual human rights, which means, primarily, opposition against territorial, coercive, centralistic and monopolistically sovereign States. It ought to oppose also their suppression of the right to bear rightful arms, to train and organize for the defence of individual rights and liberties rather than merely for the aims of some territorial government. - J.Z., 17.5.89, 12.12.11.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: the need of pressing for the recognition of the human right of conscientious objection ON ALL LEVELS..." - THE PEACEMAKER, Nov./Dec. 1968, Croydon, Vic., Australia.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS & PANARCHISM: Conscientious objection is incomplete if confined only to armed services and not applied e.g. to taxes, trade unions and State membership. – J.Z., 9.12.87.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS: They are still all too far from being comprehensive individual secessionists. - J.Z., 13.9.04.

CONSCIOUSNESS: Dr. David Finkelstein, the physicist, got into a rap with me about Consciousness. I was hearing everything with capitals by then. It isn't every day that you can feel yourself standing, as R. Buckminster Fuller says we all stand, between Utopia and Oblivion." - R. A. Wilson, Right Where You Are Sitting Now, p.44. - We rather stand, compulsorily, and more or less passively, mentally as well as physically, within a coercive distopia and at the edge of the oblivion it threatens us with, rather than standing up for our rightful utopias, for ourselves, and for all other utopias for all those who want them, turning our backs on all coercive distopias and thus pushing back the threat of oblivion. - J.Z., 21.6.94. - NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRITORIALISM, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

CONSCRIPTION: A country has no right to force men into involuntary servitude." - Ayn Rand, PLAYBOY interview. – Not of any kind! – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSCRIPTION: A draft card is like a deed of ownership." - David Harris, in PROTOS, Nov. 70. – SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

CONSCRIPTION: Conscripts, like slaves, have a valid right to combine and secede at any time, by force of arms, if necessary. - J.Z., free after Lysander Spooner and R. A. Wilson, n.d. - They have also the right to conclude separate peace treaties and to form exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers as alternative governments or governments in exile. - J.Z., 21.6.94.

CONSCRIPTION: draft ... is improper and unconstitutional. It is a violation of fundamental rights, of a man's right to his own life." - Ayn Rand, PLAYBOY interview. – Man has a right to his own life not only in this respect. However, Ayn Rand attacked the idea of voluntary governments and societies – because she managed to misunderstand it. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSCRIPTION: Help citizens secede from regimes with conscription. - J.Z., 23.2.74. – Or with any other coercive measures, like taxation or territorial legislation and subjection of the whole population. – Governments and their supposed benefits only for their remaining volunteers! – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSCRIPTION: I am not a draft animal and I belong to no one but myself. – J.Z., 7.8.95. – I hold that not one should be considered and treated like a draft animal. All people belong to themselves rather than to any territorial State, nation or people. – J.Z., 23.9.08.

CONSCRIPTION: I am not a national resource." – Bumpersticker offered in REASON. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-OWNERSHIP

CONSCRIPTION: I cannot accept that people must be conscripted, trained and manipulated as a Government wishes - that freedom of movement, choice of employment, freedom of association, freedom of belief and observance of those beliefs etc. must be negated to be preserved." - John Scott.

CONSCRIPTION: I object to conscription the way a lobster objects to boiling water: it may be his finest hour but it's not his choice." – Robert Heinlein, Glory Road, p.5.

CONSCRIPTION: I oppose registration for the draft ... because I believe the security of freedom can best be achieved by security through freedom." - Ronald Reagan.

CONSCRIPTION: If sending the boys off to their deaths is not child molesting, I don't know what is." - R. T. Slocum, A Guide to Draft Counselling, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 8/81.

CONSCRIPTION: It is very unlikely that in the absence of the draft the government would ever again be able to wage war against the wishes of the public it is supposed to serve." - Paul Lepanto, Return to Reason, p.133. - - This would largely be true if 'the draft' did here include also the draft of property by inflation and taxation. Otherwise, the government could hire mercenaries. - J.Z., n.d., during seventies. Furthermore, the powers and motives for war are largely based upon the territorial conscription of all "nationals" into a subordinate citizen relationship towards one or several governments ( local, state, federal ones) or, at least, into obedience towards their laws and regulations, even when they were granted not even the right to vote for or against them. - J.Z., 21.6.94.

CONSCRIPTION: National Service wants you - but do you want National Service?" - Fred W. Etcheverry, REASON, 9/72. – Nationalized servitude is a more suitable expression. – It covers tax slavery, compulsory education and all other legalized territorial coercion as well. - J.Z., 11.11.10. – TERRITORIALISM, SERFDOM, SERVITUDE

CONSCRIPTION: One of the amusing by-products of war is its pricking of the fundamental democratic delusion. For years HOMO BOOBUS stalks the earth vaingloriously, flapping his wings over his God-given rights, his inalienable freedom, his sublime equality to his masters. Then of a sudden he is thrust into a training camp, and discovers that he is a slave, after all - that even his life is not his own." - H. L. Mencken, Minority Report. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, DEMOCRACY, FREE COUNTRIES

CONSCRIPTION: The draft exists on the premise that a man's life belongs to the state." - Todd Koenig, FOCUS, May 68.

CONSCRIPTION: The draft is nothing more than legally sanctioned kidnapping." - Robert LeFevre, LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Summer 77. - But these kidnappers are not prepared, for a high prize, to sell their victims back to their beloved, alive and unharmed. No, they want to force them to risk their lives and limbs in fighting others, for the purposes of the kidnappers. That makes this kidnapping even worse. And the pretence that these crimes, committed on a massive scale, would all be "for the good of the country", makes this kidnapping, morally, the worst of all. - J.Z., 21.6.94.

CONSCRIPTION: The Draft is the Ultimate Socialism: Nationalisation of Human Beings." - Don Ernsberger, SIL Slogan, 1980. - Also quoted in JERSEY LIBERTARIAN, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 8/80. – Taxation and subjugation to territorial legislation is the same, in principle. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSCRIPTION: The government is the real criminal. Examples, for starters: taxation is extortion (tax evasion is only self-defence), inflation is fraud (counterfeiting) (*) on a massive scale, devaluation is robbery, national service is kidnapping and/or slavery; ditto compulsory education. Of course, there are any number of 'practical' arguments against these assertions, but no PRINCIPLED ones." – John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.60. – (*) Depreciating the government’s forced and exclusive currency. It can hardly “forge” its own money – but it can reduce it almost to scrap paper in its value. – J.Z., 19.11.08.

CONSCRIPTION: What is conscription but mass enslavement?" - Murray N. Rothbard, REASON, 3/73.

CONSCRIPTION: Why did you bring up your son, mother? Why? - For the trenches, mother! For the trenches!" - Kurt Tucholsky, in one of his moving anti-war poems. – How many still better sayings exist on this subject? Who will add them? – Instead of letting ourselves be mobilized, taxed and sacrificed for the territorial warfare States, let us at least assemble and publish the best ideas and opinions against this kind of slavery. - Catchwords can be catching! Naturally, a good resistance, tax strike, liberation, militia organization and individual human rights program, including quite rightful war and peace aims, individual secessionism and panarchies of volunteers, etc. would help as well. – J.Z., 27.11.08. – There are still several forms of slavery: military slavery, tax slavery, “educational” slavery, enslavement to a central banking system of monetary despotism, sexual slavery and enslavement to territorially imposed systems. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONSENSUS: MacCallum observes that the typically desired decision-making process of the governance of such retail communities – for example, by merchant’s councils – is by consensus rather than majority voting. If a measure can only be obtained by a majority vote, then, as one participant stated, “we don’t want it”. (1971, 10.)” - Fred E. Foldvary, Proprietary Communities and Community Associations, in: “The Voluntary City, Choice, Community and Civil Society, ed. by David T. Beito, Peter Gordon and Alexander Tabarrok, Foreword by Paul Johnson, The Independent Institute, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2002, page 281. - VIA MAJORITY DECISION-MAKING

CONSENSUS: The consensus ... was a living, breathing creature that could attack in vicious rage." - Dean R. Koontz, A Darkness in My Soul, Dawn Books, N.Y., 1972, p. 92. - Particularly if the only model it can envision as a "living", "just" or "practicable" community, namely a territorial State, is threatened by innovators who have an alternative model for it. - J.Z., n.d. - PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, CONSENT, MANDATE

CONSENT & GOVERNMENT: Why should a rational person give what is in effect a blank check, an open-ended consent, to a government?" - Roy Childs, Anarchism & Justice, IV, INDIVIDUALIST, 10/71. (Most issues are microfiched in my PEACE PLANS series. - J.Z.

CONSENT IN PRESENT & FUTURE POLITICS: Most political action takes place without individual consent. That is its weakness and its danger. Panarchism would introduce the consent condition into all peaceful and creative spheres. It would sanction the use of force only against criminals, invaders and other aggressors and it would tend to minimize the occurrence of such incidents. - J.Z., 3.4.89.

CONSENT, ACCORDING TO ADLER: government itself cannot be instituted by a majority vote or by the decision of a leader, since the authority of a leader of a majority is the very thing being instituted. Hence the institution of government itself, together with the delegation of authority to an elected leader or to a majority, must be accomplished by the unanimous consent of the parties involved. ..." Adler (which one?) quoted by Roy Childs, Anarchism & Justice, IV, INDIVIDUALIST, 10/71. - Individual consent is not only required for the original constitution but for the continuance of a compact, as far as any particular participating individual is involved, i.e. even from voluntary contracts signed by themselves individuals must be able to withdraw, not only upon severe threats to their individual rights, but even upon whim, at least after a contracted withdrawal and settlement period. - J.Z. 10.1.93.

CONSENT, INDIVIDUAL VS. COLLECTIVE CONSENT: Collective consent is a contradiction in terms - unless it is unanimous. Only individual consent makes sense and authorizes action at the expense and risk of the participating individuals. - J.Z., 6.3.89.

CONSENT, TAXATION & VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION VS. COMPULSORY ASSOCIATION: Spooner concluded his discussion of taxation by demonstrating that consent is the key to all voluntary associations. A government, as a voluntary association, has no more right to assume consent than an insurance company, even though both offer their subscribers protection in return for contributions. ' The government's pretence of protecting (a man), as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justifications'. 'To take a man's property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man's consent to part with his purse, that any other body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on he part of the government, for taking a man's property without his consent'." - Carl Watner, on Spooner, quoting him, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 126, 172. - Contrary to what Watner says in the beginning, and more in agreement to what he then quotes from Spooner, when a government is truly a voluntary association and remains one by permitting individual secessionism, then its own contributions, even when formally levied as compulsory taxes, would, in fact, if not formally, become voluntary contributions. I presume that most volunteers would be particular about such financial arrangements before they signed their agreements with any particular panarchy. I.e., with their signing they would approve of any particular internal contribution or tax scheme then in force there. They might also subscribe to certain ways of changing it within that community. Or they might be willing to grant blank cheque authority to their beloved leader upon all their earnings and all their property, labour and even their lives. I doubt that there would be many panarchies in which every single common action and levy would also require unanimous consent. While people remain free to individually secede, this can, as a rule, be rather presumed to exist. - J.Z. 15.1.93, 10.12.03. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, TAXATION, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

CONSENT: A government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If a government (or defense agency) is to provide justice justly, its first requirement is that it act only on those who have consented to its activities." - Paul Baird, JLS, Fall 77, p.191. - That applies, naturally, also to members of criminal associations who, not satisfied with aggressions against each other, attack the rights of non-members. In that case they put themselves under the jurisdiction of their victims. They may claim that they have not granted their consent to be governed by their victims but that becomes irrelevant to the extent that they had become aggressors against non-consenting victims. They have thereby, indirectly, renounced their rights as rational beings. They fall then at most under the limited protection of rules for the protection of beasts of prey, which outlaw any cruel and unusual punishments and unnecessary death sentences. However, to kill them outright, in self-defence, would be rightful. - J.Z., 22.6.94.

CONSENT: A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. - The result - and a natural one - has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, II, 15, in Works I.

CONSENT: A man can't ride on your back unless it's bent." - Martin Luther King, READER’S DIGEST, 10/82. - The bent back isn't an absolute requirement for the riding of people, either. - J.Z., 3.10.02. – OBEDIENCE, SUBMISSIVENESS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

CONSENT: All people are governed by consent, whether that consent is given through fear or understanding, or in some cases, misunderstanding." - Gary Alan Ruse, The Odds Man, ANALOG 2/79, p.167. - With the same "justice" and "understanding" one could say that every victim of rape is really "consenting" to "making love" in these cases, and every robbery victim is "consenting" to be robbed. - Concepts should never be so over-extended and generalised that they lose all meaning or are turned into their opposites. - J.Z., 23.6.94, 3.10.02.

CONSENT: All this, or nothing, was necessarily implied in the Declaration made in 1776. If the necessity for consent, then announced, was a sound principle in favor of three million of men, it was an equally sound one in favor of three men, or of one man. If the principle was a sound one in behalf of men living on a separate continent, it was an equally sound one in behalf of a man living on a separate farm, or in a separate house." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, I/IV, p. 11, Works I. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM

CONSENT: And any government that does not have the complete consent of all its citizens can only sustain itself by using force and fraud. It jars the American ear to be told, Spooner insisted, that our government rests upon force like any other." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.135. - PANARCHISM, SECESSION, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIALISM

CONSENT: Any act between two or more consenting adults should be legal: "It is unfortunate that the liberals have not yet widened this criterion from sex to trade and exchange, for if they ever would, they would be close to becoming full-scale libertarians. For the libertarian is precisely interested in legalising all interrelations whatever between 'consenting adults'." – Murray N. Rothbard, FOR A NEW LIBERTY, p.118/19. - Alas, Rothbard, too, was unable to apply this idea to optional and honest alternative money system. He insisted upon "the" gold standard which he preferred as the value standard and exchange media system (with 100 % in gold redeemable gold certificates) to all others and every deviation from it he condemned as dishonest. I deeply regret that his imagination and historical knowledge was so limited in this important respect. - J.Z., 3.10.02. – Did he, sufficiently, extend the above-stated principle to all kinds of associations of volunteers, even of statists, who confined themselves to exterritorial autonomy? I still seek all his relevant remarks and would like to see them put together. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSENT: As for the consent of the governed, can a man be held to have consented to a government when he has never signed any contract making it HIS government?” - William Stoddard, REASON, 3/74.

CONSENT: Authority must be held by consent and exercised with consent." - John A. Lincoln, in a Study of Trade Union Law, IEA, 1964. - But, must authority BE? - J.Z., 2.10.02. - Only exterritorial authority and only for volunteers - as long as they can stand it! - J.Z., 3.10.02.

CONSENT: But it cannot be done without your consent. If you permit it to be done, you deserve it." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p.969. - The refusal of how many is required, in particular cases? And how can this refusal be expressed? Conscientious objectors have some difficulties even in getting their limited refusals to some extent recognized. With some refuseniks a lot of wishful thinking is involved. They think that their unilateral, sole and single and mere declaration is already enough to liberate and safeguard them - even in the face of ravening wolves. And often they disdain to seriously discuss details that are involved, like those of monetary freedom and of ideal volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, and of rightful revolutions and liberation programmes. - Thus, even some of the best freedom advocates, on some points, are intellectually still at the level of street demonstrators who chant: "Freedom - Now!" - J.Z., 23.6.94. – Or: “Ban the Bomb!” – “Outlaw War!” – As if the loud expression of wishes would realize them and more than prayers lead to the desired results. – Or as if individuals were already ominipotent towards all kinds of aggressors and coercers, including legislators. - J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSENT: But it is obvious that, IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, no one but himself can bind any one to support any government. And our Constitution admits this fact when it concedes that it derives its authority wholly from the consent of the people. And the word treason is to be understood in accordance with that idea. - It is conceded that a person of foreign birth comes under allegiance to our government only by a special voluntary contract. If a native has allegiance imposed upon him, against his will, he is in a worse condition than the foreigner; for the latter can do as he pleases about assuming that obligation. The accepted interpretation of the Constitution, therefore, makes the foreigner a free person, on this point, while it makes the native a slave." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, II, 11, in Works I. – TREASON, FOREIGNERS

CONSENT: But other key issues remain, especially surrounding Adler's concept of the necessity for initial (*) UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Remember his own statements: 'government itself cannot be instituted by a majority vote or by the decision of a leader, since the authority of a leader of a majority is the very thing being instituted. Hence the institution of government itself, together with the delegation of authority to an elected leader or to a majority, must be accomplished by the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the parties involved...'." - Roy Childs, Anarchism and Justice, IV, INDIVIDUALIST, 10/71. - (*) Why confine consent to initial consent only, possibly even not by oneself but by remote ancestors? Why not make it depending upon changes in individual thoughts and preferences and provide either an automatic time limit or a discontinuance or breaking-off option into it, as occurs with all private and individualized contracts? A formally permanent sale of an individual, with his consent, into slavery, is almost nowhere now considered as a permanent obligation for that individual slave. - J.Z., 22.6.94.

CONSENT: Can partial or unwilling consent be considered just as much basis for authority as full consent?" - Aami Wisdore, Free World, p.16. – An almost unknown anarchist book. Is he still alive? Who has his address? - J.Z., 19.11.08. 0 Q.

CONSENT: Collective territorial consent among voluntary and involuntary State members and subjects is a very dangerous fiction. Even friends, lovers and relatives do rarely agree on all points. - J.Z., 11.9.92, 22.6.94.

CONSENT: consent cannot convert right into wrong'. Proudhon was, by the beginning of the nineteenth, to be far more blunt: 'Universal Suffrage is the Counter-revolution' became a lasting slogan of the movement." - - Extract from? The first quote is from Godwin. - Proudhon wrote this rather during the middle than during the beginning of the 19th c. Among volunteer communities and for them only, their consent or their vote could convert what is objectively right into their subjective wrong and what is objectively wrong into their subjective right. The legislators of the so-called "positive law" do the same thing, all the time, but with the difference, that they practise their notions not only among voluntary victims but also upon involuntary ones. - Neither the territorially nor the exterritorially autonomous communities will, naturally, consider the consent of criminals, with victims, to be necessary to resist, arrest and penalise them. - By their actions they have outlawed themselves, or, rather, put themselves under the jurisdiction of their victims. - J.Z., 23.6.94.

CONSENT: Consent should remain individually refusable and grantable - at least for all rational and non-criminal adults. - J.Z., 23.9.93, 22.6.94.

CONSENT: Consent' and 'follow' are individualistic terms. To say 'consent to be ruled' is to slip meanings on us." - Earl Foley, LIBERTY, Summer 1974.

CONSENT: Consenting adults can do no wrong with or to each other." - Filthy Pierre, THE CONNECTION 115, p.93.

CONSENT: Critical to Spooner's argument is his answer to the question of how a government obtains the consent and allegiance of those it claims to govern - a central question in political philosophy. From one viewpoint, a person born under a government owes everything to that government and the only question is how best to serve the government. In this view, service (like the slave's service) is an inalienable birthright (or rather unavoidable birth-burden ). Even liberal philosophers have accepted this idea, arguing that one is bound to a government just by being born (and living under the government's protection). But Spooner denies any obligation excepting one personally contracted and in writing; anything else is an illegal imposition - enforceable only through force. Spooner rejects every type of argument for a social contract; 'society' cannot contract obligations. Nor can a majority of people bind anyone but themselves individually to do something: they cannot contract for the unwilling, the unborn, or the indifferent. A just government must have 'the separate, individual consent of every man who is required to contribute, either by taxation or personal service to the government.'" - Charles Chiveley, introduction to Lysander Spooner, No Treason, I, Works I, p. 11. - And this consent must not only be individually given, just once, but remain individually withdrawable. - J.Z., 23.6.94.

CONSENT: Do away with collective and territorial 'consensus' politics and replace it by one of autonomy for all dissenters, if they desire it and are willing to undertake all its risks and burdens. - J.Z., 5.3.75, 23.6.94.

CONSENT: Even the Soviets consider individual consent as very important: They go to the length of extracting a 'confession' by torture. - J.Z., 31.1.74.

CONSENT: For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." - Jonathan Swift, The Drapier's Letters, v, 1723. - And collective consent, unless unanimous, is not individual consent, unless all collective actions and institutions can be individually ( panarchically ) chosen by those individual who agree among themselves. - J.Z., 23.6.93. - PANARCHISM.

CONSENT: Freedom consists in a People being governed by Laws made with their own Consent, and Slavery in the contrary."- J. Swift, quoted by Jack Markowitz in THE FREEMAN, 4/76. - I have never as yet formally consented to any law in either Germany or Australia. Why not? I was never asked! So I must conclude that I am a slave of all those laws others made over me and without my consent. - J.Z., 23.6.94. - REPRESENTATION, PARLIAMENT, POLITICIANS, LAWS

CONSENT: Government 'by consent of the people' means that A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE have consented either to be governed by certain people or to be bound by certain laws. But those who do not so consent are forced to go along with it anyway." - R. J. Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.53. – TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY, VOTING, MAJORITIES, MINORITIES, PANARCHISM

CONSENT: He that complies against his will is of his own opinion still." - Samuel Butler, Haelibras.

CONSENT: I am as much for government by consent as any man, but where shall we find that consent?" - Cromwell. - Indeed, not in any territorial system with involuntary membership and exclusive monopoly for decision-making. But it can be found for almost all individuals and all groups through voluntary membership in exterritorially autonomous communities. This alternative he did not realize e.g. for the monarchists, aristocrats, religious, ethnical and other dissenters of his time. Even religious liberty was at his time only incompletely recognized - and this among a minority only. - J.Z., 23.6.94.

CONSENT: I beg my friends the Liberals to tell me if ever in all history there was a Government which was based exclusively upon the consent of the people, and which was ready to dispense altogether with the use of force." - Benito Mussolini, in March, 1923 issue of GERARCHIA, translation by N.Y. World, 1923. – Fundamentally, he was right in considering himself merely as another coercive and monopolistic as well as collectivist TERRITORIALIST! – J.Z., 20.11.08.

CONSENT: I never consented to having a government, not even a libertarian government." - View discussed by Hospers in REASON, 1/73. – To my knowledge, Hospers, otherwise a thorough philosopher, did never discuss this view SUFFICIENTLY. – Please, prove me wrong, if you can! – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSENT: I recently heard Dr. Nathaniel Branden say that the basic question of libertarianism is: Will you deal with people on their voluntary consent or won't you? Child's anarchy is based on this answer. "... the proper response is that it doesn't matter what the criminal wants, nor what he contracts with from his government, only what is just." - Mr. Baird, in OPTION, 10/76. - Only the consent of rational beings is decisive. - J.Z., 18.11.82. - What criminals do to each other, under their own voluntarist government, is their affair. But if they commit a crime against a member of another community then this becomes an affair of that community and of all other communities of volunteers who are not criminals with involuntary victims. - J.Z., 22.6.94, 20.11.08.

CONSENT: I've said I would not hypnotise anyone; but in any case, neither you nor anyone else can be hypnotised without his or here innate consent. All things between individuals are done by consent. The prisoner consents to his captivity as the patient consents to his surgery - the difference is only in degree and pattern." - Gordon R. Dickson, Brothers, in Campbell Memorial Anthology, p. 174. - A quantitative difference can be so great that it can become a qualitative difference. A consent to a contract proposal for mutual profit is by degree and quality very different from a consent to sign a "confession" extracted under torture. - J.Z., 23.6.94.

CONSENT: If Americans ever forget that American Government is not permitted to restrain or coerce any peaceful individual without his free consent, if Americans ever regard their use of their natural liberty as granted to them by the men in Washington or in the capitals of the States, then this third attempt to establish the exercise of human rights on earth is ended." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.189.

CONSENT: If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists. - That your whole claim of a right to any man's money for the support of your government, without his consent, is the merest farce and fraud, is proved by the fact that you have no such evidence of your right to take it, as would be required of you, by one of your own courts, to prove a debt of five dollars, that might be honestly due you. - You and your lawmakers have no such evidence of your right of dominion over the people of this country, as would be required to prove your right to any material property, that you might have purchased. - When a man parts with any considerable amount of such material property as he has a natural right to part with, - as, for example, houses, or lands, or good, or clothing, or anything else of much value, - he usually gives, and the purchaser usually demands, some WRITTEN acknowledgement, receipt, bill of sale, or other evidence, that will prove that he voluntarily parted with it, and that the purchaser is now the real and true owner of it. But you hold that fifty millions of people have voluntarily parted, not only with their natural right of dominion over all their material property, but also with all their natural right of dominion over their own souls and bodies; when not one of them has ever given you a scrap of writing, or even 'made his mark', to that effect. - You have not so much as the honest signature of a single human being, granting to you or your lawmakers any right of dominion whatever over him or his property." – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.10. - There will not be any true political science unless such claims are either conceded or refuted. Ignoring them is just not good enough. But this is, largely, what has happened. - J.Z., 23.6.94. - In other words, a political science, that deserves that name, does not exist as yet. The same is largely true for the "science of economics", or, in other words, most writers and lecturers of economics have excluded themselves, by their flawed statements, from whatever exists already of the science of economics. - J.Z., 3.10.02. – VOLUNTARY TAXATION

CONSENT: If by putting a bayonet to a man's breast, and giving him his choice, to die, or be 'protected in his rights,' it secures his consent to the latter alternative, it then proclaims itself a free government, - a government resting on consent! - You yourself describe such a government as 'the best government ever vouchsafed to man.' - Can you tell me of one that is worse in principle? - But perhaps you will say that ours is not so bad, in principle, as the others, for the reason that here, once in two, four, or six years, each male adult is permitted to have one vote in ten millions, in choosing the public protectors. Well, if you think that that materially alters the case, I wish you joy of your remarkable discernment." - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.14, 15, in Works I. – TERRITORIALISM, COMPUSORY MEMBERSHIP IN OR SUBJECTION TO A TERRITORIAL STATE.

CONSENT: If it be said that the consent of the MOST NUMEROUS PARTY, in a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous party, it may be answered: First. That two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by million; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character), or by millions, calling themselves a government." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, I/7, Works I. – MAJORITIES, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

CONSENT: If Natural Law is to be meaningful, NO PART OF ANY man's life and efforts can belong to anyone else without that man's voluntary consent. Any time that a man (or any group of men) takes authority over someone else's life without his consent, he is violating Natural Law." - R. J. Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.32. - PANARCHISM

CONSENT: if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared ... nothing is more natural than that they should be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war.' - Kant, Perpetual Peace, p. 351; Beck, 94. Now, though Kant is prepared to allow a very wide range of governments to count as republican or representative, such governments must all be based ( in some rather special sense ) on CONSENT. This is not the explicit consent found in some social contract theory, but is to be explicated in terms of Kant's basic model of rational decision. A government can be said to be one of consent if it could have been chosen by a group or rational beings as a fairway of resolving their conflicts ..." - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy of Right, p.134. - As if governments were nothing but arbitration courts voluntarily consulted by contending parties for each particular case! Alas, Kant still subscribed to and philosophised only about the territorial State model. - J.Z., 22.6.94. - At least he recommended that we keep looking for ideal societies and stated that such search constituted the dignity of philosophy. Just a philosopher on the throne was not good enough for him as a philosopher. He even suggested that a society of devils could become, through self-interest, quite peaceful and moral in its outside behaviour, regardless of the devilish character and intentions of its members. - Alas, he made no clear and detailed  proposals in this direction, although he may have read Fichte's 1793 statement on the right of individuals to secede, in his book about the French Revolution. - J.Z., 3.10.02.

CONSENT: If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established." – Lysander Spooner, Taxation, Works II. - To a large extent they do it even where they and jurists do pay lip service to Common Law. - J.Z., 23.6.94. – TAXATION, TERRITORIALISM

CONSENT: in any cooperative activity among men, the unanimous consent of all parties is required, and if it is not, to that extent their rights are abridged." - Anarchist view attacked by John Hospers in REASON, 1/73.

CONSENT: In establishing a social order, we need general consent to the rules of the game, or else the order that is erected cannot remain stable. As Ortega y Gasset said, “Order is not a pressure imposed upon society from without, but an equilibrium which is set up from within.” To achieve order, we must look for very general principles of organization that, by their nature, can elicit meaningful consent.” - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free, Hoover Institute Press, 1982, p.53. – This consent cannot be achieved by territorial organizations forced upon whole populations, all of which contain numerous and diverse groups of dissenters. Thus the whole attempt to achieve order via territorial “unity”, imposed centrally and collectively upon all, at best by majorities, has to be given up. – J.Z., 6.10.07. - ORDER, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EQUILIBRIUM, HARMONY, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, STABILITY

CONSENT: In number six, Spooner deals more harshly with the notion that the United States government is a government of consent. This government, he concludes, is one 'to which everybody must consent, or be shot.'" - Spooner, No Treason, VI, Works I, introduction, p.3., p.58.

CONSENT: In subsequent numbers, the author hopes to show that, under the principle of individual consent, the little government that mankind need, is not only practicable, but natural and easy; and that the Constitution of the United States authorises no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, I, p. 14, in Works I. - Has he anywhere described the coexistence of competing voluntary governments, each with exterritorial autonomy only, like De Puydt did, in his Panarchy article? - J.Z., 23.6.94. - Perhaps he did, in one of the manuscripts that were burned with Tucker's library. - J.Z., 3.10.02.

CONSENT: in the libertarian society nothing will be required of a person that does not have his willing consent, whether in the political or the economic or the personal realm." - John Hospers, REASON, 1/73. - Kant suggested, instead: Nothing to which he, as a rational being, could not have given his consent, but very well something to which, as a rational being, he would have given his consent. Moreover, the consent does not, as a rule, have to be given from moment to moment but for contractual periods for which one binds oneself to one or the other constitutional, legislative or judicial system or any desired mixture of them. - J.Z., revised, 23.6.94. – Here even Hospers, the “limited” territorial government advocate, came close to panarchism, just like Ayn Rand did in many of her remarks – but without quite reaching and expressing it clearly enough. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSENT: In the Treaties 'the body politic is an aggregate of consenting individuals." Remark on Locke quoted in Hutchinson-Harris, The Doctrine of Personal Right, p. 84. A little more thought and precision in their writings and many political philosophers would have arrived at panarchism: The bodies politic are aggregates of consenting individuals. They need not be confined to or possess a monopoly over a national territory. -  J.Z., 6.1.93.

CONSENT: In the Treatises 'the body politic is an aggregate of consenting individuals.'" - John Locke in Hutchinson-Harris: The Doctrine of Personal Right, p.84. - I'd rather have said: "the bodies politic are aggregates of consenting individuals", on the assumption that they need not be confined to or possess monopoly powers over national territories. The small differences in the wordings indicate that with a little more precision in their writings many writers and political philosophers would have arrived at panarchism, would have recognized the options offered by exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities. That might have led them to study their historical role and their potential future. As it is, they largely looked only at one facet, thought only in one dimension rather than in two or three - to provide us with an open and progressive future, without disturbing the conservatives and reactionaries and insisting on a “united front” for all "progressive" forces. - J.Z., 6.1.93, 22.6.94

CONSENT: It is also said that the people govern themselves by delegating powers into the hands of representatives. Do they, indeed? It rather appears to me that, when a man relegates the control over his purse, the control over his body, or the direction of his energies to others, - as if he had lost the use of his head, - ABDICATION best describes his performance." - Badcock, Slaves to Duty, chapter "Consent of the Governed".

CONSENT: It is certain that the most natural and human government is that of consent, for that binds freely ... when men hold their liberty by true obedience to rules of their own making." - William Penn, Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe, 1693. - The own consent and the own rules can logically only mean individual consent and voluntary membership, continuously assured by freedom for individuals to join and to secede. - J.Z., 23.6.94. - PANARCHISM

CONSENT: It is therefore a first principle, a very SINE QUA NON of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, WITH TRIAL BY JURY, insures freedom of course; because: 1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, 2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed." - Spooner, Works II, Taxation. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION

CONSENT: Kant believed that an action can be a duty for me only if it is in accordance with a principle to which I consent - a principle which is self-imposed. A person, Kant maintained, 'is bound only to act in conformity with a will which is his own.' Rousseau too insisted that a form of society must be evolved in which each man obeys himself alone; he developed the notion of a general will which always wills the common good, and therefore represents the real will of all citizens. Thus when a man is forced to do something which he does not want to do, he is being helped to do what he REALLY wills. T. H. Green believed that Rousseau's concept of a general will distinguished him from all previous political thinkers, and constituted his great contribution to political theory. The true sovereign, according to Green, embodies the general will, which is my will, and the citizen is thus obliged to obey a state ( in so far as the actual state approaches the idea ) because he has willed (perhaps unconsciously) the laws which it commands." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.40. - This reveals some of the torturous "reasoning" people engage in when they are merely contemplating the territorial State model with compulsory membership, rather than exterritorially autonomous institutions, with voluntary membership, which can come as close as possible, socially, economically and politically, to individual consent to whole platforms and organizations and their activities and package deal exchanges. - J.Z., 22.6.94. - CONTRACT, OBLIGATION, DUTY, MORALITY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIALITY

CONSENT: Let no one tell me that silence gives consent, because whoever is silent dissents.” – Maria Isabel Barreno, ANALOG, May 92, p. 142. – Under threats, in terror and regularly in totalitarian regimes consent might be formally and publicly given but merely in order to hide one’s dissent. – J.Z., 23.9.08. - DISSENT, SILENCE

CONSENT: Libertarians believe that no individual or government should interfere with CONSENTING individuals who wish to produce goods and services for other CONSENTING individuals." - Society for Libertarian Life, leaflet. – However, how many libertarians do ever quite clearly advocate for statists the right to practise their particular statism among consenting adults only, i.e., exterritorially, under personal law? Without that kind of tolerance towards the majority they might never or only in further centuries gain their form of libertarianism for themselves. In the meantime, there are X chances for a general Holocaust. – J.Z., 1.11.10.

CONSENT: Long sufferance is equal to consent." - Legal maxim: "Longa patientia trahitur ad consensum." - That would hardly apply to a terrorist, totalitarian, inquisitionally or dictatorially achieved "consent". - Were the slaves or political prisoners of forced labour camps "consenting"? - J.Z., 22.6.94. – Does that maxim make long-term tyrannies somehow right? – J.Z., 19.11.08. – DIS.

CONSENT: Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent." - Locke, Treatise on Civil Government, ii, par. 95. – Panarchism, individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, as well as exterritorial autonomy are implied in such statements, although not necessarily intended. - J.Z., 3.10.02. - NATURAL LAW, GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, CHOICE, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDEPENDENCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM.

CONSENT: More recently, Giovanni Baldelli has followed Bakunin in arguing that the 'rule of authority is acceptable if it is based on competence as well as consent.'" - Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.44. - Why should people not be free to choose, also, an incompetent doctor, quack or witch-doctor for themselves? - J.Z., 22.6.94. - LEADERSHIP, PANARCHISM, AUTHORITY, VOLUNTARISM, STATISM

CONSENT: My rights end where yours begin. I may do anything I wish with my own life, liberty and property without your consent; but I may do nothing with your life, liberty and property without your consent." - Workers Party leaflet, HUMAN RIGHTS. – In spite of such general principles the minds of most of the members and leaders of the W.P. remained blocked towards panarchism. – They still do not try to supply an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and thus remain, correspondingly, unaware and ignorant of some of the most important individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 11.11.10. – PANARCHISM, WORKERS PARTY, HUMAN RIGHTS

CONSENT: No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilised men - unless possibly the pretence of a 'Divine Right', on the part of some, to govern and enslave others - embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villainy of every kind, as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government BY CONSENT, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth.” – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, II, p. 15, in Works I. – MAJORITY, MANDATE, VOTING, DEMOCRACY

CONSENT: No constitution, State, law, tax, regulation, parliament, politician, bureaucrat, department, court or governmental police force has my individual consent. It was never asked for nor given. - J.Z., 19.10.93. - However, I once swore allegiance to the English Queen, which was easy for me, even as an anarchist, since she does not hold any constitutional decision-making power over me. She has only some ultimate veto powers against too power-hungry politicians, which were once used, in Australia, when the then General Governor Kerr, her representative, recalled Whitlam, the socialist prime minister. That recall was approved by a landslide victory against his party in the subsequent election. Alas, she, too, had no power to decide that Whitlam could continue in power - but only over the Whitlamites. - Nor is she even free to publicly utter any political opinion, like: Republicanism for Australian Republicans is all right for them, as long as they do not interfere with those who want to continue the constitutional monarchy for themselves - or any other ism. - If it were up to me, the Queen, too, should not be deprived of any individual liberty, least of all freedom of expression and freedom of association and disassociation. - J.Z., 22.6.94.

CONSENT: No government has the right to dispose of your life or your property without your consent." - Guy W. Riggs.

CONSENT: No man is good enough to govern another man without the other’s consent.” – Walter Bagehot, according to ANALOG, 12/96. – GOVERNMENT

CONSENT: No man is good enough to rule another man without his consent." - Lincoln, retranslated from a German version. – That would exclude rule of individuals and of minorities by a majority, too, with the exception of those who are aggressors or other criminals against non-consenting victims. – Such people or organizations must be resisted and ruled, including all territorialists. - J.Z., 20.11.08. – RULERS, RULE, AGGRESSORS, CRIMINALS, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM

CONSENT: No person will rule over me with my consent. I will rule over no man." - W. L. Garrision, in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.154.

CONSENT: No taxation, no monopoly, no obedience, no State, no laws, without individual consent by peaceful and creative people. - J.Z., 15.9.87, 1.4.89.

CONSENT: Not surprisingly, Godwin rejects the idea that the justification for government can be found in some original social contract. Even if there had been a contract, it could not be binding on subsequent generations and in changed conditions. Equally, the idea of tacit consent would make any existing government, however tyrannical, legitimate. As for direct consent, it is no less absurd since it would mean that government can have no authority over any individual who withholds his or her approval." - Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.207, expressing, hopefully, only Godwin's qualification upon individual consent. On the latter he should have distinguished between the consent of aggressors to punishment for their aggressions and the consent of victims to aggression, or, rather, their dissent to it. - J.Z., 22.6.94.

CONSENT: one man's consent is just as necessary as any other man's." - Carl Watner, REASON, 3/73. - Nevertheless, to my knowledge, Watner has not yet drawn the panarchistic and exterritorial autonomy or experimental freedom conclusions from this, in any of his extensive writings - and this in spite of his explicit commitment to voluntarism, in his journal THE VOLUNTARYIST, and in a number of pamphlets and books. Nor has he explained why he has not done so. Can anyone give me an explanation for this stance? - J.Z., 23.6.94. - A mere superficial explanation for his behavior is that he declared "government" to be inherently coercive and monopolistic and thus a "competing government" would be a contradiction in terms. Apparently, he could not envision any government without a territorial monopoly and voluntary membership at all, in spite of the historical precedents for their existence. To simply say that any government that has no territorial power and compulsory membership is no government at all, is like saying that the Pope does not rule over Catholics in the world at all, because his rule is exterritorial and limited to his voluntary members only. - J.Z., 3.10.02. – PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT

CONSENT: Peace, safety, and quiet for all, can be enjoyed only under laws that obtain the consent of all. Hence tyrants frequently yield to the demands of justice from those weaker than themselves, as a means of buying peace and safety." – Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, Works II, p.220.

CONSENT: PENTHOUSE: You have said you are in favor of any sort of capitalist acts between consenting adults. Are you also in favor of any other acts between consenting adults? - ROTHBARD: Any actions, capitalist or personal or of any other nature, performed by consenting adults should be permitted. Whether any of us personally approves of them is another story and is really irrelevant to the political question of their legality. This goes across the board. (*) Incidentally, many supposedly civil libertarians who would favor legalisation of drugs or legalisation of liquor or alcohol - which I would favor - are somehow opposed to the legalisation of cigarette advertising, which should be just as much a civil liberties question as the other issues." - PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 10/76. – (*) That would include statism for statist and thus panarchism or polyarchism. – J.Z., 20.11.08.

CONSENT: Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." - Benjamin R. Tucker, LIBERTY, 212-2. - There are dozens, if not thousands, of varieties of both - and individual preferences for them. To each his own. - J.Z., 21.11.82, 22.6.94. – To each his own sport, fashion, art, folly or other system.

CONSENT: Territorial and collectivist consent is a dangerous fiction. Even friends, lovers and relatives do rarely and fully agree on all points. - J.Z., 11.9.92, 4.1.93.  

CONSENT: That all forms of coercion and aggression are always immoral. - That the only system consistent with personal freedoms in the economic arena is one that does not interfere with free trade between individuals. - THEREFORE, we, as libertarians, resolve to oppose all forms of aggression by any State, Government, self-appointed savior, individual, or association of individuals. We further resolve to oppose taxation, conscription, eminent domain, laws which create victimless 'crimes', and also programs forced onto individuals without their consent. It is time that the chains of authoritarianism in economics and morality be broken. Individual rights and coercion cannot co-exist. Liberty cannot be compromised, and we will settle for no less than freedom in our time." - From LIBERTAS STATEMENT, of the Society for Libertarian Life, n.d.

CONSENT: The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A -, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. - Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of 'the people of the town of A’ should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to COMPEL contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. - Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by their saying to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it. - The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Works I, II/4.

CONSENT: The basis of law ... provided not by one-sided command, but by agreement." - Prof. Vinogradoff. - And this agreement can usually only be achieved under exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. - J.Z., 4.6.92. - Compare Don Werkheiser's distinction between "single convenience" and "mutual convenience" relationships.

CONSENT: THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, as a rhetorical device, is as witless as the others. Anarchists don't consent to be governed. More and more lesbians and gay males don't consent to be governed. Who of sound mind would consent to be robbed, enslaved and murdered? If voting were the yardstick of consent, there are far more people who do not consent to be governed than who do. But still the law-makers would have us believe that they speak for us; that unknown to us, we have chosen them to work their robberies, enslavements and murders; and that without said law-makers we should be bereft of freedom and in sorry plight. Were ever more outlandish lies put forth - and swallowed?" - Eric Thorndale, THE STORM, Winter 78, p. 19.

CONSENT: The consent on which political organization and action rest, never extends to violations of natural rights and natural laws." - View ascribed by W. A. Dunning, Political Theories, p. 69, to Adam Ferguson, 1723 - 1816. – Alas, there are still alltoo many, who do not know or appreciate or even oppose the very concept of human rights. They should be free to associate with likeminded people and to try to get along without them. However, like slaves, who had sold themselves into slavery, they should be free to claim their genuine individual rights and liberties as soon as they come to appreciate them and to the extent that they do, by seceding from the unfree societies and choosing for themselves those somewhat or much more free societies that they prefer for themselves. – J.Z., 11.11.10. - HUMAN RIGHTS

CONSENT: The existence of party wings (left, right, centre), party discipline, party whips and numerous leadership struggles do prove that even within one and the same party a true consent is no more than a convenient fiction. - J.Z., 22.6.94. – PARTIES, INFIGHTING, LEADERSHIP STRUGGLES

CONSENT: the legitimacy of the government depends not only on consent to its founding but also on consent to its ordinary on-going operations." - Williamson M. Evers, JLS, Summer 77, 189. – Consent by peaceful individuals and minorities rather than by the temporary majority. – J.Z., 20.11.08.

CONSENT: The long and atrocious history of enforced loyalty oaths, under threats of varied punishment, has at least one rightful core: an indirect recognition, namely that any political association should rest upon individual consent. That consent was so misunderstood, and at the same time so valued, that a farce or pretence of it was enforced. - J.Z., 23.6.94. – OATHS, LOYALTY, OBEDIENCE

CONSENT: The main factor in political organization that we have to recover is the factor of consent, ..." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.151, referring to territorially or industrially decentralized organisations like unions and the point of view of J. J. Laski. - On the territorial model this will remain an unobtainable fiction. Only temporarily can consent be achieved, within voluntary associations, free to do their own things, under exterritorial autonomy, with dissenters free to leave at any time and consenters free to join at any time, individually. - J.Z., 22.6.84. - Majority, Voting, Parties, Voluntarism, Minorities, Democracy, Panarchism, Experimental Freedom, Individual Secession.

CONSENT: The meaning of this is simply: We, the people of the United States, ACTING FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY AS INDIVIDUALS, CONSENT AND AGREE that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. - The necessity for the consent of 'the people' is implied in this declaration. THE WHOLE AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION RESTS UPON IT. IF THEY DID NOT CONSENT, IT WAS OF NO VALIDITY. OF COURSE IT HAD NO VALIDITY, EXCEPT AS BETWEEN THOSE WHO ACTUALLY CONSENTED. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of 'the people of the United States' would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, II, pp 4 & 5, Works I.

CONSENT: the movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement FROM STATUS TO CONTRACT." - J. J. S. Maine, Ancient Law, p.100. - Alas, to my knowledge he failed to describe details of the future contractual societies. - J.Z., 3.10.02.

CONSENT: The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this - that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called 'peace'." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI, Works I, p. 58.

CONSENT: The only moral dealings between men are those which are by consent, and that means the consent of every person involved." - Mark Tier, FREE ENTERPRISE, 8/74.

CONSENT: The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who have administered it, have taken it for granted that the Constitution, AS IT IS WRITTEN, was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant, nor meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers (as many of its authors doubtless were), who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say; that these men, under the false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part, who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution.” – Lysander Spooner, NoTreason, II, X, p. 14, Works II. - By now most of the original promises of the Constitution have been legislated or juridically interpreted away and who appeals to them in court gets almost laughed out of court or is put out of the way. - J.Z., 23.6.94. – CONSTITUTIONALISM

CONSENT: The question, then returns, what is implied in a government's resting on consent? - Manifestly this one thing (to say nothing of others) is necessarily implied in the idea of a government's resting on consent, viz. THE SEPARATE, INDIVIDUAL CONSENT OF EVERY MAN WHO IS REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE, EITHER BY TAXATION OR PERSONAL SERVICE, TO THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT. (Or, in Adler's terms, the individual consent of every member of the 'common enterprise'.) All this, or nothing, is necessarily implied, because one man's consent is just as necessary as any other man's. If, for example, A claims that his consent is necessary to the establishment or maintenance of government, he thereby necessarily admits that B's and every other man's are equally necessary; because B's and ever other man's rights are just as good as his own. On the other hand, if he denies that B's or any other particular man's consent is necessary, he thereby necessarily admits that neither his own, nor any other man's is necessary; and that government need not be founded on consent at all. - There is, therefore, no alternative but to say, either that the separate, individual consent of every man, WHO IS REQUIRED TO AID, IN ANY WAY, IN SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT, is necessary, or that the consent of no one is necessary." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. 1. Stress added by the editor.

CONSENT: The question, then, returns, What is implied in a government's resting on consent? - Manifestly this one thing (to say nothing of others) is necessarily implied in the idea of a government's resting on consent, viz. THE SEPARATE, INDIVIDUAL CONSENT OF EVERY MAN WHO IS REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE, EITHER BY TAXATION OR PERSONAL SERVICE, TO THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT.(*) All this, or nothing, is necessarily implied, because one man's consent is just as necessary as any other man's. If, for example, A claims that his consent is necessary to the establishment or maintenance of government, he thereby necessarily admits that B's and every other man's are equally necessary; because B's and every other man's rights are just as good as his own. On the other hand, if he denies that B's or any other particular man's consent is necessary, he thereby necessarily admits that neither his own, nor any other man's is necessary; and that government need not be founded on consent at all. - There is, therefore, no alternative but to say, either that the separate, individual consent of every man, WHO IS REQUIRED TO AID, IN ANY WAY, IN SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT, is necessary, or that the consent of no one is necessary." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. 1. - - (*) The source I used (which, I don't remember) had inserted here, in brackets: "(Or, in Adler's terms, the individual consent of every member of the 'common enterprise'.)" - I believe in a particular cut-off point for "consent" to every particular measure of any common enterprise. That, to me, is voluntary membership, with the option of individual secession. The giving of notice or a withdrawal period might be required, except when individual rights are acutely threatened by the "common" enterprise. Within that voluntary framework even compulsory membership fees become "voluntary taxes or contributions" and continued membership and obedience becomes individual consent, at least to individually still acceptable compromises. - Moreover, I hold and stress more than most that "exterritorial autonomy" is required for such volunteer communities, to practise their "hobby" systems, ideologies, programmes or package deals. - In our life-styles most of us are already panarchists. But most of us still think in terms of territorial monopolies and coercion on what we perceive to be political, economic and social questions and institutions - which are, usually, not as close to our hearts, minds and interests as our personal life style preferences are. - How can one induce people to apply, in principle, what they do practise and love already in their life styles and religions and world views, to the remaining monopolised and coercively united and uniformed territorial government spheres? - Will we never become fully conscious of the principles under which we already prefer to live and apply them in the remaining spheres, where they remain infringed or suppressed and largely unexpressed, even if our own lives, that of our families and friends, of our communities and that of mankind depend upon this? - Will we, like ants, continue to build our nests on paths and in temporarily dry water courses, unaware what we are thus doing to ourselves? - J.Z., 22.6.94.

CONSENT: The theory of free government is that it is formed by the voluntary contract of the people individually with each other. This is the theory, (although it is not, as it ought to be, the fact) in all the governments in the United States, as also in the government of England. The theory assumes that each man, who is a party to the government, and contributes to its support, has individually and freely consented to it. Otherwise the government would have no right to tax him for its support, for taxation without consent is robbery. This theory, then, necessarily supposes that this government, which is formed by the free consent of all, has no powers except such as ALL the parties to it have individually agreed that it shall have and especially that it has no power to pass any LAWS, except such as ALL the parties have agreed that it may pass." – Lysander Spooner, Trial By Jury, Works II, p.216.

CONSENT: The very term, government, implies that it is carried on against the consent of the governed ..." - George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All, 1857, p. 353. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

CONSENT: There are probably as many forms, expression, understandings and misunderstandings of consent as there are of dissent, of voluntarism and of coercion and compulsion. Not a single formula or definition can cover or express them all sufficiently. - J.Z., 12.1.90.

CONSENT: There is, insisted Hobbes, 'no obligation on any man which arises not from some act of his own'. The moral sovereignty of Leviathan stems from the consent or promise of the citizens - this can, for Hobbes, be the only possible source of its authority." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, referring to Hobbes’ Leviathan, 2:21. - Without including the exterritorial personal law options, based on individual and voluntary secessionism and associationism and individual sovereignty, leading to associational exterritorial autonomy, individual and collective consent cannot be sufficiently separated and combined. - J.Z., 22.6.94.

CONSENT: They do not consent who act under a mistake." - Legal maxim: "Non videntur qui errant consentire.

CONSENT: This is not yet an age of consent - but it should be one based on individual consent and refusal. - J.Z., n.d.

CONSENT: This theory supposes that there may be certain laws that will be beneficial to ALL, - so beneficial that ALL consent to be taxed for their maintenance. For the maintenance of these specific laws, in which all are interested, all associate. And they associate for the maintenance of those laws ONLY, in which ALL are interested. It would be absurd to suppose that all would associate, and consent to be taxed, for purposes which were beneficial only to a part; and especially for purposes that were injurious to any. A government of the whole, therefore, can have no powers except such as ALL the parties consent that it may have." – Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, Works II, p.216.

CONSENT: to secure ... rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Bill of Rights of Virginia, 1776. – In a whole territory hardly all of its adult inhabitants will ever give their unanimous consent. It is thus misleading to go on talking about consent with regard to territorial democracies, republics and other States. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSENT: Undoubtedly, Tucker admitted the self-restraint exercised by such individuals constitutes a form of social regulation. 'But regulation, under the law of liberty, comes of selection and voluntary assent' and must not contain an element of external coercion. Although Herbert Spencer's influence is undeniably present in Tucker's social philosophy, especially in his early years, it is not true that his viewpoint was exclusively, or even predominantly Spencerian. - 'Anarchists recognize in Herbert Spencer a kindred spirit, and offer to his memory their tribute of admiration and gratitude', Tucker wrote some years later, 'but they cannot accept him as a trustworthy exponent of their political philosophy.' - For although Spencer recognized the individual's right to free decision in economic matters, he wound up justifying the interference of the state in the area of national defence and the maintenance of social order." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.147. - Spencer's chapter XIX, headed: The Right to Ignore the State, in the original edition of Social Statics, drew one of the most important conclusions from individual consent and individual sovereignty, the right of non-participation, of individual secession, to remain neutral towards a state or a law, is apparently so densely and correctly reasoned that as yet I have to find any serious attempt to refute it, point by point. - J.Z., 23.6.94. - And yet Spencer rejected this chapter for later editions - without, to my knowledge, ever clearly stating why he did so. R. A. Childs was also supposed to have rejected his earlier individual sovereignty views - but, again, I have not found this change of view documented. Have you? - J.Z., 3.10.02. – How can important writers like these fail to give their reasons - for changing their mind – quite clearly in writing? That makes their verbal renunciation, if it really happened, suspect. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSENT: Voting does not prove consent: "In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, EVEN FOR THE TIME BEING (let alone as consent for political authority AS SUCH – RAC). (Roy Childs? - J.Z.) On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent ever having been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forgo the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others or be killed himself. BECAUSE TO SAVE HIS OWN LIFE IN BATTLE, A MAN ATTEMPTS TO TAKE THE LIVES OF HIS OPPONENTS, IT IS NOT TO BE INFERRED THAT THE BATTLE IS ONE OF HIS OWN CHOOSING. Neither in contests with the ballot - which is a mere substitute for a bullet - because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily sets up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers? On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. - Doubtless, the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushed them, was one which they voluntarily set up, or even consented to." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. 2. - Emphasis by editor, probably, by Roy Childs. - J.Z.

CONSENT: We are morally obligated to obey the law, Kant claims, because we have, in the requisite sense, CONSENTED to it: '(One) juridical attribute inseparably bound up with the nature of a citizen as such ... is the lawful freedom to obey no law other than one to which he has given his consent.'" - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy of Right, 134. - A "consent" that has been given merely as a political vote and around x corners and y middlemen and committees and not, individually, to any particular law or clause of it, can hardly be called a true consent. - J.Z., 22.6.94. – COMPROMISE, VOTING, DIS.

CONSENT: We have so far only raised one question: why should a rational person give what is in effect a blank check, an open-ended consent, to a government?" - Roy Childs, Anarchism and Justice, IV, INDIVIDUALIST 10/71.

CONSENT: what is for the common good must be done by the 'Common Consent of the whole realm';..." - J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government & Centralization, p.30. - A consent that is rare to achieve between two close friends, rarer still between close family members and almost impossible to achieve within extended families, is here presumed achievable for the whole realm - or at least within the framework of autonomous local self-governments.- However, friends and family members might well belong to different panarchies, as happened historically. – See Edward Gibbon, Decline & Fall of The Roman Empire, par. 38: “The Laws of the Barbarians”. - J.Z., 22.6.94.

CONSENT: What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights are thus annihilated, struck out of existence, by the stronger? Only this: THEIR CONSENT IS PRESUMED! That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously PRESUME that those whom they enslave, CONSENT to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them! And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent - when no actual consent has been given - is sufficient to save the rights of the victims, and to justify the usurpers! As well might the highwayman pretend to justify himself by presuming that the traveller CONSENTS to part with his money. As well might the assassin justify himself by simply PRESUMING that his victim consents to part with his life. As well might the holder of chattel slaves attempt to justify himself by presuming that they consent to his authority, and to the whips and the robbery which he practises upon them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consent to be slaves." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, II, 15, 16, in Works I. – MAJORITY, MANDATE, VOTING, DEMOCRACY

CONSENT: When a white man governs himself, that is self-government, But when he governs himself and also governs some other men, that is worse than self government - that is despotism. What I do mean to say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." - Abraham Lincoln. - Then why did he conduct the fight for unification, rather than for secession of all white and of all black dissenters? - J.Z., 23.6.94. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

CONSENT: Without his consent ever having been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forgo the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments." – Lyander Spooner, No Treason, No.II.

CONSENT: Your government may, of course, have the MIGHT to do anything it wants with you and yours. But it does not have the RIGHT unless you have given your consent. Period." - Guy W. Riggs.

CONSENTING ADULTS: Anything goes between consenting adults, and (implicitly), nothing goes but that which is between consenting adults.” – Walter Block, Defending the Undependable, 181, Fox & Wilkes, 1991, Special ed. from LFB, July 4, 1991.

CONSERVATION & PANARCHISM: Full autonomy for conservationists, who do want to establish or conserve their favorite kind of society or community for themselves, exterritorially, whether it is of a political, economic or social kind. Not only bricks and mortar arrangement, trees, animals and plants deserve preservation – at the expense and risk of volunteers. – J.Z., 27.1.05.

CONSERVATISM & PANARCHISM: Any kind of conservatism for any kind of conservative - according to his own choice. But also any kind of liberation, progress or regress - for their volunteers!  - J.Z., n.d.

CONSERVATISM: As John Holt has pointed out, every conservative worships a dead radical. I find that a very useful image, and the harder I look, the more examples I find. In religion, it is fairly obvious; compare the messages of liberation given by enlightened ones such as Jesus & Buddha with the monolithic and priest-ridden empires built up in their name. In science, it can be seen in Kuhn's view of scientific progress, in which there is a revolution in thought by someone like Newton, which becomes first accepted, then solidified, and finally fossilised so that the next revolutionary thinker (Einstein) can break through with a new theory. In politics ... look at those who now pledge allegiance to violent revolutionaries like Jefferson and Washington. - Perhaps then the professions go through similar stages. Organized professional medicine and law may be well into the later stages, though by no means ready for the scrap heap." – DIAGONAL RELATIONSHIP 8, p. 21. - Let individuals choose their experts, masters, systems, organizations and medicine men - in every sphere. That will do the most to preserve what some think worth preserving and advance all those fastest, who want to advance, or think that they are really advancing, towards whatever they perceive to be ideal. - J.Z., 24.6.94. - REVOLUTION, RADICALISM, REFORM, PROGRESS, PANARCHISM

CONSERVATISM: Conservatism was still associated" (1951) "with all sorts of economic blimpishness, religious imperialist claptrap, and intellectual stuffiness." - Eugene Kamenka. - Are the other isms without their hang-ups? And almost all have the basically totalitarian feature of territorialism in common, i.e., suppress freedom to experiment among volunteers. - J.Z., 3.10.02. – DIS.

CONSERVATISM: He cheers on conservatives who roar for less government and more cops..." - TIME, 3.3.78, reviewing a Book by Ted Morgan: On Becoming American. - Contradictory as this sounds, it does make some sense to call for less "unlimited government" and more "limited government". However, these conservatives, too, overlook that the territorialist monopoly of present governments is essentially unlimited and totalitarian and that through the opposite model, that of exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, finally all governmental and societal forms could peacefully coexist, compete and cooperate. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSERVATISM: I hope that at this point I may be allowed a personal note. I have thought of myself in the past as primarily a libertarian, but not as a conservative. And if the conservative position is interpreted as saying: Whatever is, is right; let us keep the old ways, the old institutions, the old beliefs, whatever they are; let us not change" (*) then I am certainly not a conservative. But this picture is a caricature. The conservatism I have come to accept says, rather: Let us change our moral codes, our laws, our political institutions, when we find this to be necessary, but let us do so cautiously, gradually, piecemeal, making sure at each step that the change we are making is carefully considered and really represents a progress, not a retrogression. Let us beware always of sudden and sweeping change, of 'wiping the slate clean', of 'making a completely fresh start', of root and branch upheaval. That way lies chaos." - Henry Hazlitt, In Defence of Conformity, The Agitator, A Schism Anthology, p.51. - Not chaos but a natural order would result, if we rejected the artificial barriers of territorial sovereignty, monopoly and coercion and instituted instead, experimental freedom for all volunteer communities. Then each could stagnate, relapse or advance as much as he likes and at his own speed and that of his voluntary co-experimenters. The territorial system is not worth conserving. On the contrary, after all the wrongs and damages it has done, it is high time to reject it altogether, even if it did not threaten the survival of man, as it does now. - - (*) Compare the way in which the old communist cadres in the former Soviet Union are now called "conservatives"! - J.Z., 24.6.94. – In an email on Henry Hazlitt’s work, which I received yesterday from the Mises Institute, it was mentioned that his bibliography has more than 10,000 entries! Is it not high time to make the works of such libertarian masters completely accessible on discs? Can we win the fight for freedom, peace, justice and progress if all such treasures are not made readily accessible? - Daily Article by Walter Block | Posted on 11/25/2008 - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CONSERVATISM: I will not cede more power to the State. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the State, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use MY power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free." - William F. Buckley, Jr., Up from Liberalism, p. 229. - Too little, too late - after all too much power over self was lost. - J.Z., n.d. - Nor does he realize the option that the Liberals could exterritorially and autonomously rule and misrule themselves, while the Conservatives could do the same for themselves - and so could all others - which would save at least a lot of hot air between them. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSERVATISM: It is true that few people defend the present state of affairs, but the distaste for utopias is no less widespread, and it is generally accepted that the truth is to be found in some formula which would reconcile the two terms.” - Proudhon, Economic Contradictions, I, 86, in St. Edwards, Proudhon. - EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, CONSERVATION, PROGRESS

CONSERVATISM: Persistence for all Popular Prejudices, Platitudes and their derived Powers, Personal laws and institutions – but only for all those still believing in them. - J.Z., 04-11.

CONSERVATISM: The desire to conserve wealth and power at any cost (to others)." - Robert Tefton. - Wealth is mostly productively, i.e., profitably used, to everybody's benefit, producing better and cheaper goods and services. If it were not so preserved and enlarged then our living standard would go down and down. As for power: Are the liberals and socialists any less interested in getting it into their own hands and maintaining it in them? They are all territorialists, i.e., try to dominate, territorially, all those who disagree with them. As for the "conservatives": They failed to preserve the very long exterritorialist and voluntaristic tradition and the liberals did not restore and extend that liberty, either. - J.Z., 3.10.02.

CONSERVATISM: They want individualism and liberty on the whole, but they still want to pick and choose exceptions and qualifications." - John Hospers, REASON, 9/72. - We want individualism and liberty as a whole and we do not want to pick and choose exceptions and qualifications. - J.Z., 9.8.75. - However, on the exterritorial autonomy model called panarchy, everyone could. And we should acquaint even our enemies with that model and tempt them with it. - To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams.! - J.Z., 24.6.94. - PANARCHISM

CONSERVATISM: What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln, Address, Cooper Institute, N.Y., 27 Feb. 1860. - As if experimental freedom would not have worked then and could not work now! - J.Z., 23.6.94.

CONSERVATISM: You are a conservative!" - Yes, I am a conservative by sticking to truth, liberty and justice. I won't progress or digress or deviate away from these. I will rather try to preserve or conserve these values. - J.Z., n.d. - And just to provoke you still further: I am also an individualist anarchist. And to add to your confusion: I am also a panarchist and thus for every ism that can be and is practised by volunteers and at their expense and risk. - J.Z., 23.6.94. - Personal law ought not only to be conserved but expanded to all communities of volunteer. It has a longer tradition than has territorial law. To that extent I am a reactionary: I want a revival and expansion of the ancient to modern personal law tradition. - It will make the fastest and most just progress possible that was ever achieved so far. It will be the equivalent to introducing experimental freedom in science. - J.Z., 3.10.02. – ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM, REACTION, PROGRESS, PERSONAL LAW TRADITION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CONSISTENCY: A few liberties on their own have little chance to survive in this world of ignorance, prejudice and vested interest in monopolies. To achieve full liberation, initially only for the minority that would want it, all liberty options must be consistently collected, studied and applied by them. Then they can or will gradually, individual by individual, win over the rest of the world relatively easily, to the extent that people are responsible and intelligent enough for full liberty - or become so, through practice or observation of more and more liberties. - J.Z., 24.6.94. –However, mere verbal propaganda must be supplemented by freedom to experiment, not only for all kinds of anarchists and libertarians but also for all kinds of statists. In this way the pro-freedom experiments will encounter the least resistance and will spread most easily. – J.Z., 20.11.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

CONSISTENCY: One can convince men only through their own opinions." - Charles Tschopp. - That is one of the reasons for the panarchistic tolerance towards tolerant experiments for volunteer groups, made possible by exterritorial autonomy and personal law. - J.Z., 24.6.94 - CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, CONVICTIONS, FAITH, BELIEF, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, AUTONOMY, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF REFUTATIONS.

CONSPIRACIES: Any territorial government is a more or less dangerous conspiracy against more or less of the people living in that territory. - J.Z., 23.5.91, 14.1.93. - Panarchism amounts to a world-wide but quite open "conspiracy", by so far very few people, against all territorial States. These States are only to be allowed to continued as exterritorially autonomous organizations of their volunteers. As territorial powers, armed with conventional military forces and in some cases now with ABC mass murder devices, they have become much too dangerous to the survival of mankind on this planet and can, therefore, no longer be tolerated. They do contain also numerous other wrongs and flaws, which alone would already be sufficient to put them into the dustbins of history. They put professional politicians and bureaucrats in charge of the progress of mankind. They results were predictable. The security forces of the territorial States are so inefficient that they haven't even noticed this conspiracy as yet. Nor have they noticed the military value of panarchism in all fights against despotic regimes. Territorial States were always bad protectors and defenders. They still are. Now they constitutes they greatest threat - merely by their continued existence, to foreigners as well as to their own subjects. - J.Z., 13.9.04, 12.12.11.

CONSPIRACIES: The worst kind is a quite open one, which outlaws individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 30.11.03. - Moreover, it is still all too popular. – 8.10.07.

CONSPIRACIES? PREJUDICES, ERRORS, IGNORANCE: Many countries are today experiencing socially destructive inflation, abnormally high unemployment, misuse of economic resources, and in some cases, the suppression of human freedom, not because evil men deliberately sought to achieve these results, but because of erroneous judgments about the consequences of government measures." - Milton Friedman, Inflation and Unemployment, Alfred Nobel Memorial Lecture, 1976. - I would say, rather: because territorialism allows them to impose their false judgments. - J.Z., 6.4.89. – When a few are allowed to decide about the fate of millions, without the individual consent of their victims, then great wrongs, errors and mistakes are the predictable natural consequence.  – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, “The New Freedom”, 1913. – Central banking and its monetary despotism is rather an open “conspiracy”, with many published laws introducing and maintaining it. So is e.g. the “conspiracy” of protectionism and of taxation. The remark shows that fearful, ignorant, prejudiced and foolish people can also be found among big businessmen. – To some extent conspiracy theories have taken the place that demons and ghosts played in the belief of former eras. They also demonstrate the dominance of personal over causal thinking. – We should all be free to opt out from under such fools and their systems and institutions and free to establish our own, together with like-minded volunteers. – Then the absence of many wrongful and irrational laws among such communities and their resulting successful community experiments, with “miraculous” growth rates, would demonstrate that most of the conspiracy theories or hypotheses are no more than nightmares. – That lobbies or special interest groups conspire against their fellow citizens, by pushing for special legislation in their favor, is not denied but rather confirmed by me. One more reason to replace territorial laws by self-chosen personal laws. - J.Z., 5.1.08. – CONSPIRACY THEORIES & FEARS EVEN OF CAPTAINS OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY

CONSPIRACY THEORIES: There are many different or similar conspiracies, imagined and real ones, numerous wrongful ones but also some quite rightful ones. I favor the latter. – J.Z., 17.5.05. – What is wrong, for instance, to extensively collaborate, internationally, to develop an ideal declaration of all genuine individual liberties and rights and to replace all the governmental and statist human rights declarations by it? That at least should be another international “conspiracy”, an open one and yet a very radical one. – I know of no better one. – All governmental declarations of human rights, in all their variety, are, in my opinion, the result of open territorial statist conspiracies against whole populations. Under the continued pretence of protecting rights and liberties, they do thereby and by their territorial constitutions, legislation and jurisdiction, infringe upon or even outlaw some of the most important rights and liberties. - J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSPIRACY: Conspiracy theorists study power, influence, cabals, corruption and abuse, or politics as usual, rather than ways how we could opt out from under them and defend our liberties and rights against all secret and open attacks against them, by all and sundry. - J.Z., 20.4.89.

CONSPIRACY: I'd rather have one ideas-rich libertarian book for every conspiracy theory in existence than all the anti-conspiracy literature in the world. Then our conspiracy - to realize the liberty options at least for ourselves - would have a much larger chance to succeed. - J.Z., 20.4.89. - So far we have not even gathered all our freedom ideas, far less tried to systematically apply all of them. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSPIRACY: Many countries are today experiencing socially destructive inflation, abnormally high unemployment, misuse of economic resources, and in some cases, the suppression of human freedom, not because evil men deliberately sought to achieve these results, but because of erroneous judgements about the consequences of government measures." - Milton Friedman, Inflation and Unemployment, Alfred Nobel Memorial Lecture, 1976. - And because territorialism allows them to impose their false measures upon followers and dissenters alike. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 24.6.94.

CONSPIRACY: Most "conspiracies" are quite open and all too popular "conspiracies", like those of the protectionists and central banking advocates and of the territorialists. - J.Z., 24.6.94. – Not to speak of those of clerics, churches and various gurus and new and supposedly great territorial “leaders” or aspirants to such leadership. Every political party, too, amounts to an open conspiracy to acquire territorial power. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSPIRACY: One either believes in freedom or in puppet plays. - J.Z., 11/84. - Turn from a puppet into a free player, playing his self-chosen role towards his self-chosen aims, collaborating with others only voluntarily. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSPIRACY: the difference between a CONSPIRACY and an AFFINITY-GROUP is subtle and shifting. A true conspiracy practices clandestinism (deception) as policy; but every affinity group has a tendency to suspect every other affinity group of doing exactly that; and those who are open and honest atone time may decide they have to be devious and clandestine at another time (to protect themselves). CONSPIRACY IS CONTAGIOUS and so is worrying about it." - R. A. Wilson, Right Where You Are Sitting Now, p. 96. - So, let us start an open conspiracy to achieve full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws for every affinity group. Once that is achieved, why conspire rather than start or join one such community? - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: A couple of years ago, I made a proposal to our law school faculty that we stop teaching “constitutional law” or, for the traditionalists, include it in a “legal history” course alongside Magna Carta, the Code of Hammurabi, or the Articles of Confederation. – My colleagues thought I was trying to be humorous! When the Iraqi government puppets were trying to draft a “constitution” for their country, talk-show host Jay Leo suggested that we send them ours. “It served us well for many years, and besides, we’re not using it anymore!” - Butler Shaffer, in speech: “The Failure of Governments to Limit State Power”, as reviewed in FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS. 12/07, p.14. – Only territorial constitutions have failed. The constitutions of voluntary communities may also fail – but only for their volunteers. And if they succeed, the other communities would be free to adopt them. – J.Z., 10.9.08. - – JOKES, PANARCHISM

CONSTITUTION: A single territorial constitution cannot possibly satisfy ALL the rightful aspirations of all the numerous diverse groups in any country." - J.Z., 11.12.93. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIVERSITY

CONSTITUTION: Although, as has already been said, the constitution is a paper that nobody ever signed, that few persons have ever read, and that the great body of the people never saw; and that has, consequently, no more claim to be the supreme law of the land, or to have any authority whatever, than has any other paper, that nobody ever signed, that few persons ever read, and that the great body of the people never saw." – Lysander Spooner, Letter to Grover Cleveland, Section XVII, p.52, Works I.

CONSTITUTION: Any constitution, contract, or agreement that purports to bind unborn generations, or in fact anyone other than the actual parties to it, is a despicable falsehood and a presumptuous fraud. We are free agents liable only for such as we ourselves undertake." - Fred Woodworth, Anarchism.

CONSTITUTION: As for adopting ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do EVERYTHING, it is not necessary that he should do SOMETHING wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and, if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil." - Thoreau, Civil Disobedience. - I think the best remedy to arrive at most real or wanted solutions or alternatives is experimental freedom for volunteers. So far all present constitutions repress it rather than institutionalise it - on the bases of exterritorial autonomy, which could give all individuals their choice. - J.Z., 7.7.94. – The best way to make good new ideas effective and to refute bad ideas would be to establish a common and world-wide Ideas Archive for them, to which anyone should be free to add his ideas or his criticism and which anyone might consult who is in need of better ideas. Likewise, all talents that are significant for the improvement of our political, economic and social systems ought to be registered there, to bring supply and demand in this sphere likewise together. – My PEACE PLANS series offers 3 books on the subject, 1 only in English, one only in German and one in English and German. All are offered by me digitized as email attachments to anyone interested in this project, until they appear online or on disc. - J.Z., 20.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: As you may have heard, the U.S. is putting together a constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? Think about it – it was written by very smart people, it’s served us well for over two hundred years, and besides, we’re not using it anymore.” – Jay Leno. - It was not fully applied in the USA, either, e.g. the slaves were not liberated right away. It did not prevent monetary, financial, military, postal and educational despotism and was quite misleadingly, insufficiently and gradually supplemented by human rights amendments. - Rather, each of the diverse groups in Iraq should have been offered, via an alliance with their governments in exile, full exterritorial autonomy. From it they could have developed separately or in any kind of combination that they would have preferred. To impose a uniform territorial system upon them, no matter how good or democratic or republican or representative it is supposed to be, was even more wrong there then it was for people in America. If one does not go beyond the "founding fathers" one does not go far enough and not in the quite right direction, either. - J.Z., 25. 11. 06. – IRAQ, JOKES, DEMOCRACY

CONSTITUTION: At the extremes, Spooner and Fitzhugh ... rejected constitutionalism - for opposite reasons. They knew that underneath the parchment guarantees, only temporarily held in check by them, was the imperial Leviathan, 'born in aggression and begotten of aggression.'" - J. R. Stromberg, LIBERTARIAN FORUM, 6/76. - Choice in governments and societies, for individuals, would open up all personal law, personal constitution, voluntarist and social contract options - and limit them by individual secessionism. - Political science isn't political science and political philosophy is not political philosophy until they have fully explored this option. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: By the tables of mortality, of the adults living at one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has, then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive to its own happiness; consequently, a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to W. H. Torrance, 1815. - Under panarchism not just one generation, for its lifetime and for all its members, but all individuals, all the time, would have the right and the opportunity to choose the constitution of their dreams for themselves. - J.Z., 26.9.85, 12.7.86, 24.6.94. – TIME-LIMIT ON CONSTITUTIONS & PANARCHISM

CONSTITUTION: Constitutions are checks upon the hasty action of the majority. They are the self-imposed restraints of a whole people upon a majority of them to secure sober action and a respect for the rights of the minority.” – William Howard Taft (1857-1930), U.S. President, Veto Message, Arizona Enabling Act, Aug. 22, 1911. - How often has this aim been achieved and how often not? - J.Z., 24.6.94. - How often do they sufficiently restrain majorities and minorities? - Only if chosen by and applied ONLY to volunteers could they fully represent all of their people. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

CONSTITUTION: Constitutions should be binding only upon those, who themselves signed them. – They should be no “holy books” for anyone else. – If they contain also genuine individual rights and liberties then these should be binding as such, not because they are contained in a constitution. However, through their constitution and its usually all too limited bill of rights volunteers could renounce or restrict as many of their own rights and liberties as they want to. - J.Z., 1.11.97, 22.9.08. - INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

CONSTITUTION: Corruption, the most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty." - Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. - Was it constitutional liberties or constitutional slavery and despotism that made it corrupt, weak and finally perish? - J.Z., 24.6.94. - In all territorial constitutions some decide and dispose on behalf of others and at the expense of others and against their will. That is inevitably corrupting. - J.Z., 12.11.82, 24.6.94. – DIS.

CONSTITUTION: Covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” – Garrison’s bitter description of the Constitution of the United States because of its compromises with slavery, which his anti-slavery society maintained from 1848 to the Civil War. - – Louis Filler, A Dictionary of American Social Reform, Philosophical Library, New York, 1963, p. 184. – Not that this was the only flaw in it. The worst aspect is its territorialism and from this is also followed that it could be interpreted e.g. even in favor of monetary despotism and conscription not only in favor of its postal monopoly and a standing army. – J.Z., 9.9.08.

CONSTITUTION: Daumier was a fervent worshipper of freedom and remained one till death closed his eyes. He felt truly that freedom cannot be hemmed in by the narrow frame of a constitution, that it cannot breathe, must suffocate, as soon as it is delivered over to the hair-splitting of advocates and lawmakers. What an expressive language is spoken by the plate, 'The constitution puts Liberty into a hypnotic sleep!' And that other drawing, where the constitution is fitting a new dress on Liberty, who pleads anxiously, 'Don't take off too much, please!' Ah, the time has not yet come, will never come, when, as Georg Buechner expects in DANTONS TOD (Danton's Death) - the pattern of the State will be alike a transparent garment that clings close to the body of the people so that every beat of a blood-vessel, every tensing of a muscle, every twitch of desire will show clearly through it. Even the best state constitution is inevitably a strait-jacket for freedom. Besides, the worthy tailors of the constitution have in every country cut away so much of the stuff of freedom that what is left makes hardly a decent nightshirt ..." - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.511. - Here again the notion persists that a single and supposedly ideal constitution might ever fit all people in a territory - rather than permitting all people to dress themselves in whatever liberty-rags they like or go nude, if they prefer that. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison. There has been too much constitution worship or interpretation or misinterpretation and 'blah -blah"! - To each the constitution of his own free choice, as long as he can and wants to put up with it! - J.Z., 25. 11. 06.

CONSTITUTION: Each generation ... has the right to choose for itself the form of government it believes the most promotive of its own happiness. ... A solemn opportunity of doing this every 19 or 20 years should be provided by the constitution." - Thomas Jefferson, to S. Kercheval, 1816. - Why should one have to be thus married to one's own generation? Why should any individual or minority group have to wait as long? Religious dissenters and non-conformists did not and do not now. Why should political, economic, social and ideological dissenters have to? And why should those, who are still satisfied with the old constitution, be deprived of it by a majority or a minority enforcing its own preference territorially? - J.Z., 24.6.94. – One has only to concede that limiting the lifespan of laws and regulations is better than leaving them territorially in power until they are formally repealed. – J.Z., 20.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: Even a constitution cannot make a wrong a right and a right a wrong - except for those who voluntarily and individually subscribed to it. E.g., none of the U.S.A. slaves had subscribed to this constitution or was given a chance to do so or refuse to do so. - J.Z., 26.11.93., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: Even if a voter did mean to legitimatise the government by voting, his sanction could only last until the next election. But on the question of the Constitution itself, no vote ever had been taken, and as a legal contract the Constitution has no validity. - 'the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet...' (p.59) - Spooner's position is stated at the outset: 'The Constitution has no ... authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.' (p3) He refuses to recognise any 'general will', 'social contract', 'national spirit', or even 'nation'. If the Constitution is a legal contract, Spooner asks to see the signatures of those bound to support it. When none can be produced, he concludes there is no contract. ( Incidentally, even in 1787 the delegates did not 'sign' the Constitution in the way 'signers' signed the Declaration of Independence. )" – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI, introduction by Charles Chiveley, 3/4, in Works I.

CONSTITUTION: even in the U.S., unique among governments in having a Constitution, parts of which at least were meant to impose strict and solemn limits upon its actions, even here the Constitution has proved to be an instrument for ratifying the expansion of State power rather than the opposite." – Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, p.76. - Individuals must remain free to withdraw their consent, i.e. to secede individually, and to transfer their allegiance to competing governments or non-governmental societies. That requires the option of exterritorial autonomy and personal constitutions and laws and jurisdiction arrangements for all of them. Do we really need further centuries of bloodshed to finally agree upon this? - J.Z., 24.6.94. - PANARCHISM

CONSTITUTION: Even the ... constitution is not binding upon you, for you didn't sign it." - Fritz Knese, THE CONNECTION 115, p.107.

CONSTITUTION: Here was a government that had never had any legitimate existence. It professedly rested all its authority on a certain paper called a constitution; a paper, I repeat, that nobody had ever signed, that few persons had ever read, that the great body of the people had never seen. This government had been imposed, by a few property holders, upon a people too poor, too scattered, and many of them too ignorant, to resist. It had been carried on, for some seventy years, by a mere cabal of irresponsible men, called lawmakers." – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.73, Works I.

CONSTITUTION: However well intended, such liberal constitutionalism was doomed to long-run failure, for it asked that government not act like government." - J. R. Stromberg, LIBERTARIAN FORUM, June 76. - The exterritorial and voluntaristic alternative of competing governments is, again, left out of consideration. - Is "selective blindness" the proper term for this? - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: I have not signed the constitution. Have you?" - HARD CORE NEWS.

CONSTITUTION: I never signed the Constitution." - Dangerous Buttons, No. 398.

CONSTITUTION: I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the Constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and even though I should see it fail, I will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, call on the people to come to its rescue.” - Daniel Webster, ISIL LIBERTY QUOTE LIBRARY 03. - Even constitutions, laws and freedom or democratic institutions should be competitively provided by and for competing communities of volunteers only rather than territorially imposed upon dissenters. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - For all too many the formalities of republican constitutionalism seem to be more important than individual human rights and they seem unaware of the wrongness of territorialism and of the incompleteness of the human rights declarations of all territorial governments. – J.Z., 10.1.08. - TERRITORIALISM & INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS

CONSTITUTION: I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.” – Harry Browne. – The constitution is not the ultimate measure of all political, economic, social and moral values. - Some, quite wrongly, see their ultimate savior or authority or divinity in it. - It is just a still very flawed and incomplete paper document, offering some paper guaranties for a limited number of rights and liberties. - I for one do not worship any other territorial constitution, either. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - - (After all, it was drafted and passed merely by politicians. – J.Z., 11.12.11.) Those wanting more freedom or more government for their communities of volunteers should also be able to get their wishes – at their own expense and risk. The best and most free system, territorially imposed, will still have its dissenters and the dissenting statists do today vastly outnumber the freedom lovers. So, freedom lovers should offer all people the chance to realize their own ideals among themselves, to reduced to the utmost resistance against pro-freedom efforts for freedom lovers only. – J.Z., 2.1.08. - SMALL OR LIMITED GOVERNMENT, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, LIMITED OR SMALL GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM

CONSTITUTION: If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for such absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others." – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI, 26/27, Works I.

CONSTITUTION: If the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO MAKE THEMSELVES ( AS THEY OUGHT TO DO ) INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. But the people have never been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they have never been asked to sign it, has been that it has been known that they never would sign it; that they were neither such fools nor knaves as they must needs have been to be willing to sign it; that (at least as it has been practically interpreted) it is not what any sensible and honest man wants for himself; (*) nor such as he has any right to impose upon others. It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligation as the compacts which robbers and thieves and pirates enter into, with each other, but never sign." - Spooner, No Treason, VI/26, Works I. - - (*) There are still fools and self-deluded people around, some of them "good patriots" and even freedom lovers to a considerable extent, who do want it for themselves. Why not let them have it - for themselves only, not binding upon anyone else? - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written Constitution has proved to be a noble experiment that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State." - Rothbard, For a New Liberty, p.76. - Does he come out anywhere, quite clearly, for the panarchist, exterritorial and voluntaristic alternative institutions? - J.Z., 24.6.94. – Who is prepared to put all relevant quotes from Rothbard’s writings together? I have not yet got around to it, not even by simply using the find command on this compilation. – J.Z., 11.11.10.

CONSTITUTION: In our fluid times however plans and guidelines (such as I have outlined in this book) cannot be definitive. Lengthy guidelines may have been possible in slower times. Today we cannot and should not even attempt to structure the future through elaborate plans. Our increasingly fluid times demand fluid guidelines." - F. M. Esfandiary, Upwingers, 1973, XI. - Let each individual choose his own plans and constitutions and utopias for his own actions and those of like-minded volunteers, or draft them - for voluntary subscribers only. Then adaptations will be "fluid" and easy enough among these communities & societies of volunteers only. - J.Z., 24.6.94, 21.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: It is very doubtful whether man is enough of a political animal to produce a good, sensible, serious and efficient constitution. All the evidence is against it." - G. B. Shaw, Address in N.Y., April 11, 1933. - But he can produce many different faulty ones and each individual should be at liberty to suffer under that of his own free choice, as long as he can stand it. - J.Z., 16.9.85, 24.6.94. – Certainly, no one and no group has the right to be a constitution-maker and law-giver for the population of whole territories. They are much too diverse for that. – J.Z., 21.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: Jefferson asked: “Is it possible to draft a constitutions that is really going to check the power of government?” – Quoted by George H. Smith in FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS, 12/07, p.6. – Q.

CONSTITUTION: Live under your very own constitution - and laws and jurisdiction, administration etc., but do not force anyone to live under yours - except, as a punishment for those who have committed crimes or aggression against you. - J.Z., 6.9.73, 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: No constitution in history ever impeded the State's drive for power, not when the State really wanted something." - Jim Downard, THE CONNECTION 106, p.19. - If citizens were armed, trained and motivated and militarily organized to uphold their own constitution and all the individual rights and liberties they do want to practice, for themselves, in their own communities, societies or governmental systems, freely chosen by individuals for themselves, it would be another matter. - J.Z., 1.11.82, 24.6.94, 21.11.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, ONE-MAN REVOLUTIONS

CONSTITUTION: No man can delegate, or give to another, any right or arbitrary domination over himself, for that would be giving himself away as a slave. And this no man can do. Any contract to do so is necessarily an absurd one, and has no validity. To call such a contract a 'constitution', or by any other high-sounding name, does not alter its character as an absurd and void contract." - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard. - What if the constitution permits individual secession and exterritorial autonomy for competing communities of volunteers? - J.Z., 24.6.94. - REPRESENTATION, SLAVERY, DOMINATION, ARBITRARINESS, CONTRACTS, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION

CONSTITUTION: No man, Spooner argues, has the right to sign a compact, contract or charter binding on other men who do not sign it; the creators of the Constitution, therefore, made a system binding only upon themselves and upon such lands as they personally occupied and used; it was not binding on any subsequent generations." - Robert Anton Wilson, in THE MATCH, 7.8.72.

CONSTITUTION: No territorial constitution can be preferable to experimental freedom. - J.Z., 24.6.94. - But every constitution can be practised by volunteers under exterritorial autonomy - at their own risk and expense. Who can rightly ask for more for his supposedly "ideal" constitution? - J.Z., 3.10.02. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

CONSTITUTION: our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” - Bruce L. Richmond, The Pattern of Freedom, Ljus English Library, vol 12, Stockholm, 1943, p.57, quoting Judge O. Wendell Homes: Abrams v. United States. - - No group of experimenters, no matter how large, has the right to monopolize any territory for its own favorite experiment or experiments. Freedom to experiment for all, even with constitutions, laws, jurisdictions etc., but always only at the expense and risk of the experimenter, i.e. under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities. – J.Z., 28.9.07. – Constitutions do not become territorially “our” constitutions. Only a constitution chosen by volunteers for themselves can genuinely be their constitution, as long as they do remain members. “Our” government, when not chosen individually by ourselves, is not really “our” government but still only one imposed upon us. – Territorially imposed constitutions are, rather, the opposite of free experimentation. -  J.Z., 11.12.11. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VS. TERRITORIALISM

CONSTITUTION: Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. We might as well require a man to wear the coat that fitted him as a boy, as civilised society to remain ever under the regime of their ancestors." - Jefferson. - However if any group volunteered to inflict any particular constitution upon itself, then all others would have not right to complain. - J.Z., 24.6.94. - PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CONSTITUTION: Some of the worst tyrannies, such as those of Russia and China, have been built on the under-structure of an almost perfect constitution." - Dagobert D. Runes, A Book of Contemplation, p.24. - No constitution is perfect which is territorially imposed upon peaceful dissenters. - J.Z., 28.3.94. - And most rulers have usually left themselves a legal or juridical clause or formula to evade the general principle and promise of a constitutional clause. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: The actual history of the Constitution, as everyone knows, has been a history of the gradual abandonment of all (such) impediments to government tyranny." - H. L. Mencken, Selected Prejudices, p.194. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS OR PANARCHISM

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution declares that powers not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In addition to this division of powers between the central government and the States, further safeguards were erected by the dispersion of the powers of Federal and State governments into three coordinate branches, the legislative, executive, and judiciary. ALL OF THIS SEEMINGLY ELABORATE MECHANISM WAS DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR ONE PURPOSE, TO PROTECT THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE MINORITY, ONE PERSON, AGAINST OPPRESSION BY THE LARGEST POSSIBLE MAJORITY, ALL OTHER PERSONS COMBINED. This is the very antithesis of political democracy!" - Admiral Ben Moreell, The Admiral's Log II, p.6. - And as such it has thoroughly failed. - J.Z., 24.6.94.

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI, The Constitution of No Authority.

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals. It does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government. It is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.” – Ayn Rand. - Well, how much and for how long, if ever, did it actually protect all the genuine individual rights and liberties of all subjects, including the slaves and taxpayers, conscripts and drug addicts, gun owners, consumers, producers, bankers, Negroes, Indians, Mexicans, Eskimos and ordinary subjects of various other ethnic backgrounds? - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - Even the best constitution should apply only to volunteers – and to private or official aggressors against it, not to peaceful citizens doing their own things among themselves, under full exterritorial autonomy. No constitution can rightfully establish a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 2.1.08, 11.12.11. – CONSTITUTIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, Q.

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution is not hearsay. It is not a bunch of legal myths passed along by word of mouth. It is not a depository for judicial delusions and ideological pipe dreams. It is not a figment of some justice’s Marxian imagination. It is a written document – a legally binding contract whose words, spirit and intent are clear.” – Linda Bowles, nationally syndicated columnist. - The writings of Lysander Spooner and others revealed most of its inherent and remaining defects. Slavery and monetary despotism, as well as compulsory taxation and the suppression of individual and group secessionism, in short, its territorialism, are probably its worst factors. Nor are its law-making, juridical, policing and military monopoly and its power of centralized decision-making on war and peace to be approved of: For instance, it led to the absurdity of nuclear overkill power. All the faithful tend to overlook the wrongs and flaws in their dogmas and institutions. In this case territorial statism sees to that. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06.

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.” – Justice William O. Douglas. - But its ultimate "achievement" was, to territorially put bigger and more expensive and more despotic governments on the backs of almost all the people. Only e.g. criminals and drug dealers do, largely, manage to avoid their rule and tax burdens. This seems to indicate a flaw in its design. I hold its territorialism to be the worst flaw, followed by its monetary and financial despotism, then by its military and police monopoly. You make your own additions to this list: - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – The quote seems to assume, according to this remarket, that the US Constitution was an anarchist manifesto! – J.Z., 13.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution is the Contract with America.” – Anonymous. - America does not exist, except as a geographic location. As such it cannot engage in contracts. Only individuals - consenting adults can. The constitution has never been laid before them, in any generation, to sign. It is thus a document without authority. It was signed only by a few and they are long dead. When signed by living individuals, it should bind only them. The oath of public servants to uphold it was more or less only a ritual formality, never taken quite serious by most, from the lowest bureaucrat, policeman and soldier up to the highest post, that of the President. - A territorialist constitution is by its very nature the worst constitution which citizens could have. It deprives their individual dissenters and minority group people of their choices, sometimes even the majority, with sufficient juggling of the election outcomes. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. - See especially the writings of Lysander Spooner or this, especially his "No Treason, the Constitution of no Authority". - A CONTRACT? NO, IT IS NOT. IT, TOO, IS A TERRITORIAL IMPOSITION

CONSTITUTION: The constitution no longer rules but has been neutralized by unconstitutional law and jurisdiction. – J.Z., 2.11.04. Anyhow, even the best constitution should not be territorially forced upon any peaceful people who disagree with it and would rather prefer their own constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and institutions. – J.Z., 6.10.07.

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government.” – Joseph Sobran. - But as a territorialist document it was the mother of our current wrongful condition. - Americans all too often speak only in terms of the US, instead of trying to make a universally valid statement. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. - It has neither sufficiently checked the legislators nor the government nor the judiciary. In all three abuses abound. – J.Z., 6.1.08. - NOW MERELY A PAPER DOCUMENT, LARGELY IGNORED

CONSTITUTION: The Constitution: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.” – Michael Badnarik, 2004 LP Presidential candidate. - I deny that it is sufficiently full of good ideas - except for its own adherents. It is not good enough for all the peaceful dissenters. And numerous laws have practically rendered it impotent. - J.Z., 25. 11. 06.

CONSTITUTION: The constitutional system of territorial States is one that de-constitutes freedom of action for all minorities and often even for the majority. - J.Z., 22.11.90, 24.6.94. – , INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

CONSTITUTION: The Constitutionalists suffer under the delusion that all the freedom worth having is already contained in their favorite constitution and that wish merely this limited freedom to be either maintained or restored. Under full exterritorial autonomy for societies of volunteers they could go as far as they want to and are able to towards full freedom, with their particular constitution, applying only to the voluntary subscribers. – J.Z., 1.6.95, 22.9.08.

CONSTITUTION: The Declaration is really so clear. Perhaps that's why the Constitution is taught diligently in school while the Declaration, which is our most fundamental political statement, is treated casually. The Constitution tells us, in effect, why we cannot or should not act in our own self-interest - we must depend on duly-appointed others to do it for us. The Declaration tells us that there comes a time when we must stop taking orders and start taking our lives back into our own hands. - The Declaration points out that the only reason to institute a government is to advance the well-being of the people who get together to do it. Should there come a time when the government ceases to advance the general welfare but, instead, usurps the power of the people, reduces them to wards of power, and serves special interests, then the Declaration says that the people should overthrow that power and replace it with something more practical." - Karl Hess, Dear America, p.92. - I rather favor the one-man revolutions, where one dissatisfied individual can freely secede and voluntarily associate with others under a constitution of their choice, leaving the old one to those who still like it - and the abuses it has led to. - This approach is more just and peace-promoting. Alas, it is not yet constitutional and not even sufficiently discussed among libertarians and anarchists. - J.Z., 24.6.94. – PANARCHISM: FREE CHOICE AMONG CONSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENTS, SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES – FOR INDIVIDUALS & MINORITIES

CONSTITUTION: the Founding Fathers ... knew that every government is by its nature an incipient tyranny and that no number of Constitutional chains can effectively restrain it where the people are not continuously alert to the all important necessity for its continued restraint." - Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.70. - In the absence of a constitutional clause or amendment, permitting individual secession and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, probably also in the absence of monetary and financial freedom and of ideal and voluntary militia forces, well trained, armed, motivated and organized for the protection of all individual rights, clearly enough declared, no territorial constitution will restrict any government sufficiently and for very long. - J.Z., 24.6.94, 21.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: The main point of a constitution is to put limits on what aspects of life are subject to majority rule.” – Ronald Bailey. – When and where has this been done quite successfully, i.e., when and where were genuine individual rights and liberties fully recognized and respected by any territorial State? – J.Z., 4.1.08. - MAJORITIES, MINORITIES, HUMAN RIGHTS, QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTION: The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. – Source? - All genuine rights and liberties were not even declared in it. - Are all its limited rights still left untouched by legislators in all US States and by the Federal Government? - Those who legally or juridically largely abolished its limited liberties could also claim copyrights in their prohibitions and misinterpretations. - Copyrights themselves are largely a wrong, except within voluntary communities, where the members concede them to each other. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06.

CONSTITUTION: The wording of the Constitution - and particularly of the preamble - seems to indicate that this government was to be established by 'the people of the United States', who were presented as the principals in a contract of representation. This suggests two major problems. First, the people of the United States never saw the Constitution, had not authorised or requested it, and certainly never ratified it. (In fact, most citizens of this country have never read the Constitution, even today.) It was signed by no one - not even by the men who wrote it. Its status as a binding agreement has therefore never been self-evident." - Sorry, I failed to jot down the source. Spooner? LeFevre? Watner? - J.Z.

CONSTITUTION: This Constitution will put a limit on government action, not on individual action. The Constitution will guarantee the right to life, liberty, and property. All laws restricting the voluntary interaction and trade of individuals will be henceforth repealed, forever." - Ted. A. Paduch, THE MERCURY, 11/78. – What good will it do you if you wave it in the face of a Stalin, Hitler, Mao or Idi Amin? – J.Z., 21.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people; they fix too for the people the principles of their political creed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Priestley, June 19,1802. – Where the constitutions for whole territories and their populations ever good enough in this respect – and could they be? – J.Z., 21.11.08.

CONSTITUTION: Tis liberty alone that gives the flower of // fleeting life its lustre and perfume, // And we are weeds without it. // All constraint // Except what wisdom lays on evil men, // Is evil.” - William Cowper. - There are few left who still firmly believe that any existing constitution is the best possible embodiment of wisdom - unless they assume that some form of territorial constitutionalism is the least evil because they can think only in terms of territorial uniformity rather than in terms of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. - J.Z., 24.6.94. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM

CONSTITUTION: We do not have any effective constitutional protection against the size and scope of government and its massive burdens in the form of taxation, inflation, regulation and bureaucracy.” - Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.80. - - He should have added e.g. deflation and stagflation. The answer to this problem lies in letting individuals and their voluntary communities secede and compete. – J.Z., 2.10.07. - LIMITED GOVERNMENT AGAINST SIZE & GROWTH OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS

CONSTITUTION: we’re trying to write a constitution that every Terran culture could agree to.” - Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, p.128. – At best this would be possible for a common declaration of individual rights and liberties, which would indicate their greatest extent. However, constitutions of diverse communities of volunteers would not be obliged to respect and practise all of these rights and liberties internally, among themselves, but only externally, towards all those panarchists, who, in their own panarchies, do claim them for themselves and to the extent that they do. – J.Z., 11.9.07. - UNIFORMITY, UNITY, FEDERALISM

CONSTITUTION: Whatever was good about any constitution was usually and soon and to a large extent destroyed by administrators, legislators and judges. The remaining skeleton usually belongs on the scrap heap. It is a vain and utopian attempt to unite all people in a territory under ONE constitution. Let each individual and all volunteer groups - have their own. - J.Z., 24.6.94. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM

CONSTITUTION: When we recall that the Soviet Union had a constitution – modeled after the United States Constitution – it should be evident that liberty can never be guaranteed by the scribbling of words on parchment. Those who wave copies of the Constitution around as symbols of their liberty, remind me of dogs who have learned to carry their leashes in their mouths.” - Butler Shaffer, The Wizards of Ozymandias, chapter 17: The Delusion of Limited Government, which is online at – No constitution that I know of granted individuals the right to secede and to form alternative but only exterritorially autonomous societies and competing governments. – J.Z., 19.2.05.

CONSTITUTION: Why only one constitution for all people in a whole country, no matter how different they and their views and preferences are? - J.Z., 21.12.93. – Q.


CONSTITUTIONALISM & PANARCHISM: No constitution is moral and good enough that does not allow individuals and groups to opt out from under it in order to do their own things by themselves, for themselves and to themselves. – J.Z., 19.12.95, 7.1.99.

CONSTITUTIONALISM, EXTERRITORIAL: There is no ideal constitution for all and there cannot be. To each the constitution of HIS or HER choice. - J.Z., 21.7.87, 13.9.04.

CONSTITUTIONALISM, THE TERRITORIAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OR CONVENTIONAL & COLLECTIVIST & EXCLUSIVE SOVEREIGNTY: It is really one which de-constitutes or prevents full freedom of action for individuals, almost all minorities and often even the majority, under the false pretence of granting all of them representational freedom. What really constitutes a constitutionalism that deserves the name could only be found once individuals and minorities and majorities become free to opt out of the establishment and to establish among themselves, under exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, their own constitutional system. No peaceful and non-fraudulent person should be automatically subjected to the constitutions of others. He is entitled to live under his own. - J.Z., 22.11.90, 14.1.93, 12.12.11.

CONSTITUTIONS & VOLUNTARISM: Constitutions are for volunteers only. J.Z., 17.1.93. – Just like those of e.g. sports or bridge clubs. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONSTITUTIONS, CONSENT & PANARCHISM: All constitutions should be based upon unanimous consent. On the basis of exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities and individual secessionism this could be achieved. Since this is true nothing less will do. – J.Z., 28.4.93.

CONSULAR JURISDICTION: Its status in the host countries was often extraterritorial or even exterritorial. Alas, it merely represented another territorial constitution, legal and juridical system for its subjects in other countries. It did not provide them with diplomatic immunity but at least with whatever protection their own States could and were willing to provide them with in foreign countries. These cases are not instances of full exterritorial autonomy but merely of competing territorial jurisdictions provided for some people, the own nationals, in other countries. – The early forms of it were called “capitulations” and were often not imposed by granted by great powers in order to promote their international trade. In the case of China they were imposed through what became called ‘unequal treaties” that did not grant the same rights to Chinese in other countries. If they had been “equal treaties” in this respect then history might have taken another course. Individuals should be free to set up or to choose alternative jurisdictions, laws and administrations for their own affairs – everywhere. – J.Z., 6.7.04, 24.3.09. - EXTERRITORIALITY, CAPITULATIONS, EQUAL TREATIES, UNEQUAL TREATIES, FOREIGN CONCESSIONS IN CHINA, EXTRATERRITORIALITY, DIPLOMACY, TRADE RELATIONSHIPS

CONSULAR JURISDICTION: Privileges and immunities of consuls in eastern countries: The consular regulation so (to? For? – J.Z.) the United States outline the following rights of consuls in non-Christian countries: In non-Christian countries the rights of exterritoriality have been largely preserved, and have generally been confirmed by treaties to consular officers. To a great degree they enjoy immunities of diplomatic representatives, together with certain prerogatives of jurisdiction, the right to worship, and, to some extent, the right of asylum. These immunities extend to exemption from both the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the country to which they are sent, and protect their households and effects covered by the consular residence. Their personal property is exempt from taxation, though it may be otherwise with real estate and movables not connected with the consulate. Generally, they are exempt from all personal impositions that arise from the character or quality of a subject or citizen of the country.” – Raymond Garfield Gettel, Readings in Political Science, Ginn & Co., Boston, New York, Chicago, London, 1911, p. 231. - PERSONAL LAW, PANARCHISM, JURISDICTION, FOREIGNERS, EXTERRITORIALITY, IMMUNITIES

CONSULAR JURISDICTION: While its status in the host country was exterritorial or extraterritorial, it represented a territorialist foreign country within the territory of the host country. Thus it was no pure example for personal law arrangements. The same is true for diplomatic immunity. This can also be used as a cover for crimes with victims and, to that extent, it is to be condemned. - J.Z., 30.8.04. - See e.g.: CALEB, R.: Die Konsulargerichtsbarkeit in Bulgarien auf Grund der Capitulationen mit der Tuerkei, Strassburgie, 1903. - HINCKLEY, F. E.: American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, Washington, D.C., Lowdermilk, 1906. - JOESTEN, JOACHIM: Article on consular jurisdiction in Tangier, DIE WELT, 22.8.1953. - JZL. - - KIANG YONG-TCHANG: De la Juridiction Consulaire en Chine, Paris, 1922. - - LAFOSSE, HENRI: La juridiction consulaire de Rouen, 1556-1791, Defontaine, 1922, 306pp, bibl. - - LIPMANN, K.: Die Konsulare Jurisdiktion im Orient, Leipzig, 1898.  - - MARTENS, F.: Das Consularwesen and Die Consularjurisdiction im Orient (trans. by H. Skerst), Berlin, 1874. - - MILTITZ, A. de: Manuel des Consuls, 2 vols. in 5, London and Berlin, 1837-41. - - PIGGOT, Sir F.: Exterritoriality; the Law Relating to Consular Jurisdiction and to Residence in Oriental Countries, new ed,, Hongkong, 1907. - - PIGNOLET, JEAN: La Juridiction Consulaire en Lorraine et le Tribunal de Commerce de Nancy, 1971, 107pp.  - - REY, FRANCIS: La protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les echelles du Levant et de Barbarie, Paris, L. Larosse, 1899, 552pp. (Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan)  - SARGENT, G. H.: Outline Lectures on the History, Organization, Jurisdiction, and Practice of the Ministerial and Consular Court of U. S. in Japan, Tokio, 1887. – SHI SHUN LIU, Extraterritoriality, pages 32 ff., TARRING, C. J.: British Consular Jurisdiction in the East, London, 1887.  - - TWISS, TRAVERS: On Consular Jurisdiction in the Levant, or the Status of Foreigners in the Ottoman Law Courts, London, William Clowes & Son, 1880. – See: ROME, Peregrinus.

CONSUMER PROTECTION: Consumers need more protection from taxes." - National Taxpayers' Union, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 8/77. - That is not enough. Consumers need full consumer sovereignty towards all tax-based and monopolized services. That means, choice among competitors and freedom to pay only the price they are willing to pay for those services which they do want. - J.Z., 24.6.94. – CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM

CONSUMER PROTECTION: Consumers need protection most of all against government disservices like inflation, deflation, stagflation, credit restrictions ( due to monetary despotism of governments ), taxation, nuclear strength, oppression and regulations and avalanches of laws. They have to become sovereign consumers in these spheres, also. - J.Z., 21.8.73 - 4.10.02. – Also individual secessionists & boycotters. – J.Z., 21.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CONSUMER PROTECTION: That governments favor tariffs, quotas and other protectionist measures means simply that they are captive to powerful political groups and are seeking to advance interests other than those of the consumers.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.114. – Let the consumers and the taxpayers opt out of such schemes! – J.Z., 2.10.07. - VESTED INTEREST PRESSURE GROUPS, LOBBIES, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

CONSUMER PROTECTION: We have heard much the past few years of how the government protects the consumer. A far more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government." - Milton Friedman, An Economist's Protest, 1972. – PROTECTIONISM, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENT. STATISM, SECESSION, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MONOPOLISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY & FREE ENTERPRISE: JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery, 1984. - Page 236: On markets and consumer sovereignty he uses terms also applicable to panarchism: "Each individual consumer and each individual seller makes his own decision, and the aggregate of all such decisions is translated by the market into an overall allocation of resources that satisfies consumer demands in the most efficient manner. The philosophy of competitive markets is, at root, the same as the philosophy of individual responsibility which is the conceptual predicate of this book. The free market is the economic counterpart of the liberal society composed of free and responsible individuals." - - If there were no territorial monopolies for States and societies. - Only the veil of territorialism separates many libertarians and anarchists from panarchism or polyarchism. - Page 327: "... only when the consumer can choose between two or more competing products or services does the supplier have any incentive to provide better service at lower cost. But in the supply of services by government, there is usually no competition. Therefore, the civil servants, who provide the services have little motivation to supply the highest quality and lowest-cost service. Where there IS competition with the government, as in the case of parcel post, the competition usually wins, because its managers are motivated by the carrot of profits and the stick of losing their jobs. Where there is not competition, as in the case of the Postal Service's monopoly of first-class mail delivery, the result is poor and costly service. The conclusion is inexorable: to have more efficient performance, it is imperative that there be competition in the provision of public services." - ALL public services! - J.Z., in a letter to GPdB & C.B., 11.11.04, & 1.10.11. - COMPETITION, FREE ENTERPRISE, PUBLIC SERVICES, POST OFFICE, MONOPOLIES

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY & FREE SOCIETY: the case for a free society dominated by consumer sovereignty. - John Chamberlain on W. H. Hutt, "THE FREEMAN", June 76, p.378. - Not only "a" free society for all but all societal and autonomous subgroups and all States should become subjected to consumer sovereignty. This is possible only with the exterritorial autonomy model for volunteers or fully competitive enterprises for single or package-deal protective and other “public” services to all those of the public, who choose them for themselves. I doubt that C. & H., in any of their utterances went as far as that. - J.Z., 9.1.93. Consumer sovereignty, like freedom of contract and freedom of association, is only one of many basic liberties that have not yet, in public opinion, been consistently expanded to include the panarchistic or experimental freedom options in every sphere  - for peaceful individuals and minorities. – Naturally, not for conquerors and gangs or thieves, robbers, rapists and murderers. This shows again how important a greatly improved declaration of individual rights and liberties could be. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06, 12.12.11.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY & PANARCHISM: People are prepared to work hard for generalized individual options realized with cash etc. on a somewhat free market. This kind of purchasing power they do know and appreciate well enough. Panarchism could and should be described as a similarly attractive aim and option, in those important spheres of living, where the possibility of such options was not widely recognized so far. Once it becomes similarly recognized, then similarly large individual and cooperative efforts can be expected in this sphere as well and also alliances, federations and leagues favoring and using complete minority autonomy on the voluntary and exterritorial model. – J.Z., 21.12.95, 9.1.99. - Gather the public services you want in your shopping cart - then pay for them yourself! - J.Z., 8.12.03.


CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY TOWARDS STATES & SOCIETIES: A society or movement that offered free consumer choice even in the sphere of politics and economics, could get all the consumers in the world on its side, if it properly markets its offers, including its war and peace aims, its rightful defence and liberation program. Consequently, it would not have a large number of enemies and could, largely, use their own police- and military forces against them. - J.Z. 11.8.88 (85?), 4.7.89, 5.9.04, 12.12.11. - WAR AIMS, DESERTION, MILITARY INSURRECTION, DEFENCE, LIBERATION.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Consumer freedom is a rather prosaic version of our great idea. The unobserving may be pardoned if he fails to recognise the housewife pushing her truck in the supermarket as a present-day incarnation of the goddess of freedom." - Henry C. Wallich, The Cost of Freedom. - It will come close to being a complete freedom once all government services can also be selected from or boycotted on the shelves, or bought over the counter, by those who want them, by being selected or not for one's own shopping basket. - J.Z., 23.4.89, 27.6.94. - Fill your shopping cart only with those governmental or societal services that you want, need and are willing to pay for! - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Consumer freedom is a rather prosaic version of our great ideal. The unobserving may be pardoned if he fails to recognise the housewife pushing her truck in the supermarket as a present-day incarnation of the goddess of liberty." - Henry C. Wallich, Cost of Freedom. - It depends upon how prosaic and limited your vision of consumer sovereignty is. It will come close to being complete only once department stores not only offer e.g. travel services, computer systems, shares and insurance but also government and societal service contracts from their shelves and if these particular services or disservices can also be totally or selectively boycotted there. - J.Z. 23.4.89, 3.7.89, 12.12.11.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Each individual consumer and each individual seller makes his own decision, and the aggregate of all such decisions is translated by the market into an overall allocation of resources that satisfies consumer demands in the most efficient manner.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.236. - Indeed, and it works so well that it should be applied also to all public services, including constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and various administrative bodies. They all ought to be competitively established and maintained, if possible, by volunteers and their customers or members, combined, if they want to, in their own panarchies or polyarchies, exterritorially quite autonomous, but not allowed to interdict secession from them, like some groups of fundamentalists or fanatics are inclined to do. – J.Z., 2.10.07. - FREE ENTERPRISE & FREE BUSINESS, FREEDOM OF CONTRACTS, FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE - IN EVERY SPHERE: PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: In the absence of monopoly - whether by capital or labour - no producer can get his hands on other people's money except by supplying goods and services they want at prices they choose to pay." - Ralph Harris, The End of Government ...? p.34. - If that is extended to all governmental and societal services, then consumer sovereignty would, indeed, mean the end of all territorial governments, as we know them now. They could only survive as panarchies that still managed to satisfy their remaining members in their formerly exclusive turfs. Their exclusive protection rackets would be rightfully and efficiently stopped. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Individual free consumer choice, membership options among and competitive free enterprise and cooperative, mutual aid or insurance service offers - for all kinds of communities of volunteers, especially for so far unfree minority groups, and for all kinds political, economic and social experiments, all under their own personal laws, and a-territorially autonomous, regardless of where their members may happen to live and work vs. territorial power, coercion and monopolies, however constitutionally, legally, juridically or coercively the latter are upheld or intellectually, ideologically or religiously rationalized, as supposedly the only possible or rightful local options. - J.Z., 04-11, 12.12.11.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: It is also self-evident to Mr. Buckley that, in a democracy, the customer (who pays the bills) must have the right to exercise his free choice when he is out shopping in the market place. The autonomy of the customer should hold whether he is buying toothpaste, tennis rackets - or education for his children." - John Chamberlain, in introduction to W. F. Buckley, Jr., God & Man at Yale, liv. - Or any other governmental or societal package deal. - J.Z., 27.6.94.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Our economic system - the market economy or capitalism - is a system of consumers' supremacy. The customer is sovereign; he is, says a popular slogan, 'always right'. Businessmen are under the necessity of turning out what the consumers ask for and they must sell their wares at prices which the consumers can afford and are prepared to pay. A business operation is a manifest failure if the proceeds from the sales do not reimburse the businessman for all he has expended in producing the article. Thus the consumers, in buying at a definite price, determine also the height of the wages that are paid to all those engaged in the industries." - Mises, Planning for Freedom, p.150/151. - It is still very far from being such a system, e.g., because it is without monetary freedom and free choice for governmental and societal services. - Why have so many libertarians mental blocks (and of what kind are they) against extending the limited consumer sovereignty into an unlimited one, for all spheres of human activities? - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: Panarchies extends consumer sovereignty to all governmental services. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 8.4.89.  - Also to all economic systems and social or societal services, including libertarian and anarchist self-help ones. All are in future only to be provided by and for their own volunteers. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY: The fact is that under the capitalist system the ultimate bosses are the consumers. The sovereign is not the state, it is the people. (*) And the proof that they are the sovereign is born out by the fact that they have THE RIGHT TO BE FOOLISH. (**) This is the privilege of the sovereign. He has the right to make mistakes, no one can prevent him from making them, but of course he has to pay for his mistakes. If we say the consumer is supreme or that the consumer is sovereign, we do not say that the consumer is free from faults, that the consumer is a man who always knows what would be best for him. The consumers very often buy things or consumes things they ought not to buy or ought not to consume. " – Luwig von Mises, Socialism, Economic Policy, 20/21. - (*) The individual consumer! - (**) Also the right to be wise, for themselves and among themselves. That right is practised by individual secessionism and voluntary associationism on the basis of exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 28.6.92, 27.6.94. – CAPITALISM, MISES, PEOPLE, SOVEREIGNTY

CONSUMER'S DEMOCRACY: When we call a capitalistic society a consumers' democracy, we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the capitalists and entrepreneurs, can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market place. - Ludwig von Mises. - This consumer's choice must be extended to all "government" services and to consumer boycotts towards all government disservices, expenditures and taxes. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 8.4.89. – Mises, alas, did not so extend it clearly and extensively enough. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONSUMERISM: The appetite for material well-being is harmless and should not be a source for concern so long as it is not indulged by theft and confiscation.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.329. E.g. fraud and the secret inclusion of dangerous additives, or presence of poisons in food etc. should now be included in the prohibitions or as acts considered and treated as criminal ones. But the whole justice sphere should also be exposed to competition to finally approach genuine justice much closer than we did so far. – J.Z., 2.10.07.

CONSUMERS: A government may guarantee minimum standards (*), but the consumer must be able to choose between alternative suppliers and not be treated as a powerless yet  irritating pawn by a monopoly national or local government supplier." - Rhodes Boyson, 1985, VII. – (*) ? - J.Z.

CONSUMERS: Although producers and advertisers cannot fool them overmuch at the goods and services level, consumers are easily 'taken in' at the theoretical and conceptual level." – Leonard E. Read, Who's Listening? p.61. - Especially when it comes to territorially and monopolistically supplied governmental services and disservices and their imposed charges. Even Leonard E. Read raved merely about his own utopia of "limited" governments ( “Government, An Ideal Concept” ), which were still to be territorial and would not allow individuals and groups to secede from them and establish for themselves those governments or non-governmental societies which they preferred for themselves. Neither territorial governments nor organized libertarians and anarchists have so far sufficiently explored and publicised all of freedom's alternatives. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMERS: As a consumer, I choose freedom." – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.73. - He did not realize, nor did most consumers, that they also need full freedom in the choice between all kinds of "governmental" services. as well as fully freed governmental and societal competition, which would require full exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities that want to compete with any of the territorial governments in any of its services or disservices, always at the expense and risk of the participating experimenters. That kind of separate and voluntaristic development would reduce the present territorial governments, by individual and group secessions, to rule their remaining volunteers also only exterritorially - e.g. within the borders of its former exclusive territory – but being no longer and necessarily confined to these artificial barriers. Thus any of the “rump States” or “rump societies” of remaining volunteers could expand, if it wanted to, world-wide, as could all other exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, without stepping on any rightful claims of any people, anywhere, but rather assisting volunteers anywhere - in their rightful and self-concerned aspirations. No territorial limited government does and can offer its subjects as much consumer sovereignty and free enterprise. - J.Z., 4.10.02, 21.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: Choice in currencies and value standards, clearing and credit and finance systems should also be a free consumer option. - J.Z., 8.7.94. Also choice among governments and societies. - J.Z., 4.10.02. - And, naturally, in both spheres, freedom of contracts, free exchange, freedom to associate, free enterprise and freedom to experiment should also apply. – J.Z., 21.11.08.

CONSUMERS: competition prevents the abuse of powerful producer interests by giving the consumer the final say in determining their fortunes." - Ralph Harris & Arthur Seldon, Not From Benevolence... - Especially when it comes to territorial governmental services and disservices, which have so far outlawed competition against them. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMERS: Consistent Liberalism considers that the most common interest amongst individuals is their function of being consumers." - George Hardy, PROGRESS, 1/77. - Are they free consumers towards governmental services and disservices? Are these services and disservices competitively supplied? Are they free to refuse to pay for any or all of them? - Why should one self-limit as much one's horizon, decisions and actions? -J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMERS: Consumerism is based upon productionism; before there can be consumers there must first be producers. There's no better way to serve consumers than to reward and encourage producers." - J. Kesner Kahn. - As long as those rewards and encouragements come only from free consumers and that for all "governmental" services as well, competitively supplied. - J.Z., 24.6.94, 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM, COMPETITION

CONSUMERS: Consumers are much more capable of spending their money for products or services they desire than they are able to go to the polls to vote for a politician who will perform satisfactorily." - Manuel S. Klausner, REASON, Oct. 74. - Let them run their own budget expenditures also towards all the official budget items proposed and offered by competing governments and non-governmental societies, which they joined voluntarily and let them ignore those from which they have seceded. Then most government spending, of the remaining governments, would drop significantly and so would the number of their public "servants". - J.Z., 4.10.02. – VOTING, PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: Consumers determine prices and income." - Terry Arthur, 95%  Is Crap, p.216. - Not yet those of government-granted monopolies and of governmental services and disservices and the taxes. tributes or “revenues’ or “unearned profits” for them. But they should be free to do so. - Almost everywhere one finds selective blindness, dogmatically stated as the truth. - J.Z., 4.10.02, 21.11.08.

CONSUMERS: Consumers determine what is made, how much is made, and at what price it's sold." - Terry Arthur, 95% Is Crap, p.188. - To which item on government budgets does this rule apply? Territorial voting disfranchises the individual voter in this respect. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMERS: Despite the pretensions of the planners, the fact is that it is only from the freedom of choice of the consumer, that real progress comes. This is not only true of industry and commerce. It is true of society as a whole." – (*) Angus Maude, Towards a Responsible Society. - Free consumer choice for all governmental and societal services would finally maximise consumer satisfaction among all kinds of consumers and producer satisfaction among all kinds of competing public service agencies. Consumers would be free to choose among all kinds of private or cooperative enterprises the kind of public services that they do want to hire. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 27.6.94. - Freedom of choice for citizens, not merely for political candidates, delegates and representatives, but, directly, for the "governmental" services or budget items that they want, at their expense. Government budgets, of competing governments and societies, would thus be reduced to sales catalogues or to package deal offers of insurance and mutual aid or protection societies. - Not only consumer sovereignty for trivial or basic and obvious survival goods but for all forms of living, association and disassociation, all kinds of protection and ideals, all kinds of refusals and boycotts, segregation and integration, all on a quite voluntary basis. - J.Z., 4.10.02. … (*) As if inventors, innovators and reformers had nothing to do with progress. Consumers, like voters, do not always follow the best leads soon, soon enough or at all. Anarchists and libertarians should by now be certain about that. – Under full experimental freedom that would not matter. Even a few innovators could at least practise their ideas and benefit from them among themselves. – Then, gradually, at least some of them might spread to the majority. - J.Z., 21.11.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, BUDGET

CONSUMERS: Despite the pretensions of the planners, the fact is that it is only from the freedom of choice of the consumer, that real progress comes. This is only true of industry and commerce. It is true of society as a whole." - Angus Maude, Towards a Responsible Society. - Fully free consumer choice for all "government" services would finally maximize consumer satisfaction through all kinds of freely competing private, cooperative or charitable public service agencies. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 12.12.11.

CONSUMERS: Each consumer, by spending a dollar on the goods he wants, 'votes' for the production of those goods." - David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p.142. - Just extend that to voluntary taxes for or subscriptions to competing "governmental" services. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, VOTING, COMPETING OR VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES

CONSUMERS: Everything points to a competitive structure as the best means of securing the maximum choice for the consumer, combined with a real consumer's influence over the facilities with which he is provided." - John Hibbs, Transport for Passengers. - So why outlaw it for government services? Competition in all spheres except the imposition of disservices upon involuntary victims. Full freedom of choice for citizens, all only volunteers for any governmental or societal arrangement! "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!" - J.Z., 4.10.02. – COMPETITION, CHOICE, PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: Free and unrestricted voting for all consumers, world-wide, with their money. - J.Z., 22.7.85. - … and for all kinds of goods and services, governmental and societal ones included - always at their own risk and expense only. - What is obvious in hind-sight is so often ignored even by libertarians, anarchists, utopians and futurists, even when there are many historical precedents for radical freedom alternatives. - J.Z. 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN EVERY SPHERE

CONSUMERS: Government now regards all consumers as idiots who require federal and state bureaucrats to shield them from any possible hazard in commerce. Business, labor, industry, education, science, and all other human endeavors touched by economics now fall under direct or indirect government control." - Tibor R. Machan, NEW GUARD, July/Aug. 78. - They are unobservant if they continue to believe that "the" vote gives them sufficient voting power over territorial governments and over their own affairs. - J.Z., 4.10.02. - VOTING

CONSUMERS: he advised future economists, '... to treat economic questions always from the consumer's point of view, for the interest of the consumer is identical with that of mankind.'" – G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.218. - Let the free consumers vote with their dollars and their labor contributions for the governmental and societal services of their own individual choice. That is the most important right to vote and in this respect territorial governments have disfranchised all of us, even in the "democracies" and "republics". - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMERS: In short, human liberty, in one of its major facets, is consumer choice and direction of productive activity." – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.150. - Also, of supposedly "governmental" activity! - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IN EVERY SPHERE

CONSUMERS: It is said that four days before Bastiat's death, with his mind still racing to record every possible insight which he could discover, he advised future economists, '... to treat economic questions always from the consumer's point of view, for the interest of the consumer is identical with that of mankind.'" – G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.218. - Not only all economic questions but all political and social questions as well. They, too, should become reduced to free-market relationships, including mutual aid, insurance, guarantee and credit arrangements. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE MARKET, COMPETITION

CONSUMERS: Only governments (federal, state and local) have the legal coercive power to act in defiance to the wishes of consumers." - Giles Edwards, Free Enterprise, a pamphlet. - As long as these consumers are not free to secede from them and establish, for themselves, the governments and societies of their dreams. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, EVEN TOWARDS GOVERNMENT & SOCIETAL SERVICES & SYSTEMS

CONSUMERS: Private enterprise makes it its business to court the consumer and to satisfy his most urgent demands; government agencies denounce the consumer as a troublesome user of their resources. Only a government, for example, would look fondly upon the prohibition of private cars as a 'solution' for the problem of congested streets." - Murray N. Rothbard. - What applies to territorial governments would not necessarily apply to exterritorial governments and free societies. There consumer sovereignty would be predominant, too and free enterprise for governmental and societal services. As long as the territorial model spooks in most heads, one has to stress the rightful and beneficial alternative to it at every opportunity. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

CONSUMERS: Representative Albert H. Tracy of Buffalo defended traders who sold at lower prices and advocated consumer freedom to buy from whatever source they desired." – Murray N. Rothbard, The Panic of 1819, p. 178. - These sources should include competing governments of voluntary communities, all on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy and individual secessionism. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: Supremacy of the market is tantamount to the supremacy of the consumers. By their buying, and by their abstention from buying, the consumers determine not only the price structure, but no less what should be produced and in what quantity and quality and by whom. They determine each entrepreneur's profit or loss, and thereby who should own the capital and run the plants. They make poor men rich and rich men poor." – Ludwig von Mises, Inflation and Price Control. – Let us apply this experience to the supply and use of whole political, economic and social systems, to maximize consumer satisfaction while, at the same time, enlightening them by their own experiences and the observation of “foreign” systems all around them by other volunteers. – J.Z., 12.11.10. - FREE MARKET, PRICING

CONSUMERS: Taxes, more than anything else, keep consumers from ever getting their money's worth." - J. Kesner Kahn, in The Free Man's Almanac. - So, turn them into voluntary taxes or subscriptions, for each taxpayer, and each governmental "service" or package deal into one individually chosen and competitively supplied. - J.Z., 4.10.02, 12.11.10.

CONSUMERS: That the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer." - Molinari, The Production of Security, p.3. - Even consumers do not have the right to enslave producers. Producers and service providers, too, have to remain free to offer or not to offer their goods and services, i.e. to get out of business if the prices they get do not satisfy them sufficiently. - J.Z., 24.6.94. - But then the whole thesis Molinari advances in this essay amounts to free enterprise for the production of security - and, naturally, of welfare and insurance services for those who want them and are willing to pay for them. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – Unwanted or insufficiently wanted services and goods would also be offered under the free enterprise, freedom to experiment and panarchism, by volunteers, hoping that they would find a sufficient market for what they have to offer. I tried to do that for many years with my Libertarian Microfiche Publishing experiment. – The potential consumers and producers sometimes do not or not fully enough recognize the value of certain opportunities and inventions. – One more reason to establish an Ideas Archive. - J.Z., 21.11.08. – As a special free market in which the supply and demand for ideas and talents will, finally, sufficiently meet. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONSUMERS: the consumer ... as the key beneficiary in ... (the) laissez-faire system." - William H. Peterson, THE FREEMAN, Aug. 76, referring to a remark by Prof. Robert S. Stobaugh of the Harvard Business School, THE FREEMAN, Aug. 76. - Let us extend the laissez faire system to all governmental and societal services! - J.Z., 4.10.02. LAISSEZ FAIRE, GOVERNMENT & PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: The consumer's free choice must be extended to government services of all kinds and the right of consumer boycotts to all and any government disservices. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 21.11.08.

CONSUMERS: the consumer's interests and preferences should be paramount." - V. G. D'Estaing, Towards a New Democracy, 113. - There should also be fully free enterprise to offer what are now territorially monopolised governmental services of all kinds. In this respect we should be free entrepreneurs or producers as well as free consumers. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – The basic rights of no group should be ignored, neglected or suppressed. Each group should enjoy the freedom to make itself exterritorially autonomous. – J.Z., 21.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: The consumers by their buying and abstention from buying elect the entrepreneurs in a daily repeated plebiscite as it were. They determine who should own and who not, and how much each owner should own ... The ballot of the market elevates those who in the immediate past have best served the consumers. However, the choice is not unalterable and can daily be corrected. The elected who disappoints the electorate is speedily reduced to the ranks." – Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom, p.113. - The same should happen to political parties and movements, to ideologies and reform attempts and to revolutionary aspirations, to constitutions, bodies of laws, political systems and utopias, all reduced, in essence, to one man consumer or producer choices, thus to one-man reforms, one-man revolutions and voluntary associationism, which can only be achieved under full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities under personal laws and introduced via individual secessionism. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – FREE MARKET EXTENDED TO PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: The consumers represent the public interest much better than the producers or governments. Yet they are barely represented and largely enchained by the producers and their lobbyists in parliament. - J.Z., 11.1.77, 8.7.94. - Parties, political movements and parliaments and even direct democracies do not sufficiently represent the individual consumers, neither of the remaining and somewhat freely supplied private services nor of the monopolistically supplied or imposed governmental services. Free consumerism must be extended to the latter as well. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMERS: The Profit and Loss system is essentially the consumers' system. Human experience so far has failed to produce any other plan under which the consumer has complete freedom of choice and can command or reject at his sole whim or pleasure. We are all consumers, and if we accept the theory of the greatest good of the greatest number, any economic system controlled by consumers must give us all the benefit of its operations." - Ernest Benn, The Profit System, p. 177. - Let the profit and loss system also be applied to the free enterprise business of competing government systems in a territory. That is the essential checks and balances part which most advocates of limited governments have so far overlooked because they accepted, unquestioningly and as self-evident the territorial system of governments, in the same way, as they had accepted, for all too long, the territorial system for religions. Confined to voluntary members and subjects and confronted by competing governments and non-governmental free societies, they would either have to pull their socks up or go bankrupt. Only those could then survive for long, who managed to satisfy their sovereign and voluntary "customers" or members. - We need more than free choice among toys, foods, drinks, clothing and amusements. Free choice among government and societal games, antics and performances especially, always at the own expense and risk. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PROFIT & LOSS, PLANNING, MARKET, FREE ENTERPRISE & PANARCHISM, CHECKS & BALANCES, LIMITING GOVERNMENTS TO EXTERRITORIALITY & VOLUNTARISM, FREE CHOICE, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

CONSUMERS: The whole economy needs to readjust to the wishes and commands of the millions of sovereign consumers of a free economy." – Dr. Hans F. Sennholz, THE FREEMAN, 2/75. - Why thus separate economic services from political and social services? At best the latter are only insurance and mutual aid and guaranty and credit services. And at worst one should certainly become free to leave or resist and overthrow their disservices. The whole system of politics, its theory and practice, needs also to readjust to the wishes and commands of the millions of individually sovereign and thus voluntary members - of freely competing governments and free societies. Then full economic liberty can be freely practised among its supporters and any other isms or systems among their supporters. Full "religious" liberty for the other faithful, the true believers, those of any political, economic and social ideology and experiment and community of volunteers! - Each liberty ought to be expanded to the fullest, for its supporters, even the liberty to choose for oneself any degree of less freedom than the maximum individual liberty. Even voluntary slavery - but limited by free individual secessionism for the slaves! -  J.Z., 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

CONSUMERS: There are no perfect arrangements in human affairs, but the fairest distribution of material rewards attainable by imperfect men is to let a man's customers decide how much he should earn; this method will distribute economic goods unequally, but nevertheless equitably." - E. Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 7/75. - Apply that to competing governmental and societal services as well and to their payments by satisfied voluntary customers or subscribers of such services. - J.Z., 4.10.02, 12.11.10.

CONSUMERS: To regulate consumers by law and limit them to the products of domestic industry is to encroach upon their freedom... is to do them an injustice." - Bastiat, quoted by G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.59. - To limit them to the services of the "own" territorial government, or, as emigrants, to the services of another territorial government, is also doing them a great injustice, one that the advocates of "limited" but still exclusive territorial governments, habitually ignore. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – Even most anarchists are not tolerant and wise enough to offer that individual choice to the remaining statists, in their great variety, although these people still constitute the great majority. Consequently, the great majority, that of the various statists, feel threatened by intolerant anarchists and libertarians and thus form the greatest obstacle to the realization of anarchism only among anarchists and of libertarianism only among libertarians. They are afraid that all anarchists and libertarians would impose their systems territorially. The statists also need to observe the peaceful coexistence between a variety of anarchist and libertarian groups, all operating only for volunteers and under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, to finally realize that they, the statists, in their great variety, could, likewise, come to realize all their different systems among their believers, at the same time and in the same country and even in the whole world. The quality of the offers of the various exterritorially autonomous communities and the choices of sovereign consumers or voluntary members would come to peacefully determine their market share and all the progress which they will manage to achieve between them. – Each change would not require large and expensive political campaigns and party victories at occasional elections but would come daily, step by step, by individuals choosing for themselves another political, economic or social system, after they were disappointed or dissatisfied with the one they had previously chosen for themselves. – Power would be replaced by choice so that we would get more and more choice systems – and their satisfied users and providers. - J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONSUMERS: Under capitalism the consumer is king. Every time he buys some commodity, whether it be steak or paper clips, he votes with his dollars and, if sufficient numbers vote in the same way, the market responds accordingly by diverting capital from less profitable areas to the ones where the greatest demand exists, in a way that no central authority could ever hope to duplicate." - Vincent H. Miller, OPTION, 2/77. - So why not expand this kind of consumer sovereignty into the sphere of governmental services and disservices? - Are some libertarians afraid of as much freedom? - J.Z., 4.10.02. – CAPITALISM, MARKET, PROFIT, PLANNING, PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: Very conspicuously in the marketplace, the government, by mandate and edict, is substituting its sovereignty for that of the individual consumer. Government, rather than the buying public, is increasingly determining the kinds of products and services offered for sale, and government regulations are influencing their costs and consequently their prices." - THE FREEMAN, 12/75, p. 713. - To that extent it is no longer a free market place. This applies especially to those services pre-empted by territorial governments as "governmental" services and to their territorially imposed disservices and costs. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONSUMERS: We Are All Consumers." – G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.218. - When it comes to governmental and societal services we are victimised consumers, stuffed or starved, regardless of individual preferences and also quite disfranchised. Let us become fully sovereign consumers towards all services and disservices, goods and "poisons". - J.Z., 4.10.02. - PANARCHISM

CONSUMERS: When we call a capitalist society a consumers' society, we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the capitalist and entrepreneurs, can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market place." - Ludwig von Mises. - Let's have the same daily ballot or annual commitment competition for all governmental services or package deals. - Consumers and businessmen to be sovereign in every respect - and haggle out all kinds of services between them. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

CONSUMPTION: a regrettable indulgence, the enjoyment of goods and services by the people who produced them." - I.E.A. - Attacked as "consumerism", mostly by people who "earn" and "waste even more than those people do, whom they criticise for making different individual choices. (Galbraith complaining about "affluence"!) - Indeed, many people are still somewhat savages, daubing themselves with colours, feathers, masks and costumes and dancing in their magic rituals. But so what. It is their lives they are wasting in their own preferred ways. - Let us rather "raise standards to which the wise and honest can repair", leaving all others to do their things for and to themselves. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – DIS., CONSUMERISM

CONSUMPTION: Consumption alone is the aim and purpose of every production. (1) Thus the interests of the producers should only be considered insofar as they may be required to promote the well-being of the consumers. ... In the mercantilist economic order, on the other hand, the well-being of the consumer is almost completely sacrificed to the interests of the producer and, apparently, production and not consumption is seen as the last aim or objective of all production and trade.” - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, p. 558, poorly retranslated by me from a German version. - J.Z. - Here follows, what is obviously the original version: "Consumption is the sole and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer is attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to disprove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776. - - (1) According to one report, that I read, many years ago, probably in Roscher, there was an incident in Spanish economic history in which spectacle makers succeeded in enforcing the acceptance of their products. Everyone had to wear spectacles, even if, in order to be able to see, they had to knock out the lenses or replace them with plain glass. Consumption of spectacles was the objective, and satisfaction of their producers, not consumer satisfaction. Now we laugh about such real or satirical instances. But should we, seeing the numerous and large as well as costly and widely unwanted disservices that governments now force upon us as individual "consumers" of and compulsory payers for these services? Isn't our situation much worse than that of the victims of these manufacturers of spectacles-frames and lenses? - J.Z., 4.10.02. - PRODUCTION, FREE EXCHANGE

CONTACTS: All one needs is sufficient contacts, with relevant ideas, facts, interested persons and organizations. With them anything could be achieved in a peaceful and reformist and voluntaristic way, without coercion, merely using freedom of information, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to act and to experiment autonomously. - J.Z., 27.6.94. - IDEAS ARCHIVE, CD-ROM PROJECT, CULTURAL REVOLUTION, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS ETC.

CONTAGION: Truth is its own witness, which is to say, the virtues speak for themselves in a language all their own - loud and clear; their language is exemplary action. In reality, virtues are spread by contagion; they are caught, not taught.” - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.94. - Is lack of virtue, are lies, myths and prejudices less infectious? The task consists rather in making truths and character virtues as infectious as they can possibly be, e.g. by providing an ideas archive and complete experimental freedom for volunteers. - J.Z., 27.6.94 – The virtues of cheap and powerful alternative media have not yet sufficiently spoken for themselves, e.g. by making all libertarian writings cheaply and permanently accessible in them. – J.Z., 21.11.08. – All freedom writings, for instance, could and should be offered on a single large external HD, of which the hardware, for a 1 TB one is now offered a prices down to A $ 88! Will that remain, too, for many decades, another missed opportunity for freedom lovers? – J.Z., 12.11.10. - MAGNETISM, ATTRACTION, MARKETS, LEADERSHIP, IDEAS, LIGHTHOUSES, PANARCHISM AND THIS SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY COMPILATION

CONTEMPT OF COURT: If judges and courts were under full free market competition for juridical services, "contempt of court" would be less frequently shown and would only very rarely be justified. But this is not a condition most judges strive to attain and their fear of competition does not do their reputation much good. - J.Z., 27.6.94. - COURTS, JUSTICE, JURIES

CONTENTS LISTS OF ON PANARCHY: Nos. I-XI, PP Nos. 505, 506, 507, 510, 554, 585, 671, 672, 689, 755, 832, 1-9, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PEACE PLANS 833. The Contents lists for ON PANARCHY 1-24 have been integrated in this A Z list!

CONTRACT BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS & SUBJECTS: There is a contract between government and subjects, and the bond ceases to hold when those in authority fail to promote the welfare of the whole body. - Baron Holbach, according to W. A. Dunning, p.55 of A History of Political Theory, From Rousseau to Spencer. - Who is to decide about this? Panarchists hold that the individual, as a sovereign consumer of government services, should be free to decide for himself whether a particular supplier of government services should continue to be his supplier or not. J.Z. 4.1.93. – Holbach still assumed, quote wrongfully, that monopolistic, compulsory and territorial authorities CAN rightfully and effectively promote the welfare, rights and liberties of all their subjects. How wrongful, harmful and inefficient they really are - and always have been - will be clearly enough revealed only once they are subjected to free competition. Then their membership will tend to shrink and this rather fast. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONTRACT GOVERNMENT: 25, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. - (I thought I had newly coined this term this month, only to find that I or someone else had already used in back in PEACE PLANS No. 505. One cannot always sufficiently rely on one's memory. - J.Z., 30.8.04.) – NAMES, DEFINITIONS

CONTRACTARIANISM: JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery, 1984. Page 158: Here he uses "contractarianism or government-by-agreement". - For more relevant quotes from him see under JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr. - NAMES, DEFINITIONS

CONTRACTING OUT: The City of Detroit found it was spending $ 26 to process a $ 15 traffic ticket. Now, working under a contract, a private clerical firm has reduced that cost to $ 1.80.” - Richard C. Cornuelle, Healing America, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1983, p. 100. – Let all present territorial monopoly government “services” be contractually provided, at free market prices or subscription rates, by private competing contractors and corporations or by exterritorially and autonomously competing communities and societies of volunteers, who should also be free to secede from them and join another such body – or none at all, merely buying wanted services and goods on a free market. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTRACTS & PROTECTION BY GOVERNMENTS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, SOCIAL CONTRACT, CRIME, GUN CONTROL & SELF-DEFENCE: The government will either not allow us or not enforce private individual contracts in what it claims is its own sovereign sphere, not will it keep its general social contract of protecting rather than threatening citizens. Look at and comprehend their anti-people ABC mass murder devices and their implications. We have never been threatened as much before as we are now by our "protectors", should they ever apply this "protection". While thus threatening us with these extremely immoral and useless devices, governments even outlawed the possession of small fire arms and their use for the own protection against private criminals, which the territorial government is, obviously, unable to keep in check. - J.Z., 6.7.91, 13.1.93, 12.12.11.

CONTRACTS AMONG INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS: They purchased land of the Indians, and set up a government of their own, on the simple principle of nature; ... and continued to exercise all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, upon the plain ground of an original contract among independent individuals." - John Adams, 1774, in BOSTON GAZETTE. – How much of the land of Indians in the USA was acquired by contract rather than by expropriation or conquest?  On the other hand: Can any tribe or group of tribes rightfully claim a whole continent as its rightful and exclusive possession? I would deny that and assert that even the question of which really is the most rightful and rational land tenure system can only be settled, finally, through peaceful competition between the various land tenure systems so far practised and proposed and realized only among their volunteers. – See PEACE PLANS NO. 5 on this. – It is among the few PP issues that I have digitized so far. - J.Z., 12.12.11.

CONTRACTS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO SIGNED THEM: I agree that the idea of contract being enforced on non-signers is absurd. - Mike Gunderloy, TC 116, p.76. – Not all contracts have to be signed. Between some people a verbal agreement or a handshake was and is enough. But for many important contracts between people, who do not know or trust each other enough, a written contract is always advisable. And as such it must also be backed up by an effective and competitively supplied jurisdiction or arbitration system. – J.Z., 12.12.11. – CONSENT, AGREEMENT, VOLUNTARISM, SOCIAL CONTRACT, PEOPLE, NATIONS, STATES, TERRITORIALISM

CONTRACTS: A breach of contract is only bad because it creates a breach of property ownership and its control - and only when it produces this effect." - View ascribed to Rothbard, by Moshe Kroy, JLS, Sum. 77, p. 208. - Hundreds of years of legal discussions of contracts have, I believe, created at least part of a libertarian interpretation of contracts. One does not have to start again, from the beginnings. - J.Z., 21.11.82. - Most important is the application of the contract theory to areas now pre-empted by territorial governments. - J.Z., 27.6.94. – TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

CONTRACTS: A contract must be a willing exchange." - Bastiat. - In Don Werkheiser's terms, a contract must establish a “mutual convenience” rather than a “single convenience” relationship. - J.Z.

CONTRACTS: A society based on contract is a society of free and independent men, who form ties without favor or obligation, and co-operate without cringing or intrigue." – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.24. - At least "cringing or intrigue" is reduced to a minimum when the private individual secession option is secured. - J.Z., 27.6.94.

CONTRACTS: A society based on contract, therefore, gives the utmost room and chance for individual development, and for all the self-reliance and dignity of a free man." - W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, 24. - Provided the "government contract" is not limited to a contract under a monopolistic, "limited" government that is "territorial" and to that extent exclusive and despotic. - J.Z., 27.6.94. - PANARCHISM

CONTRACTS: All political rights are to be based upon contracts only. - J.Z. 75.

CONTRACTS: and that the only social improvements which are now conceivable lie in the direction of more complete realisation of a society of free men united by contracts..." - W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.24. (Reproduced in PEACE PLANS No. 525. - Compare the remarks about “replacing status by contracts”.)

CONTRACTS: And where's our defence of the freedom of grown-up people to come to whatever arrangements they like, by mutual agreement?” - Terry Arthur, 95% Is Crap, p.161, in discussing pimps, prostitutes & their customers.

CONTRACTS: And yet, from that day to this - a period of sixty years, save one - neither bar nor bench, so far as I know, have ever uttered one syllable in vindication of men's natural right to make their own contracts, or to have the only true, real, natural, inherent, intrinsic 'obligation' of their contracts respected by lawmakers or courts. - Can any further proof be needed that all ideas of justice and men's natural rights are absolutely banished from the minds of lawmakers, and from so-called courts of justice? or that absolute and irresponsible lawmaking has usurped their place? - Or can any further proof be needed, of the utter worthlessness of all the constitutions, which these lawmakers and judges swear to support, and profess to be governed by?" - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.48, Works I.

CONTRACTS: Any imposed contract is invalid, is not a contract. - J.Z., n.d., upon reading: "He considers as invalid any enforced contract, even making use of the law to evade it and render it null and void." - B. A., Melbourne, in RED & BLACK, 4/73. - B. A. did not distinguish between the enforcement of freely entered contracts, that are also dissolvable under contracted conditions, and the enforcement of imposed "contracts". Nor did he distinguish between private and contractual contract enforcement and enforcement services and official, governmental enforcement agencies. - J.Z., 27.6.94.

CONTRACTS: Contract implies a specific agreement for a specific purpose, to which all parties to the contract agree from motives of rational self-interest. It is not to be confused with a law binding upon an indefinite number of cases into infinity." - R. A. Wilson, in review of Proudhon's The General Idea of Revolution in the 19th Century. – LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS

CONTRACTS: Contracts will be kept, when all idea of their sacredness has disappeared, because it is for the contractors' self-interest to keep them. If any one thinks he can take advantage of a general D.V. unwritten clause in order to repudiate his promises on the strength of his unexpected weakness, he does so at the peril of losing the confidence of others in him, and of being 'left'. Jails are not the most potent enforcers of contracts. The attractions of the benefits which a good reputation confers are greater." - Badcock, Slaves to Duty. - Enforcement of contracts, as well as peaceful ending of contracts, if desired, should be contracted, too. - J.Z., 27.6.94.

CONTRACTS: Every rational being has the right to conclude contracts freely, even to contract upon deviations from existing laws, as long as these deviations remain within the framework of the human rights and the natural rights of rational beings. Comment: Rational beings would, e.g., not undertake a real estate business without sufficient documentation and would not regard the requirement of public registration of such contracts as an infringement but rather as a safeguard. People under the influence of alcohol or other disabling drugs are at least temporarily not to be considered as rational." - From the human rights draft in PEACE PLANS No. 4 & 61-63.

CONTRACTS: Fichte ... recognises that, given the principle of individual rights, no tradition, however sacred, and no contract, however equitable, can be permanently binding." - C. E. Vaughan, Studies in the History of Political Philosophy before and after Rousseau, p.99.

CONTRACTS: Freedom of contract begins with freedom of choice." - J.Z., 1973, on reading Seldes, The Great Quotations, on contracts.

CONTRACTS: From status to contract.” – Maine

CONTRACTS: I agree that the idea of contract being enforced on non-signers is absurd." - Mike Gunderloy, THE CONNECTION 116, p.76. - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, CONSTITUTIONS, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, PANARCHISM

CONTRACTS: I favor contracts above laws. - J.Z., n.d.

CONTRACTS: in ... law, a proper contract requires that there has been a meeting of minds. The mind in your government never met the mind of myself. It was not capable of it." - An alien scientist in Poul Anderson, Captive of the Centaurianess, 1951, in ISAAC ASIMOVS'S … , Spring - Summer 1980, p. 87.

CONTRACTS: In place of laws we put contracts. No laws any more, neither through majority decisions nor through unanimity. Each citizen, each community or corporation makes its own law. ... " - Proudhon, quoted in LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr. 4. - "Not through unanimity"? Precisely through individual freedom of choice and voluntary membership, all rules will tend to become unanimously accepted or at least consented to, as part of acceptable package deals. - J.Z., 29.6.94. - Unanimous agreement on any rule in any game amounts hardly to an imposed rule or wrongful domination. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

CONTRACTS: It is in the generalisation of this principle of contract, in the turning of society into a network of mutual undertakings between individuals, that Proudhon sees the new order of economics as distinct from political organisation. (*) When that order is achieved, there will no longer be any need for (**) government, and, returning to his old serialist doctrine, Proudhon concludes that the end of the series beginning in Authority is Anarchy. In more concrete terms, the change of aspect between the old and the new societies is expressed as follows: 'In place of laws, we will put contracts; no more laws voted by the majority, or even unanimously. Each citizen, each town, each industrial union will make its own laws. (*) In place of political power we will put economic forces ... in place of standing armies, we will put industrial associations. In place of police we will put identity of interests. (***)'" – George Woodcock, Proudhon, p.171. - - (*) This would not exclude the conclusion of political service package deals, voluntarily entered and dissolved. But it should exclude the territorial impositions of laws by whole countries or towns or country districts or by exclusive unions covering whole industries or closed shops. Closed shops can be rightful only when they are quite voluntary and not claiming any natural monopolies.) - - (**) territorial! - J.Z. - - (***) Identity of interests between criminals and policemen, criminals and their victims? - J.Z.,27.6.94 .

CONTRACTS: It is the natural right of all men (who are mentally competent to make reasonable contracts) to make such contracts as they please, for buying and selling, borrowing and lending, giving and receiving, property, provided only that there be no fraud or force used, and that the contracts have in them nothing intrinsically criminal or unjust." – Lysander Spooner, Considerations for Bankers, p.56. - That should apply, with competing governments and societies, for their civil rights and liberties within these organisations as well. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – Freedom to sign the own kind of social contract for oneself! – J.Z., 21.11.08.

CONTRACTS: John Locke says, 'the State is a legal association of the sort that is made by contract.' Adam Smith says that the State ought not to be considered as anything better than a partnership agreement in trade - to be taken up for temporary interest and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. This is very true - we do not as a matter of fact act as if the State had only a contractual claim on us; we give it a reality which may issue in the sacrifice even of our lives.'" - F. B. Willmott, A Philosophy of Production, p.44. - STATE, SOCIAL CONTRACT, CONSENT

CONTRACTS: Locke insists that a society is legitimately formed only by means of a contract among the members, i.e. by voluntary and explicit consent of all concerned." (II, 14, 15, 57, 73, 87,89, 95, 106, 112, 122, 171, 211, 243. )" - David B. Suits, JLS, Sum. 77, 203. - I presume, he meant the State, too. Too many do still use the two as if society and the State were the same organizations rather than opposites. - J.Z., 27.6.94, 11.12.11.

CONTRACTS: Moreover, the keeping of promises is an essential feature of the condition of EQUAL LIBERTY so much desired. If I do not keep my promises to others, they need not keep their promises to me; and I, besides, give them an excuse to treat me as an inferior person altogether. The condition of equal liberty is nothing more than a condition arising out of free contract, when each agrees to respect the liberty of others IN CONSIDERATION of having his own liberty respected." - Badcock, Slaves to Duty, p.24.

CONTRACTS: No society, whether capitalist, socialist, or communist, can survive for ten minutes if it abandons the principle that a contract is sacred." - Rebecca West, The New Meaning of Treason, p.171/172. - Not every contract with everybody and on every subject is sacred. - J.Z., 29.6.89. - So we have no societies that deserve the name, never had them either, since none upheld this ideal? We have had only States and societies that often and habitually infringed private contracts. This leads to the question: How lively and strong could a society be and remain and develop or progress if it fully respected private contracts and were based upon them? - J.Z., 27.6.94. - PANARCHISM

CONTRACTS: not one of these 16 lawyers and judges took the ground that the constitution, in forbidding any State 'to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts', intended to protect, against the arbitrary legislation of the States, the only true, real, and natural 'obligation of contracts', or the right of the people to enter into all really just, and naturally obligatory contracts. - Is it possible to conceive of a more shameful exhibition, or confession, of the servility, the baseness, or the utter degradation, of both bar and bench, than their refusal to say one word in favor of justice, liberty, men's natural rights, or the natural, and only real, 'obligation' of their contracts?" - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.58, Works I. - Has this situation improved since? - J.Z., 27.6.94.

CONTRACTS: political rights, therefore, are based upon contract..." - Prof. Huxley, summarising Rousseau, NINETEENTH CENTURY, Jan. 1890. - Political rights ARE TO BE based on contract. - J.Z., 1/75. - Since none of the present "political rights" are based on contract, we do not have, according to this statement, any political rights but at most government granted privileges and, much more certainly, government-imposed burdens. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONTRACTS: Rawls, like Kant, sees the contract as essentially a rational decision model for the co-operative adoption of social institutions." - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right, 167.

CONTRACTS: Society By Contract.". - SLL Button 442. - Anarchist slogan quoted in Anarchism & Law, p. 67. – PANARCHISM

CONTRACTS: That a society of free men, co-operating under contract, is by far the strongest society which has ever yet existed; that no such society has every yet developed the full measure of strength of which it is capable." – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.24. - Only all too few have even theoretically explored the full application of the private contract idea in all spheres, far less had the liberty to apply it in areas pre-empted by territorial governments. Due to ignorance and prejudices this ideas is only fleetingly and almost unconsciously applied even in revolutionary periods, with their competing alternative institutions. As a rule, they consciously strive to attain only territorial rather than exterritorial autonomy. - However, most people do apply it, consciously or unconsciously in their private lives. But numerous popular prejudices, myths and errors prevent them from applying it to their "public lives", in areas and spheres now pre-empted by territorial governments. - J.Z., 27.6.94. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

CONTRACTS: the anarchist libertarians hold that government is illegitimate unless it has been contracted by those whom it serves." - Libertarian Handbook, 1973, p. 6. - Freedom lovers do, all too often, fail to recognize the rightfulness of non-anarchist and non-libertarian governments that are individually contracted for by those who imagine that the governments of their dreams can serve them and as long as they are remaining under that illusion, i.e., as long as each voluntary subject does not choose to individually secede from the kind of government he or she once opted for. - J.Z., 29.6.94. – PANARCHISM

CONTRACTS: The final chapter, 'Absorption of Government by the Economic Organism', deals with the peaceful dissolution of the State into the system of contractual associations. Each such association might, in a sense, be called a small government; but it would be different in essence from traditional political government in that membership is voluntary instead of compulsory. The possibility of tyranny - even of the tyranny of the majority - will become zero. It is important not to misunderstand Proudhon here: don't think of the Shoemaker's Association planning long-range programs to which the individual shoemaker must submit. Contract implies a specific agreement for a specific purpose, to which all parties to the contract agree from motives of rational self-interest. It is not to be confused with a law binding upon an indefinite number of cases unto infinity." ... There simply is no possibility under his system for a man getting trapped into compulsory obedience to a condition he didn't voluntarily accept by signing a contract." - Robert Anton Wilson, in review of Proudhon's "The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century." – If only he had been as explicitly for voluntarism and and competition when it came to his people’s bank! – J.Z., 12.11.10. - VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, SYNDICALISM, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM, MUTUALISM

CONTRACTS: The first principle of a civilised state is that power is legitimate only when it is under contract. Then it is, as we say, duly constituted." - Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, bk. ii, ch. 11, 1955. - It would have been nice if he had drawn the last conclusions from his principle - but then, how many people do? - J.Z., 29.6.94. – Even the Soviet Regime had a constitution but certainly not one based upon individual contracts. – As territorial States and governments all of them are uncivilized only some of them even more so. - J.Z., 12.11.10. - POWER, LEGITIMACY, CONSENT, PANARCHISM

CONTRACTS: The law should state that no person may steal from another person or defame or defraud him; no person may force another person to pay a certain wage or to charge a certain price; each person must fulfil his voluntary contracts, whether they be in business, marriage, or elsewhere; ..." – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.63. - No divorce, from a marriage partner, union, army, State??? - The peaceful dissolution of contracts, in pre-arranged or tacitly assumed ways, is as much a part of the theory of private contracts as the voluntary signing of or assenting to them - J.Z., 27.6.94.

CONTRACTS: the natural right of the people to make their own contracts, shall SET LIMITS to the power of their governments." – Lysander Spooner, Constitutional Law Relating to Credit, Currency & Banking, p.15. - Without an individual's contract, with "his" government, it is hardly "his" government. Without it he is, in practice, its subject and property. - J.Z., 27.6.94.

CONTRACTS: The notion of contract precludes that of government." - Proudhon, in S. Edwards, Proudhon, p.96. – Only that of territorial governments! The historic orders of Knights were once powerful – and yet merely exterritorial. – Moreover, they were all volunteers. – I believe that it was the Templars who once played a considerable role as traders, commercially utilizing their international contacts. They appeared to be rich so a French King once dissolved them, hoping to find a rare metal treasure. But all his agents found were some clearing claims, like bills of exchange and some stocks of goods for sale. – Just a hint by Ulrich von Beckerath. Perhaps their trading role and their exterritorial autonomy has been sufficiently written up or explained online? - J.Z., 12.11.10. - GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXTERRITORIALISM, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, ORDERS OF KNIGHTS

CONTRACTS: The obligation of the contract is the constitutional standard, by which the validity of legislation is to be tried; and laws must conform to this standard, and not the standard be brought down to the measure of the laws." - Lysander Spooner, Constitutional Law Relating to Credit, Currency & Banking, p.11. – What is to be the standard for Constitutions, since many of them are rather despotic, especially when it comes to the monetary sphere? – Must all constitutions be territorial? Those of private associations, corporations, societies and clubs, obviously, are not. - J.Z., 12.11.10. – CONSTITUTIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

CONTRACTS: The real radical thing that they come up with in the 19th century, in fact apparently too radical to stay by very long, was the concept of government by contract." - Poul Anderson, REASON, Oct. 73. - Who else but Herbert Spencer, who once understood and publicised it, has later renounced this idea? Did. e.g., Proudhon ever consistently apply this idea? Did many anarchists? Judging by the cases that did come to my attention, all those who renounced this idea had never fully understood it and applied it to all spheres of action. - J.Z., 29.6.94, 4.10.02. - PANARCHISM

CONTRACTS: The rule of contracts, substituted for the rule of laws, would constitute ... the real sovereignty of the people, the REPUBLIC." - Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century. – PERSONAL LAWS

CONTRACTS: Using the word co-operation in its wide sense, and not in that restricted sense now commonly given to it, we may say that social life must be carried on by either voluntary co-operation or compulsory co-operation; or, to use Sir Henry Maine's words, the system must be that of CONTRACT or that of STATUS; that in which the individual is left to do the best he can by his spontaneous efforts and get success or failure according to his efficiency, and that in which he has his appointed place, works under coercive rule, and has his apportioned share of good, clothing, and shelter." - Herbert Spencer.

CONTRACTS: We believe that the road to peace and plenty for all is via the individual contract, allowing the natural laws of the free market full reign in the advancement of our efforts." - Progress Party Platform, as stated in LIBERTARIAN DIGEST, July 1981. - Quite by the way, this would also assure that "crime does not pay" - in most cases. - Better protection, prevention, indemnification, penal and rehabilitation services would be competitively offered than are now provided by territorial governments. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONTRACTS: We believe that the road to peace and plenty is via the individual contract." - LIBERTARIAN DIGEST (Australia), 4/82.

CONTRACTS: You to make the contract and only you and the other signers to have its benefits or suffer from it. - J.Z., 17.5.75, 22.11.08.

CONTRACTUAL GOVERNMENT: Contractual government” is a term used by Donald J. Boudreaux and Randall G. Holcombe, and is quoted in “The Voluntary City”, edited by David Beito et al, on p. 61. – The term “competing governments” has already led to too many misunderstandings, among people still stuck upon the territorial model and unaware of historical precedents for exterritorial autonomy and personal law communities. (This happened even to minds like that of Ayn Rand and Carl Watner.) “Contractual government” is leading to less misunderstandings. But still better terms should always be looked for. – J.Z., 24.3.09. PANARCHISM, TERMINOLOGY, OTHER TERMS FOR IT, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, CONTRACTS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, NAMES, DEFINITIONS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

CONTRASTS, SOME OF THEM: Exterritorial autonomy vs. territorial sovereignty and majority despotism. - Individual independence and choices vs. national and collectivist independence & choices. - Personal law, self-chosen vs. laws territorially imposed upon whole populations. - VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION, EQUAL RIGHTS AMONG EQUALS, ALL VOLUNTEERS, INDIVIDUALISM VS. EGALITARIANISM & TERRITORIALISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT VS. GOVERNMENT BY THE VOTES OR REPRESENTATIVE OF OTHERS. - Compare the ANARCHIST SPECTRUM: - Add your favourite relevant contrasts! - J.Z., 19.8.11.

CONTROL OF GOVERNMENTS: The aim should not be to control governments but to eliminate government control over all but its voluntary followers. - J.Z., 27.2.89.

CONTROL: De-control! - Ayn Rand, Let Us Alone! L.A. TIMES, August 5, 1962. – The largest and most powerful controls, in the negative sense, are the territorial ones. The potentially largest and most powerful controls, in the positive and rightful sense, are the exterritorial autonomy ones. Only they recognize and mobilize all genuine individual rights and liberties – to the extent tha individuals become aware and appreciative of them. - J.Z., 12.11.10. - LAISSEZ FAIRE, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, NON-INTERVENTION

CONTROL: In a world where man can control energy and time, can he learn to control himself?” - Robert B. Marcus, Jr. - Some cannot even control themselves, e.g. the power addicts, and yet, under present territorial conditions, they are allowed to control the lives of millions. The question is: Can these millions learn to liberate and control themselves? - In a world where most are all too limited in the control of their own lives, while a few control millions of others, namely their subjects, these millions cannot learn to control themselves. Freedom for all forms of self-control! - J.Z., 24.4.02 & 17.8.02, 12.11.10. - SELF-CONTROL, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, DECISION-MAKING, DIS., FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

CONTROL: Most human beings, though in varying degrees, desire to control, not only their own lives but also the lives of others." - Bertrand Russell, Freedom and Government. - At least one should seriously ask: Why? Are they inherently aggressive and domineering? Since there are individuals and whole tribes that are not, this cannot be the case. As I see it, the territorial system does not give them any other option and conditions their "thinking" and reactions in this sphere. Will there still be this "control" urge once panarchism has existed for a few years or generations? The experience with "free enterprise" and owners and managers who tend to overwork themselves in their own firm, does indicate that if there is internal scope for creative energies. Panarchism will direct the leadership types into the almost endless efforts to control and develop the own affairs. Is that so unlikely? Most businessmen become interested in political affairs only when the political affairs get into the way of their business (or if politics offers them freebee privileges). When all are under the free enterprise rule - then MYOB prevails. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 8.4.89.

CONTROL: Part of our problem centers on the effort to introduce external controls for a system - of systems that should be maintained by internal balancing forces. We are not attempting to recognize and refrain from inhibiting these self-regulating systems in our species upon which species survival depends. We are ignoring our own feedback functions.” – Frank Herbert, The Godmakers, p. 80. – PANARCHISM, MILITIA, NATURAL LAW, NATURAL HARMONY, FEEDBACK, LAISSEZ-FAIRE, VOLUNTARISM, PRICING SYSTEM, SECESSIONISM, INTERNAL BALANCES, SELF-CONTROL VS. EXTERNAL CONTROLS, SELF-REGULATION

CONTROL: the more control, the more that needs control.” – Frank Herbert, The Godmakers, p.108. – The more self-control is allowed to exist and be practised the less external controls are required or justified. – J.Z., 22.9.08. – The more one is in control of one’s own life the less one is bothered by having to control others and the less one is being controlled by others. – J.Z., 13.11.08, 12.11.10. - SELF-CONTROL, EXTERNAL CONTROLS, SELF-MANAGEMENT, SELF-DIRECTION, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-OWNERSHIP, SELF-DETERMINATION


CONTROL: We seek control to create peace and prosperity, not realizing that this is the very means by which war and poverty are propagated. In fighting our dream without awareness, we become the instruments of its destruction.” - Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, Healing Our World, introduction. – Control over our own lives, our own actions, our own aims and ways of reaching them, is not war- but peace-promoting. – Being controlled by others does indeed promote wars, oppression and exploitation. – It is territorial controls that promote wars, oppression, civil wars and terrorism. Exterritorial autonomy for volunteers promotes their opposites. - J.Z., 13.11.08. - WAR, PEACE, POVERTY, PROSPERITY, PROTECTIONISM, WELFARE STATE, PANARCHISM

CONTROLS, CHECKS, BALANCES, EQUAL LIBERTY, SECURITY, RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS, RIGHTFUL DEFENCE, PREVENTION OF WAR: Control your opponent, yes, but don't trap him in corners. Give him plenty of space. That way you give yourself plenty of space too. - Robert Silverberg, Shadrach in the Furnace, ANALOG, 10/76, p. 95. - Fend off your opponent, yes, but don't trap him in corners. Give him plenty of freedom. That way you give yourself plenty of freedom, too. - J.Z. version. - The more you do also fight for the liberty of your opponents to do their own preferred things to themselves, the more will they become attentive to and tolerant of your aim to do your own things to and for yourself. Panarchistic freedom should not be struggled for as if it were a very unusual privilege for a few oddballs but, rather, as if it were an equal liberty, right and opportunity for all. - J.Z., 93. - The ancient saying: "Build your enemy golden bridges" has not only military but general value for international and internal relations. - J.Z., 10.12.03. – RESPECT, TOLERANCE, CONCEDING GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES TO ALL PEACEFUL PEOPLE. MYOB. DOING THE OWN THINGS & ALLOWING OTHERS TO DO THEIR THINGS.

CONTROLS: All control of man by man is wrong." - William Godwin's view, according to Bliss' Encyclopaedia of Social Reform, p. 666. – However, criminals and aggressors need to be controlled – starting, perhaps, with all politicians and bureaucrats and all the misleaders of standing armies and of monopoly police forces. – End all wrongful controls by introducing individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. Once they understand it then even the great variety of statists will come to themselves. The various parties and factions will then have to satisfy only their own voluntary members. Their opponents will be members of other panarchies or polyarchies – doing their things to themselves. – J.Z., 11.12.11.

CONTROLS: And, as a matter of fundamental principle, there is no more warrant for attempting to clamp political controls on a man's energies in his shop than there is to put his energies under political control in his church, his classroom, his editorial office or his study. If freedom is good in any one of these places, which I believe, it is good in every one of these places, - which I also believe." – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, 128/129. - So, why do most of the limited government libertarians and even most of the anarchists, still aim to form a territorial monopoly, even if only a largely decentralized one and one with only "limited" but still exclusive territorial powers? - J.Z., 30.6.94.

CONTROLS: Bear in mind, further, that governments today are given more to controlling the citizenry than to protecting life and livelihood." – Leonard E. Read, Castles in the Air, p.55. - Were they ever any good at the latter jobs and should they have a monopoly for them? - J.Z., 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: Coercive and monopolistic controls should be replaced by voluntaristic and exterritorial controls. - J.Z., 3.4.89.

CONTROLS: Control government rather than people. - J.Z., 15.8.74. - This requires among other things, individual secessionism and exterritorially autonomous associationism, monetary freedom, volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, voluntary taxation, tyrannicide and other libertarian revolution, resistance and liberation techniques. - J.Z., 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: control over our own daily lives." - Red & Black, No. 5. - In our private lives we do control it already, to a large extent. Only to the extent that our private and public lives have become territorially collectivised, municipalised, statised or nationalised, are we not in control. - J.Z., 29.6.94, 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: Controllers, control yourselves! - J.Z. 74. – Exterritorially autonomous communities even for statists! - J.Z., 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: Controls tell lies." – Leonard E. Read, Castles in the Air. - Only territorially centralized government controls or bureaucratic controls do. - J.Z. & D.Z., n.d. - Controls don't lie but controllers do, e.g., by asserting that territorial, coercive and external controls of peaceful and productive people are efficient. Slavery and other forms of forced labour are the largest and longest instances to prove the inefficiencies of controls. - J.Z., 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: controls undermine individual morality." - M. Friedman, An Economist's Protest, p.31. – External and imposed controls. Not self-controls, based upon voluntarism and individual sovereignty and individual responsibility and choices. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: Controls, in other words, fail to comprehend the inescapable individualistic nature of human action." - W. H. Peterson, THE FREEMAN, 2/75. – Taxpayers and conscripts and other victims of territorial governments often wish they could easily escape their victimization. – J.Z., 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: each human being controls himself. The only control that causes your arm to move, your fingers to flex, or your brain to ideate, is your own control. I may be able to inspire or terrify others. I may be able to influence them for better or for worse. But when it comes to control, there is only one person on earth I can control. Myself. My relationship to me is personal and direct. My relationship to all others, although it might be personal, is and must be indirect. My body responds instantly to my control of it. (*) Were I to attempt to control you, I would have to make the effort by demanding my body to impose controls on your body. I can make no direct demands upon you. All such demands of necessity are indirect." - LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Winter 76. - (*) Do we have full control of our bodies? Try to control your body a) not to have a cold, b) not to have cancer, c) not to have a heart attack, d) not to have a stroke. Our psychosomatic powers are not yet highly enough developed for that. - Just because we do not have push-button control of others, does not mean that we cannot, to some extent, coercively control them in other ways. Slaves and conscripts are not altogether uncontrolled. Neither are school children or tax payers. - J.Z., 29.6.94. - We should not use word games to ignore realities but, rather, use words, within their limits, to get a more true impression of realities. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – How little we can control others effectively can be effectively demonstrated very simply by e.g. attempting to tell another person, exactly, how to put on or take off a pullover, fully under our command, with the other not being allowed to take any independent action or making any movement that is not ordered by us. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: force cannot (*) control human energy; it can only stop the use of human energy." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.39/40. - If that were quite true, slavery would have ended very fast. Alas, some of the energy of others CAN be usurped or expropriated by others, often for all too long.” - J.Z., 30.6.94. – (*) fully and very productively – J.Z., 12.11.10. - SLAVERY, TAXATION, MONETARY DESPOTISM, CONSCRIPTION, FORCED LABOUR CAMPS

CONTROLS: Fulton subscribed to the view that it is the right of every American to enjoy complete freedom from the tyranny of unwanted government control." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.192, on Edward H. Fulton.

CONTROLS: Government control or self-control. Which do you want?" - William C. White.

CONTROLS: Government has no right to control the lives of individuals in any way except to prevent them from forcibly (*) interfering with others. All other government control is aggression and is therefore immoral and illegal." – Robert Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p 116. - (*) or fraudulently. And if government claims a monopoly for a whole territory, over followers and dissenters alike, to practise this control, then and to that extent, it becomes aggressive, too. - J.Z., 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: Have controls ever worked?" - Question put in NEWSWEEK, Sep. 13, 1971. – Have territorial controls ever worked? – Obstructively and increasing costs – yes. Constructively and productively, reducing costs – no. - J.Z., 12.11.10. -  Q.

CONTROLS: Hayek's essay is needed to remind us that it takes a gang of hardened thugs to make control stick." - John Chamberlain, in THE FREEMAN, 10/75, on "The Road to Serfdom". - If you have still illusions on the "controllers", read his chapter: Why the Worst Get On Top. - J.Z., 30.6.94. Or consider how effective governments are in preserving the peace or in defeating aggressors and criminals and how they make situations worse e.g. by prohibition or anti-drug-wars. – Even their harshest price control efforts do not stop the inflations they themselves cause, nevertheless, they tried this “control” measure again and again for about 4000 years. – Controls can largely restrict rights and liberties and make matters worse but they can never made to “stick” and become effective as intended by the controllers. – And these “controllers”, “guardians”, “regulators”, “lawmakers” or “protectors” themselves tend to get out of control. - J.Z., 22.11.08, 12.11.10. . – Who controls the Prime Minister? Who controls his advisors? Who controls his party? Who controls the collectivist territorial voters? – J.Z., 12.11.10. – VOTING, DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION

CONTROLS: Helpless in the hands of torturers, a man still controls his thoughts and speech; but he can not act or speak freely." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.182. – Can one really and fully control one’s thoughts and speech still quite freely even when one is under great pain? – J.Z., 22.11.08. – Territorial government, with its avalanches of laws and bureaucrats, is an extortion, exploitation and fraud machine, an enormous confidence trickster child molester (compulsory schooling and conscription) and liar, with the power to legitimize and juridically defend all its aggressions and deceptions, even taxing its victims to finance its propaganda budget. – J.Z., 12.11.10. - SELF-CONTROL VS. EXTERNAL AND TERRITORIAL CONTROLS, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICIANS, DEMOCRACY, STATISM, GOVERNMENT

CONTROLS: How can controlled people learn to control themselves? - J.Z., 1/75.

CONTROLS: I am all in favor of every individual controlling his own life, even his own life-span, his place or travel in the universe, the level of his intelligence and knowledge, all his self-concerned experiments and contracts on Earth. - J.Z., 30.6.94. - SELF-CONTROL

CONTROLS: I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me." - Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1865. - But what would have happened - if he had spoken up for geographical and individual secessionism? - J.Z., 30.6.94. – CIVIL WAR, Q., HISTORY AS IF.

CONTROLS: I know that there are people who should be controlled in this world, but the first thing we've got to do is to get them out of office." - Charles Blackwell, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 8/76. - Or leave them in their offices - but secede from them! - J.Z., 4.10.02. – GOVERNMENTS, CONTROLLERS, RULERS, BUREAUCRATS, POLITICIANS, MINISTERS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS

CONTROLS: If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." - W. G. Sumner, The Forgotten Man, 1883. – If I want to become free in my self-chosen society then I must give up all attempts to territorially control the self-chosen societies of others. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: IF I WERE KING. Never assume powers of control you would not freely grant to anyone else; this is one key to limited government." – Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, p.XI. – And to any other society or community that diverse people do wish for themselves. Limited government is certainly not the one and only ideal. It is not even the highest one, although all too many libertarians still subscribe to it as such. – Let each adult and somewhat mature and sane person have his or her way, but always only at the own risk and expense. - J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: If the truth were recognized that no living person can coercively control the creative life of another beneficially, the whole dictocratic structure would tumble into a shambles." – Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, p.91.

CONTROLS: If you wouldn't have others control your life, then never try to control anyone else." - Leonard E. Read, THE FREEMAN, 7/74. – Aggressors and criminals with involuntary victims do need to be controlled, competitively and by free enterprises, much more effectively than any territorial government possibly can. Territorial governments themselves are the greatest aggressors and criminals. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: In principle, there are only two methods for influencing others. We can promise to reward them if they behave as we wish. Or we can threaten to injure them if they don't. If we controlled others, we would not have to promise or threaten." - LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Fall 78. - What's wrong with persuasion attempts, instead or selling them information they want? That is neither rewarding nor threatening them and may be much more influential. - J.Z., 29.6.94. – The same applies to freely set better examples, set by volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: In what manner, then, are we identical? IN OUR INABILITY TO CONTROL THE LIFE OF ANOTHER BENEFICIALLY. In this respect, we are all alike in the sense that zeros are identical. To get it into my head that I can run or control your life better than you is nothing less than egomania. This affliction cannot, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, be called a faith; it is a psychosis ...." – Leonard E. Read, Who's Listening? p.120. – POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICAL PARTIES, REFORMERS, POLITICS AS USUAL

CONTROLS: individual control over ourselves and our own property..." - Auberon Herbert, Mr. Spencer & The Great Machine, p.71. – Also over our association or disassociation with any State or government, any society and association, any service and supply organization. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: Individual error is a fact of life - something we all have to live with. But error that becomes institutionalised through government controls is something we shouldn't have to tolerate. We shouldn't give power to other people's mistakes." - Joan Wilke, THE FREEMAN, 7/75, 395. – We should distinguish between controls that volunteers inflict upon themselves and controls that dictocrats inflict territorially upon whole populations which, inevitably, contain many dissenters & dissatisfied minorities. – J.Z., 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: It is much better, according to Tucker, to allow people to bumble along in their own inefficient way than to remove the control of their own destiny from their hands." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.165. – At least some people will not be bumblers and will thus, if free, set good examples to the others. – J.Z., 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: It is not an intrinsic part of the nature of man to seek to control others, or destroy the world he lives in." - Merilyn Fairskye, FREE ENTERPRISE, 4/76.

CONTROLS: It is pertinent to recall here the old adage: 'Who so controls our subsistence controls us.' And also, as Professor F. A. Hayek cautioned us: 'Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is control of the means for all our ends.'" - Admiral Ben Moreell, The Admiral's Log II, p. 35. – We should not neglect the legalized territorial political and social controls, either. There, too, laissez faire, laissez passer should come to prevail: Let people produce and run their alternative political and social systems and “enterprises” or utopias and intentional communities, but let us also uphold voluntary membership and consumer sovereignty and “let the buyer beware!”, to keep them in check and ourselves in control. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: it's wrong for one person to exercise control (through voting or otherwise) over someone else's life and property." - Harry Brown, quoted in Sy Leon, None of the Above, p.8.

CONTROLS: Kropotkin's emphasis upon the necessity of renouncing formal organised control by government and turning instead to the individual as the central focus of social life is the distinguishing characteristic of all anarchist thought and the rationale for proclaiming the philosophy of libertarianism the essential foundation of all anarchist theory." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.5. – He should have confined that remark to territorially imposed institutions. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: leaves everyone under the dead hand of government control." - Robert G. Anderson, THE FREEMAN, May 74. – Government hands would not be so dead or non-responsive if all of them were confined to their voluntary victims and these, too, were free to secede. – J.Z., 12.11.10

CONTROLS: Like gamblers, who do not go home after a run of losses on small bets, they take past failures as positive evidence that given a big enough stake, they will win the jackpot. If only the government had total control of the economy we would achieve what could not be achieved by partial interference." - L. Chipman, in QUADRANT, 4/76. - All-over, gambling produces probably far less in losses than do controls. What makes controls much worse than gambling and betting is that they are, mostly, a quite voluntary activity, in which the participants only risk their own money. It is transferred from one fool to another. Moreover, some of the winners might be wise enough to invest their winnings productively. Territorial controls permit the controllers to gamble with other people's incomes, property, labour and lives. – They cannot effectively and rightfully “run a country” but oh, how effective and wrongful they are, in most of their “actions”, reforms and regulations, their boards, measures, “programs”, “policies” and “guidelines”, to run it down and impoverish the population! - J.Z., 29.6.94. – STATISM, BUREAUCRACY, POLITICIANS, PUBLIC SERVANTS, TERRITORIALISM, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, LEGISLATORS, PARLIAMENTS, REPRESENTATIVES

CONTROLS: Managing one's own life is complex enough; managing the lives of others is impossible. So, leave each to his own choosing so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of his fellow men. This is the whole case for the free market." - Leonard E. Read, Meditations on Freedom, p.22. – It is also the case for panarchism, polyarchism, multiarchism and mutual tolerance for all tolerant actions and institutions. – J.Z., 12.11.10, 11.12.11.

CONTROLS: Men in government, who imagine that they are controlling a planned economy, MUST prevent economic progress - as, in the past, they have always done. For economic progress is a change in the use of men's productive energy. Only individuals who act against the majority opinion of their time will try to make such a change. And if they are not stopped, they destroy the existing (and majority-approved) government monopoly." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.31. – As if they had not been able to exploit their law-making, juridical, police, central banking, taxation, war-making and foreign policy and licensing powers, to their own advantage, for all too long. Their system is not rightful, rational and progressive – but certainly powerful in all its wrongful and negative results. – J.Z., 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: Moreover, under a system of government control of individual decision making, the diversity of human action and the scope of individual choice is minimised; acceptable and permissible behavior becomes that which the group in power currently fancies and approves." - M. Bruce Johnson, Freedom to Choose, World Research.

CONTROLS: Most human beings, though in varying degrees, desire to control, not only their own lives but also the lives of others." - Bertrand Russell, Freedom and Government. - The territorial system does not give them any other option. Will this still be the usual desire once panarchism has existed for a few years or generations? - J.Z., 6.4.89. - So far we have been conditioned to think and act only in territorial terms and in territorial institutions and relationships in all areas pre-empted by modern governments. That made us rather intolerant and thoughtless in these spheres. That we can leave each other alone is daily proven by our actions in our private lives. - J.Z., 29.6.94. - PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE

CONTROLS: Most territorial government controls are anti-social. - J.Z., 16.11.82, 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: no individual has any competency whatever to control the lives of others, to arrogate unto himself the freedom of choice that is morally implicit in the right to life of each human being." – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 3/81. - Compare A. Lincoln: "No man is good enough to rule another man without his consent."

CONTROLS: No man should be able to control others through fear.” – Lee Bishop, Gunblaze, p.38. – However, the fear of certain, quick and rightful retaliation and of restitution claims, all competitively and efficiently supplied, should be put into the mind of every potential aggressor and criminal with victims! – J.Z., 12.11.10. - FEAR, POWER, TERROR, MILITIA, COMPETITIVE JURISDICTIOINS & POLICE FORCES, PERSONAL LAW

CONTROLS: No man, no matter how wonderfully prescient he seems when compared to his fellows, possesses the omniscience to control the lives of others." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 4/73. – However, they should be free to have a go to demonstrate their “knowledge, ideas and abilities” to voluntary victims, who, mostly, still need this kind of experience and education. – J.Z., 12.11.10. – STATISM, VOLUNTARISM, LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS

CONTROLS: No peaceful non- aggressive citizen can be (*) submitted to the control of others, apart from his own consent.” - Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p.370. - (*) rightfully! - Alas, up to now THAT coercive and territorial submission and all too much submissiveness to it, happen all too often and for all too long. - J.Z., 29.6.94. – Would they, if there were alternative and successful experiments demonstrated all around them, among their volunteers? – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: Nothing - not even the famous guinea pig - is as prolific as controls in the hands of political authority, during so-called emergencies." - F. A. Harper, Stand-by Controls, 1953. – First they do legally and stupidly, under numerous prejudices and errors, produce emergency situations. Then they pass dictatorial emergency legislation under the false pretence that it would be suitable to solve the problems they have legally created. – J.Z., 12.11.10. - EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

CONTROLS: Now, State measures always imply more or less positive control; and even where they are not chargeable with actual coercion, they accustom men to look for instruction, guidance, and assistance from without, rather than to rely upon their own expedience." - W. v. Humboldt, in Sprading, Liberty & the Great Libertarians, p.112. - What is positive about controls? - J.Z., 30.6.94. - Perhaps only self-control. About the few positive and many negative aspects of leadership see under Leadership. - Even the software controls of computers do not always work. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – PLANNING, PRICE CONTROLS, PROTECTIONISM

CONTROLS: Obviously, it is not possible for EACH person to control himself by controlling someone else who controls him." – Rose Wilder Lane, ibid, 209. - VOTING, POLITICIANS, REPRESENTATIVES.

CONTROLS: One government control - given enough time, will eventually lead to the rest." - Bob Howard, 2/75. – One territorially imposed control … - J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: People should control governments, not governments people. - J.Z., 20.6.74. – VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM

CONTROLS: People who say I am urging control by a small group are just upside down. Control by a small group of people (they don't have to be wealthy), just any small group of people - I don't care whether they're socialists or millionaires - either way is just as bad. In a free market other people have an incentive to keep any small group from getting control." - Milton Friedman, SATURDAY EVENING POST, 5.6.77. - Alas, he did not apply this to e.g. central banking or the territorial monopolies of States. - J.Z.

CONTROLS: Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." - Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long.

CONTROLS: Politicians, who cannot even control their own tongues and itchy fingers, or those of their family or party members, imagine that they can effectively control millions of productive and peaceful human beings, under the delusion and pretence that they would thereby provide services rather than disservices to them, save them money rather than cost them money, save lives rather than take them, expand liberties rather than destroy them. If anyone pretends that he could run a country and seriously attempts to do so, he should immediately be certified as insane and put into a mental asylum. His madness ought to be put under strict controls before he can do any further large wrong or harm. - J.Z., 29.6.94. - POLITICIANS, REPRESENTATIVES, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, GOVERNMENT

CONTROLS: Relevant to this thesis is a celebrated cliché which originated in the early thirties: 'The more complex the society, the more government control we need.' What this says, in effect, is that the more diversified our specialisations and the more numerous our exchanges - manifestations of free, creative energy at work - the more must we submit to authoritarian regulation. In short, the more freedom works its wonders, the more coercion we need! Talk about conjuring up contradictions! But such is the nature of the soothsayers' 'laws'." – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p. 70. - COMPLEXITY. – No one has the time, energy or interest to read and understand all the territorial control legislation and regulations EVEN ONCE! – It becomes, largely, unread fiction. – However, with the worst of intentions, politicians and bureaucrats apply some of it, selectively. - J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: Robert Frost ... 'stressed the right of the private citizen not to be politically controlled." - Peter J. Stanlis, THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Sum. 73, p. 224. – There are many intellectual supporters of some aspects of panarchism – but, so far, very few consistent ones. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: Robert Heinlein once said that there are really only two kinds of people, those who believe others must be controlled and those who don't." - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action Letter p.16. - Growing-up people, insane and aggressive ones, need to be controlled to some extent, by guardians or, defensively, by their past or potential victims. Those who are otherwise mature, but still believe in controls of peaceful and productive people, should be at liberty to have all the controls they want, but only among themselves. Those who do not believe in controlling creative energies should also be free to abolish all such controls among themselves and to build up very strong controls among themselves against remaining internal and external criminals and aggressors. – J.Z., 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: SOMEBODY has to control the galaxy; otherwise everything would fly apart. Galaxies are reflections of their inhabitants; until everyone and everything can rule himself and itself, some outer control is necessary. Who would do the job if we didn't?" - Robert Sheckley, Dimension of Miracles. - The subjection of matter and energies to the laws of nature and the subjection or control of humans by self-control or by controls through other humans, should be distinguished. Among all controls of rational beings, self-control has at least the potential to work best. Only irrational beings, to the extent that they threaten the basic rights and liberties of others, have to be controlled, to some extent, by others. The 99% of reasonably decent and honest people should be able to control the ca. 1% of criminals and should be able to do this without subjecting themselves to controls. - J.Z., 24.6.92, 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: Something has gone wrong. When was the last time you felt you were controlling your own destiny? When was the last time you felt independent, free living and proud? When was the last time you showed little fear of the thriving power of police, IRS agents, city hall and government in general? It is no wonder why few people today proclaim that America is as free as it once was." - Society for Libertarian Life, leaflet, It's A FreeCountry, Ain't It?

CONTROLS: Take back control of your life." - FREEDOM TODAY, April 76 – It is not yet there for the taking. It still has to be made an individual or minority group option, quite constitutional, legal and juridical – and protected by better institutions than any territorial State can supply. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: The 'right to life', standing alone, has little meaning; to have its full significance, the right to life must be coupled to economic freedom. I repeat, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO OWN A MAN IN ORDER TO CONTROL HIM; MAN IS CONTROLLED BY THOSE WHO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF HIS LABOR, EITHER BY DIRECT EXPROPRIATION, BY UNWARRANTED TAXATION, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS. - The ideal of a free people, composed of sovereign individuals, was derived from those concepts. Government, relegated to the status of a service agency, was to be strictly limited in function to the protection and preservation of the rights of individuals. The powers of government, obtained by delegation from the citizens, were provisional. They were to be retained only as long as they were exercised within their carefully prescribed limitations." - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log II, p.175. - Alas, right from the beginning a totalitarian TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY was granted to them, which eliminated competing governments and societies. This, together with taxation powers, monetary despotism and protectionism and other concessions to statism, had the inevitable consequences. A service agency can be chosen or rejected by individuals. - J.Z., 30.6.94.

CONTROLS: the actual control of human energy is individual control, ..." – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, XV. - Maybe it would have been more accurate to have spoken of "full and direct" rather than of "actual" control. - J.Z., 30.6.94. – The conscripted individuals and the involuntary taxpayers and involuntary victims of monetary despotism and of all other aspects of enforced territorialism are certainly not in complete control of their own lives. – J.Z., 11.12.11. - DIS.

CONTROLS: The answer is not to introduce a second, a third or a fourth set of controls, etc. but to allow normal market forces to provide the wealth of the nation." - Jocelyn Maxwell, TANSTAAFL, 3/76. - Market forces means here: the sum of individual self-controls. - J.Z., 30.6.94. - "Release all creative energies!" – Leonard E. Read. They, if e.g. combined via an Ideas Archive could achieve much more than any centralised and coercive controls could. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – We need not only a free market for economic actions and organizations but also for political and social ones. Did J.M. ever recognize that? I am not under the impression. I met her, possibly only once, recently, as a friend of Nev Kennard. She lives nearby but I did not get the impression that she is interested in radical freedom ideas that are still new to her. As a defender of free markets in economics she has done much good, I believe. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy." - Benjamin R. Tucker, 1893, Relation of the State to the Individual, quoted by Jerome Tuccille, Radical Libertarianism, p.28.

CONTROLS: the false, counter - revolutionary belief that Government is an Authority controlling men and responsible for their welfare. - More and more, the multitudes who vote are believing this, and demanding that Government be responsible for their living conditions. The fact is that nothing but human energy working productively can produce any of the necessities of human life, any human living conditions. Men in government cannot be responsible for activities, which they do not control, and never can control. Police can no more control any man's working than they can control his drinking or his breathing. The whole of history proves this, if common sense does not. Government regulation, government 'control', slows down production, hinders it, prevents it, reduces it, and can not possibly control it." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.212. - Compare Read's: "Release all creative energies!" – As if slavery and serfdom, police States, totalitarian regimes, conscription and taxation and corresponding coercive exploitation had never existed and had not always existed for all too long. – J.Z., 22.11.08. – Taking tax tributes and their revenue for granted, as if it were manna sent from heaven, the pigs do, naturally, crowd the common trough. – J.Z., 12.11.10. - STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, TERRITORIALISM, SLAVE MENTALITY, WELFARE STATE, SUBSIDIES, HAND-OUTS

CONTROLS: The fundamental issue in the world today is not communism vs. anti-communism: it is freedom vs. controls, individual rights vs. government invasion." - Mark Tier, FREE ENTERPRISE, 8/74. – Has he made a clear stand as yet against all territorial invasiveness and for all non-territorial self-government and self-management of communities and societies of volunteers? – J.Z., 12.11.10. – HUMAN RIGHTS

CONTROLS: The government has got itself into an unholy mess by extending its control over so many technical branches of human activity." - Henry Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 12/68. – Not only that. The worst aspect is their territorial monopolization for the practice of all political, economic and social systems. – Meulen rejected panarchism in his correspondence with Ulrich von Beckerath. He also managed to uphold collective responsibility! – However, at least from 1909 to the end of his life, in 1978, he defended his kind of free banking ideas, largely with a closed mind towards other free banking ideas. - J.Z., 22.11.08. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM

CONTROLS: The objection to government is, not that it controls those who invade the liberty of others, but that it controls the non-invader." - Sprading, Liberty & The Great Libertarians, p.20. - Has the government ever and anywhere effectively controlled invaders and other criminals? - J.Z., 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: The only control which needs to be increased is self-control. All other kinds of controls ought to be decreased, as far and as fast as is possible or abolished outright, whenever and wherever this is possible. - J.Z., n.d. & 29.6.94. – Conventional and nuclear power aggressors as well as ordinary criminals with victims may be the only people that need to be controlled by the others and deprived of all their powers. – J.Z. 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: The relative sameness of humans today is due in large part to coercive institutions of the recent past. Just as a one-crop farmer depends on uniformity of plants, so an authoritarian system depends on uniformity of people. A State can control only to the extent that people act and react in similar ways." - VONULIFE 3/73. - Control by the Soviet Regime for decades has "achieved" that about 1/3rd of the people were unable to learn from their experience and want a return to this system even now. - They ought to be given their chance, but among themselves only. That would speed up their learning process. Moreover, they would be surrounded by others living in their own chosen and considerably liberated and thus much more successful systems. - J.Z., 30.6.94.

CONTROLS: the sure formula for economic disaster is political control of the economy, which means: Politicians and their appointees controlling the use of someone else's money and property with no financial accountability if anything goes wrong." - Guy W. Riggs. - The worst wrong of present political control is the territorial control of involuntary members and subjects. All kinds of wrongful and harmful schemes could be powerfully practised under exterritorial autonomy - among voluntary victims and supporters. However, really ideal societies as well! - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONTROLS: The time has come to end the usurpation of leadership in society - by priests, by soldiers, by plutocrats, by politicians - from which mankind has suffered and continues to suffer so much.' If man is ever to be free, he must devise a social system in which control over human activities is in the hands of the people themselves rather than officials of government and their legions of bureaucratic underlings." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.522, quoting Ralph Borsodi. – The system of territorial monopoly is the essence of wrongful leadership - because it always involves large numbers of dissenters, who are, under it, no longer self-controlling or self-governing. - J.Z., 4.10.02. - LEADERSHIP, USURPATION, POLITICIANS, OFFICIALS, PUBLIC SERVANTS, BUREAUCRACY, REGULATIONS, LAWS, TERRITORIALISM

CONTROLS: There is only one person on earth you can control. Yourself. Curiously, the kind of training many receive both at home and in school convinces the individual that he cannot control himself for he is controlled instead by society, business, and parents." - LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Sum. 77. - One should distinguish control of e.g., one's body movements and one's thinking from other controls. Sure, even now, under x legal restrictions, we could assume in many ways a higher control over our lives than we usually do. But that does not mean that we are already in full control of our lives, our property, our work, our environment. - J.Z., 29.6.94. - With the power of affordable alternative media we could take much more control of the process of libertarian enlightenment than we have bothered to do so far. - J.Z., 4.10.02. – But nothing but full freedom for tolerant actions, in the own sphere, at the own risk and expense, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal law, will amount to genuine self-control, self-government and self-determination. – J.Z., 12.11.10.

CONTROLS: They are coercive impositions by other people .Other people are to run our lives and no we ourselves!" – Leonard E. Read, Who's Listening? p. 23/24. – Obviously, they are not Gods, either. – J.Z., 22.11.08.

CONTROLS: To be free is not to be out of control, it is to be under your own control." - Robert LeFevre, COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE TELEGRAPH, April 26, 1964, p. 6D. – SELF-CONTROL, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-GOVERNANCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

CONTROLS: To control himself, an individual must control the government that controls him." - Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.208, somewhat ridiculing this idea. - "How can all individuals control the government that controls them?" - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.209. - Let all individuals voluntarily join or secede from governments that are thus reduced to exterritorial autonomy only. Let each have the government or non-governmental free society of his or her dreams. That, if nothing else, has a good chance to cure them of their remaining illusions - and does put them into control of their own fate. - J.Z., 30.6.94. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

CONTROLS: To control people - to rule over them - it is necessary to establish that those who govern are dignified and respect themselves and that those who are governed are undignified and do not respect themselves. The primary aim of every political ideology - of the imagery underlying every system of human organization - is to articulate that this distinction and division is true and just, ..." – Thomas Szasz, Heresies. - I can manage without dignity and respect as long as I can enjoy all my individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 4.10.02.

CONTROLS: True, the government can steal from me with impunity. It can intimidate me, influence me, motivate me or kill me. But it cannot control me. - Some have difficulty in grasping this point, so let me try to make it analogously. Some argue, for instance, that parents control their children. Here, I am told, we have absolute, total government of the child by the parents. Not so. The child decides to cry. The parents decide that the child will stop crying. Who wins the argument? - True, the parents are capable of stealing from the child, intimidating, influencing, motivating or killing the child. But they cannot control the child. The child's energy is under his own control. - As a matter of fact, the primary cause of man's inhumanity to man, which appears to be growing rather than diminishing, arises from this inability to control others. Were I capable of controlling my reader, I would simply state something and, by stating it, control the reader's actions. This is nonsense and should be acknowledged as such." - Robert LeFevre, LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Fall 78. - It is also nonsense to assert that just because there is no absolute control there is no coercive control occurring at all. Most coercive controls do work to some extent - in a negative sense, or temporarily, until resistance forces overcome them. - J.Z., 29.6.94.

CONTROLS: We have always allowed others to control our struggles and then we find, invariably, that these others control our lives. To have control over our own daily lives requires political awareness, organization and change based in our own daily lives." - RED AND BLACK, No. 4, p.23. - It requires individual sovereignty and secessionism, voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy under self-chosen personal laws. - J.Z., 30.6.94. - PANARCHISM

CONTROVERSIES: Experimental freedom for volunteer communities would reduce controversies to a minimum. - See: Panarchism. - J.Z., 30.6.94.

CONVERGENCE: Hess: Not only did Goldwater agree with me but he had a theory of convergence that even I found somewhat radical. Goldwater believed - and probably still believes - that the Soviet Union, through the pressure of its people, would move steadily toward a free society, while the U.S., through the pressure of the liberals and the momentum of the Federal bureaucracy, would become more and more oligarchic. But, unlike many convergence theorists, Goldwater did not believe we would meet and stabilise. He felt we would cross, that they would keep moving toward freedom and we would keep moving toward dictatorship. I believed then and still believe now, that he is wrong - at least about Russia. They seem to be able to slow down the libertarian movement any time they want." - Karl Hess in PLAYBOY 7/76. - All the convergence theorists and those regimes they discussed, seem to have long ago converged upon an agreement that territorial sovereignty ought to be continued, at least if decentralized. Under exterritorial autonomy, volunteer communities could converge, grow apart, progress or reverse in any way they liked. - J.Z., 30.6.94. - PANARCHISM

CONVICTIONS: The right to think, to know, and to utter', as John Milton said, is the dearest of all liberties. Without this right, there can be no liberty to any people; with it, there can be no slavery. When you have convinced thinking men that it is right, and humane men that it is just, you will gain your cause. Men always lose half of what is gained by violence. What is gained by argument, is gained forever.” - Wendell Phillips, in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.160. - Convincing others may require experimental freedom. And it makes conviction more certain and secure and lasting. If the whole case for liberty is not at least somewhere assembled and cheaply accessible, including the best refutations, fast enough for most purposes, in at least one medium, it will be less than optimally convincing. - J.Z., 30.6.94, 23.11.08.. - It took hundreds of years and a popular movement to realize degrees of Free Trade in at least one country, England, and only a few decades of many and much worse arguments to lose these degrees of Free Trade again. Free Trade options should be a matter not for parliaments and majorities to decide but for individuals and minority groups. Only thus do they have a good chance to become finally and permanently adopted by the majority. Even then the dissenting Protectionists should remain free to do their things to themselves. - J.Z., 4.10.02. - VIOLENCE, DESPOTISM, ARGUMENTS, REASON, CHOICE, PANARCHISM, PERSUASION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, IDEAS ARCHIVE, SUPER-COMPUTER-PROJECT, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS, DIS.

CONVICTIONS: When life and convictions are not one, what is the worth of both?” (“When Leben und Ueberzeugung nicht eins sind - was sind sie beide wert?") – John Henry Mackay, Abrechnung, 50. - Convictions must not only be expressed but lived, as far as possible. - J.Z. 30.6.94, - INTEGRITY

COOPERATION & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: by respecting everybody's sovereignty, you liberate them to cooperate far more cordially than when they're forced to get along. - L. Neil Smith, The Nagasaki Vector, 105.

COOPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS: Cooperation between Governments resembles actions of privileged Trusts and collusion between corporations, i.e. they take place at the expense of citizens and consumers rather than amounting to a cooperation in favour of citizens and consumers. True cooperation requires free competition. Cooperation between governments is not cooperation between individuals. Cooperation and competition between criminals, especially official ones, is not voluntary cooperation or competition between honest and productive entrepreneurs and sovereign consumers. - J.Z., 17.3.91, 9.4.91, 13.1.93, 12.12.11. 


COOPERATION: Alas, most men are neither ready as yet for cooperative self-management or for anarchism. But some are. Thus these should establish cooperatives and anarchies for themselves, and do so without threatening the archies and hierarchical enterprises still preferred by others. - J.Z., 12.7.90, 30.6.94.

COOPERATION: by respecting everybody's sovereignty, you liberate them to cooperate far more cordially than when they're FORCED to get along." - L. Neil Smith, The Nagasaki Vector, p.105. - Unless they are believers in "might is right" or in the aggressive sovereignty of territorial States and to that extent fail to recognize the sovereignty of others. - J.Z., 1.7.94. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, PEACE

COOPERATION: In the end he gave his sympathies to the cooperative movement; he saw in this the culmination of the passage from status to contract in which Sir Henry Maine had found the essence of economic history. 'The regulation of labor becomes less coercive as society assumes a higher type. Here we reach a form in which the coerciveness has diminished to the smallest degree consistent with combined action. Each member is his own master in respect of the work he does; and is subject only to such rules, established by majority of the members, as are needful for maintaining order. The transition from the compulsory co-operation of militancy to the voluntary cooperation of industrialism...' - Will Durant, Herbert Spencer, p.45. – Panarchism realizes voluntary cooperation in another very important sphere, that of organizing the diverse political, economic and social systems that people want for themselves. – J.Z., 23.11.08.

COOPERATION: Usually only such citizen activities as are presently widely permitted are proposed under the heading of international cooperation, such as student exchange schemes, peace corps activities, travel and research etc. But the sphere of cooperation that is monopolised by the government is much larger and much more significant: International negotiations, decisions concerning war and peace, armament and disarmament. The first cooperative act should be to transfer this kind of power from the governments to the people, everywhere, even if this means 'interference' with the 'internal affairs' of a 'country'. (Read: Interference with the despotism of a regime or liberating its victims or protecting its victims against the regime. - J.Z., 5.10.02.) Wherever people are not yet free enough to achieve this power, where it could not be constitutionally transferred or achieved by peaceful constitutional changes, the people should begin to act over the heads of their rulers. The relatively free people in the West could, e.g. offer the suppressed people in the East a separate peace treaty, one based on the recognition of their human rights. They could appeal to them to cooperate against their oppressors by revolution or by fleeing or deserting to the West. The freer people would cooperate by advising them on how to rise successfully (following, among other rules, the exterritorial imperative) and by welcoming refugees and deserters as liberated people ( and contributors to an increased standard of living, due to monetary and financial and other economic freedoms ). Sending them back or keeping up immigration barriers against them or imposing 'qualifications' for asylum, means cooperation with the common enemy! Cooperation with the oppressed people, our secret allies, means, among other things, that the free people ought to declare rightful war aims (practically, a liberation program) in case it should come to war between the own government and a dictatorial regime. (Compare: "Peace to the cottages, war to the palaces!") - Cooperation on the citizen level would, further, mean that they have to agree, explicitly or tacitly, on tyrannicide to rid the world of dictators who threaten world peace. Economically, cooperation means, among other things, free trade, in consumer goods, not in arms and strategic materials, and also free and secure investments, uncontrolled by governments and not subject to nationalisation and special taxation. Militarily, it would mean, especially, the destruction of genocide devices, even one-sidedly, by the people themselves (organised, trained and armed for this purpose). Local volunteer militias for the protection of human rights would be required and their international federation for the preservation of peace. Political cooperation further means that the free citizens force their governments to permit the establishment of rightful and exterritorially fully autonomous governments in exile for the suppressed peoples - including all suppressed minorities. International cooperation could begin by public declarations of free citizens and soldiers that they would disobey their government if they were ever ordered by it to attack and conquer another country. International cooperation would also mean that free citizens could and would set up for themselves, for possible future emergency situations and for presently suppressed people, revolutionary academies teaching not the techniques of terrorism and suppression but of true liberation for all who want liberty for themselves and are willing to concede liberty of choice for governmental and societal systems, even to their ideological opponents. International cooperation would also mean an attempt to end, everywhere, the existing and propagated class warfare - through realising cooperative production (and similar self-management schemes) on a voluntary basis, first internally, to demonstrate its advantages to all, thereby inflicting an immense ideological defeat on international totalitarian communism. - Compare: PEACE PLANS Nos. 16-18 & 61-63. - Why don't you try to express all this and more just in a couple of interconnected slogans? I made several attempts in PP 16-17 to express such a platform as concisely as it was possible for me to do. - Some notes by J.Z., ca. 1970, 5.10.02. - INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AT THE CITIZEN LEVEL

COOPERATION: We try to establish "cooperation" on the basis of compulsory membership, impositions of laws and of territorial monopolies or exclusive turfs for our preferred gangs. And we do not even permit dissenting individuals to individually secede from the resulting messes and burdens. - J.Z., 30.6.94.

COPYRIGHTS OF IDEAS LIKE PANARCHISM, PEACE, FREEDOM, JUSTICE, RIGHTS ETC.: It would be quite wrong to copyright ideas and expressions that promote panarchism, freedom, justice etc. Whoever attempts to do so makes himself partly responsible for the continuance of war, oppression, injustice etc. – J.Z., 10.1.05.

CORINALDI, MICHAEL: The Personal Status of the Karaites, indexed, bibliography. Karaite Law, Karaites (Jewish Law), translated from Arabic. Perhaps only the title was translated for indexing purposes. - J.Z.

CORPORATIONS & WARS: SF is filled with stories of "corporation wars", as almost inevitable. I hold them to be a completely imaginary remnant of or rewording of some old anti-capitalist prejudices. Only the mixture of government with business is dangerous and that only because of its admixture with territorial governmentalism, a remnant of the ancient "royal charter" system of legalised monopolies. Without government privileges and subsidies, but with the additional freedom provided by exterritorial autonomy, at least some corporations could and would become panarchies. Like them they would have only voluntary customers and subscribers, working members and capital investors. This and competition from other such bodies would tend to render them harmless. And so would their exterritorial autonomy be, because it would deprive them of territorial domination powers over non-members, non-contractors, non-investors, non-workers, non-consumers of products and services of their organization. J.Z. 10.5.92, 7.1.93, 10.12.03.

CORPORATIONS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL PRIVILEGES, ARE THEY PANARCHIES & A THREAT TO OUR LIBERTIES? Descriptive terms which people use are often quite misleading. In talking about modern captains of industry and leaders of big business, for instance, they call a man a 'chocolate king' or a 'cotton king' or an 'automobile king'. Their use of such terminology implies that they see practically no difference between the modern heads of industry and those feudal kings, dukes or lords of earlier days. But the difference is in fact very great, for a chocolate king does not rule at all, he SERVES. He does not reign over conquered territory, independent of the market, independent of his customers. The chocolate king - or the steel king or the automobile king or any other king of modern industry - depends on the industry he operates and on the customers he serves. This 'king' must stay in the good graces of his subjects, the consumers; he loses his 'kingdom' as soon as he is no longer in a position to give his customers better service and provide it at lower cost than others with whom he must compete." - Mises, Economic Policy, 1. - Nevertheless, Mises, in politics, remained an advocate of limited but exclusive territorial coercion, rather than advocating free consumer sovereignty, free trade, free contracts and free enterprise competition, there, too. - J.Z. 28.6.92. - The enemies of corporations are right only in so far as some corporations have gained legal privileges, exemptions and subsidies and are also hierarchically organized internally and often owned only by a few. However, that is not their very nature. They can and should become internally decentralized and run and owned by their employees, and outside investors under various self-management schemes. Not only could they thereby increase their productivity and profits but also the satisfaction and independence of their staff, their workers, their investors and their customers. By now they should be given the option to become panarchies themselves. - J.Z. 14.1.93, 11.12.03. – Their ownership is today in many cases already so widely dispersed that some people have spoken of “pension fund socialism”. Alas, in e.g. share companies of the conventional type the owner of a few shares is – apart from his option of selling his shares – as powerless as the individual voter is towards “his” political representatives”, which were, usually, elected by the votes of millions of others. Diverse forms of decentralization and self-management should also be introduced for the workers and investors in large corporations, instead of merely supporting and organizing a hierarchical system for them, which can and is, all too often, all too much abused. E.g., the salaries of the managers should be related to their achievements or failures, just like the wages and salaries of their employees should be, not bureaucratically decided, least of all by themselves. In a coop or partnership systems even the lowliest members would have some say on that, too and would sign corresponding contracts. The mere employer-employee relationship should be as far as possible eliminated in them. Voting rights of investors should be greatly extended in at least experimentally in some pioneering corporations and companies, not leaving all too much to the discretion of the top managers. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CORPORATIONS: Corporate capitalism is what exists in such countries as the U.S.A. and Australia. In a free market there is a complete separation of the State and the economy, whereas in corporate capitalism there is very close interaction between the two." – John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.57. - In a free market there would be no coercive and territorial monopoly like that of any of the present States, for any service or disservice now perceived to be an exclusive public service or a government function. - J.Z., 1.7.94.

CORPORATIONS: huge corporations have begun to challenge the legitimacy of the state." - Gore Vidal. - I deny that any territorial State was ever legitimate. Corporations are interesting as exterritorial power structures. - J.Z., 12.7.92. - Or as proprietary communities. Governments should not grant them any monopolies, privileges or subsidies and should even allow them to become exterritorially autonomous competitors to any existing government. - J.Z., 1.7.94.

CORPORATIONS: Ideologically most corporations have been their own worst enemies. – J.Z., 25.1.97. – Just like most businessmen and employers have made all too many compromises with the territorial State or subscribed all too much to paternalism, the anti-capitalist mentality, welfare statism or religious charity notions. – J.Z., 22.9.08. – Exterritorial autonomy for all corporations that desire it for themselves. – Watch how they would oppose compulsory taxation then, and also protectionism and monetary despotism. – J.Z., 13.11.08.

CORPORATIONS: If all existing States were transformed into national and multi-national but non-monopolistic corporations, with voluntary workers, voluntary managers, voluntary investors and voluntary customers and voluntary distributors only, either with limited or unlimited responsibility for their directors and investors, each with full exterritorial autonomy - - that would be a very large step towards individual liberty for all, indeed. - As such they would come close, in many instances, to what many people, with different aspirations, would perceive to be their ideal kind of panarchies. - J.Z., 1.7.94.

CORPORATIONS: It is not a question of attacking or defending corporations as such but of confining their activities, like those of all other organizations, to whatever they can achieve by free contracts, instead of subsidizing, blocking or restricting them by legislation or continued legislative or juridical intervention. This means laissez-faire and laissez-passer or fully free competition for and against corporations, by other corporations and anyone else. From quasi-privileged and legalized "States", they ought to become reduced to mere voluntary organizations freely working in the market place. However, if they desire it, for all their voluntaristic activities, they should not be merely allowed more or less restrictive or privileged State charters but, instead, full exterritorial autonomy - if they and their members desire that. With that they could probably successfully compete with most of the present States - to the benefit of all consumers and taxpayers. - J.Z., 29.10.82, 1.7.94.

CORPORATIONS: Large corporations finally get blocked and killed of by the "deadwood" they accumulate at the top. However, as distinct from States, nobody can be forced to buy their shares, and share their losses, buy their products or services or work for them or supply them with services or goods. Thus let States become just like any other insurance company, or share company or service agency with voluntary membership, optional goods and services, and affecting only the members and their voluntary customers. - J.Z., 8/82, 1.7.94, 5.10.02.

CORPORATIONS: Science fiction is filled with stories of 'corporation wars' as almost inevitable in the future. I hold that to be a completely imaginary remnant or rewording of some old anti-capitalist prejudices and premises. Only the mixture of government with business is dangerous and that only because of the governmental part of that mixture. Without government privileges, monopolies and subsidies and if free to assume exterritorial autonomy with their voluntary members, then corporations would become panarchies that would offer their volunteers not only some goods and services but also package deals of services we now consider to be government functions or services. Their voluntaristic and exterritorial status would keep them from engaging in wars, although, naturally, some intrigues, corruptions and murders would continue. - J.Z., 10.5.92, 1.7.94. – But these could not be  simply ascribed to “corporations” but, largely, only to their less than economic and optimal internal power and responsibility arrangements, largely based upon the flawed practices of the employer-employee relationship, which amounts to a kind of organized antagonism, according to Hyacinthe Dubreuil. –  Corporations, which are largely organized like States are, will also show at least some of the flaws of territorial States, although they do not have a territorial monopoly. They still copied too much of the statist hierarchical principle and practices and its power-games. Thus, in a quite free market they will not be very competitive and will thus tend to disappear. - J.Z., 11.12.11.

CORPORATIONS: The difference between corporations and governments is that governments have a monopoly of force. It's a lot easier to vote with your feet or your wallet than it is to change a government with your vote.” - P. J. O'Rourke, interviewed by Jim Slotek, TORONTO SUN, 11 Nov. 1996. - An individual can decide which corporation to support as a consumer, worker or investor and which ones to ignore. He has not yet achieved the same freedom towards all governments. - The difference is so obvious - and, nevertheless, it is so widely ignored. All territorial governments ought to become reduced to mere national or international corporations but without any legal privileges. They would then have only voluntary subjects, customers, members, investors and contributors and that would render them correspondingly harmless, except in the eyes of some sectarian "true believers", who would be free to set up their own corporations, under whatever misleading names they would like to give them. - J.Z., 29.1.02. - VOTING, GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, MULTINATIONALS, INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS, BIG BUSINESS, CAPITALISM

CORPORATIONS: the huge corporations have begun to challenge the legitimacy of the State." - Gore Vidal. - I deny that any territorial State was ever legitimate. Nor were the legal privileges granted to corporations ever legitimate. However, to the extent that corporations are voluntaristic, proprietary and efficient services organizations, they demonstrate the potential of exterritorial self-help structures. - J.Z., 12.7.92, 7.1.93. - It does not seem impossible to gain the support of large corporation, especially international once or "multinationals" for panarchistic ideas and practices, in their own interest. They, too, are still all too much under the legislation, regulations and jurisdiction of territorial governments. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.

CORPORATIONS: The mere separation of the State from the Corporations is not enough. The State itself must be reduced to a mere voluntaristic and only exterritorially autonomous corporation. - J.Z., 1.7.94.

CORPORATIONS: There is a corporation we may all dread. That corporation is the Federal Government. From its aggression there can be no safety... Let us be sure we keep it always within its limits. If this great, ambitions, ever-growing corporation becomes oppressive, who shall check it? If it becomes wayward, who shall control it? If it becomes unjust, who shall trust it?… I beseech you, watch and guard with sleepless dread that corporation which can make all property and rights, all states and people, and all liberty and hope, its playthings in an hour and its victims forever." - Georgia Sen. Benjamin Harvey Hill, more than 90 years ago, as quoted by Dean Smith in Conservatism, p.101. - It is inherently oppressive through a) its territorial monopoly, b) its exclusive jurisdiction, constitution, legislation, bureaucracy, c) its numerous institutionalised and legalised monopolies, d) its compulsory membership, e) its suppression of competition from exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities, f) its outlawry of individual secession, g) its imposition of some of its "services", whether wanted or not, and h) its compulsory charges and tributes for them, called taxation. - Does any private, national or international corporation have any such or other unpleasant features that are not granted to it by special legislation by the State? - J.Z., 1.7.94. - Why are many of them over-sized? Because they are subsidized directly or via tax exemptions and exemptions from full internal and external competition. - J.Z., 8.7.94.

CORPORATIONS: Today, under present conditions, even banks and corporations, especially the large ones, are largely rackets to gain unearned incomes and pensions for their directors, just like parliaments and governments are largely rackets to gain unearned incomes and pensions for their “representatives” and leading politicians. – J.Z., 24.7.05. – They convey no real power and influence to most of their share holders, staff and customers. But at least one is free not to work for them, invest in them or buy from them. We don not have this liberty towards territorial States or not as fully as we should have. – J.Z., 30.10.07. - BANKS, SHARE COMPANIES, INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL FIRMS, DIRECTORS, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

CORPORATIONS: Turn governments into competitive corporations with either limited or unlimited financial responsibilities but, definitely, without an exclusive territory or turf and without compulsory shareholders, contributors, customers, suppliers, members and employees. - J.Z., 5.8.91, 1.7.94.

CORRESPONDENCE ON PANARCHISM: See: Letters. Last part of the correspondence between Meulen & Beckerath. Zube correspondence. CONNECTION correspondence.

CORRUPTION: Only if dissenting victims could freely and individually secede from them and establish competing and exterritorially autonomous alternative communities or services of their own, could bureaucrats and politicians be honest and have a mandate from those who would remain with them. Otherwise they are corrupt just by staying in monopolistic and powerful offices. - J.Z., 30.6.88,  3.7.94, 24.11.08.

CORRUPTION: Statism, or the combination of territorial, monopolistic and coercive politics, bureaucracy and jurisdiction is the largest corrupting influence that exists now. - J.Z., n.d., 3.7.94.

CORRUPTION: The honest and the corrupt ought to secede from each other. - J.Z., 20.8.86. - We would end up with exterritorially autonomous communities of those who are honest, freely competing with the ones who remained dishonest. In this competition the honest, creative, productive and defensive ones must soon win over the dishonest, obstructive, counterproductive and aggressive ones, because they impose lesser burdens upon their members. Their victory will be gradual and indicated and realised by individuals joining them, one by one. - J.Z., 4.7.94.

CORRUPTION: The trouble is not so much that there are some obviously corrupt bureaucrats and politicians but that territorial bureaucracy and politics is a system that is inevitably more or less corrupting. - J.Z., 30.6.88, 4.7.94.

CORT, DAVID: Social Astonishments, The Macmillan Co., N.Y., Collier Macmillan Ltd., London, 1959-1963, 280pp, p. 56 ff: The Private Left Eye, on private policing, generally favourable. - JZL.

COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT REQUIRED. PANARCHISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS COULD BE ENOUGH: If only one could easily achieve not "cosmic consciousness" among most or many or sufficient people, but merely awareness of their consumer and private environment, their fellow citizens and their numerous different and autonomous and exterritorial choices and actions in daily life, on various already existing free markets, most people would become aware that in everyday life, in dozens to thousands of activities, decisions and individual choices, they are already acting panarchistically and are panarchistically organized and that there are only three major spheres in which panarchistic actions and institutions are still outlawed by governments: economic, social and political systems. With this "environmental awareness" achieved, the introduction of panarchism in these few remaining spheres, too, would only be a few steps away. - J.Z. 3.7.89, 12.12.11.

COSMOPOLITAN CITIES & THEIR TOLERANCE VS. THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL & PALESTINE:  I believe that most Israelis in Israel and most Arabs in the Palestine sectors do already live in cities or at least large towns. Thus sympathizers for either side should come to ponder: Why is it that in other cities in the world, outside these territories, there are not, likewise, almost daily to weekly terrorist acts, unofficial and official ones, happening between Arabs and Jews? They, Christians and various other believers, also unbelievers, live there quite peacefully together, and yet as much apart as they want to be, in their private lives, in numerous cities in the world. The decisive difference in other cities than, e.g. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Jaffa and Haifa is, that in the other cities neither group claims a territorial monopoly or political privilege. The people there simply subscribe to the majority principle and divide themselves rather by ideologies than by religions. However, it could easily be imagined that if any particular religion in any of the world’s cosmopolitan cities were granted political power or privileges, then terrorist acts or even street fighting might become common, there, too. Wherever religious, racial, ethnic, ideological ideas find fanatic adherents and gained or strive for a territorialist political privileges, the power to rule over dissenting minorities or even the majority, we do have to expect at least some armed clashes and terrorist acts. Even democracies do not always prevent clashes between followers of different parties and the development of totalitarian movements or dictatorships. The only chance to keep a lasting peace between strongly dissenting groups is to allow them to secede and do their own things to and for themselves, under personal laws, in their own voluntary communities, that as such is are only aterritorially (or exterritorially not extraterritorially) quite autonomous.  Towards such conclusions would Arabs and Jews be led – if they started pondering the situations in cosmopolitan cities, i.e., other cities than their own. Either they should come to the conclusion that their remaining differences should not greatly matter in their public lives in civilized communities or they should sufficiently and that means, not territorially at all, separate their organizations and lives as much as they want to – and grant the others the same right. From then on they could only blame themselves or their leaders for their remaining failures while all their successes would be due to their own efforts. Neither of them should be given the opportunity to lord it over the others, as territorial masters or as a territorial majority.  Then the remaining dissenters would not longer have any good reasons or motives to complain. They could freely set up their own communities. Then, they could come to trade, if they wanted to, as freely with each other as members of foreign nations do in free trade between them. They would then also be free to restrict or do without such free exchanges, if they wanted to.  – J.Z., 29.12.04, 12.12.11.

COSMOPOLITAN REPUBLICANISM & TOLERANCE VS. ANARCHY: by U. v. Beckerath, 1957, plan 157, page 35, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. A comparison of anarchism with the new social system of panarchism. – NAMES, DEFINITIONS, EXPLANATIONS, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM

COSMOPOLITAN UNION: Appeal to Establish a Cosmopolitan Union, by Werner Ackermann &, probably, U. v. Beckerath (*), 1931, page 88, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. - A German association just before the Nazis came to power. Its program, was many times reproduced in PEACE PLANS, e.g. in PP 61-65. Often just as a “filler” of a short and empty space. Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, was able to pack much freedom information into a single page of a draft or a letter. I find pages that are as information and ideas rich hard to find elsewhere. – (*) This was confirmed for me when I recently re-read one of B.'s letters, one probably reproduced under ACKERMANN. - J.Z., 17.10.11. - The following versions were taken from the multi-faceted , which also specializes on exterritorialism. - J.Z. - COSMOPOLITAN UNION, THE: Appeal to establish a COSMOPOLITAN UNION (English translation of German original). - Déclaration de principes de l'UNION COSMOPOLITE (traduction française de l'original allemand) - Die Cosmopolitische Union (original German text/texte original allemand). - Werner Ackermann, Ulrich von Beckerath and Kurt H. Zube were early members. It was dissolved, as a precaution, as soon as the Nazis came to power, back in 1933. - U. v. B. destroyed the membership list. - But the ideas survived and are now easily accessible, together with many related ideas and writings. - J.Z., 30.8.11. - Home page/Page d'accueil/Eingangsseite - - - Die Cosmopolitische Union  - - - ~~~ Die Mitgliedschaft der COSMOPOLITISCHEN UNION ist kostenlos.  - - Die Mitglieder befürworten, ohne für ihre Person eine Verpflichtung einzugehen, folgende Grundforderungen der C.U.: I  Jeder hat das Recht zum Austritt aus dem Staat. (Vgl. Kirchenaustritt) - - II  Cosmopoliten (freiwillig Staatenlose) besitzen überall Einreise-, Niederlassungs- und Arbeitsrecht. - - III  Unfreiwillig Staatenlose können durch einfache Option entweder Cosmopoliten oder Staatsangehörige werden.  - - IV  Der Staat erkennt die Staatslosigkeit als Rechtszustand und die

Cosmopoliten als internationale Minderheit im Sinne des modernen

Minderheitsrechts an. - - V  Der Staat respektiert die Unabhängigkeit einer Schutzstelle für Cosmopoliten und erkennt sie als im staatsrechtlichen Sinne vertragsfähig an. Die Schutzstelle kann Zweigstellen mit konsularen Befugnissen

errichten.  - - VI  - - Cosmopolitische Pässe und Personalausweispapiere, die den bei der Schutzstelle registrierten Cosmopoliten ausgestellt werden, sind von

allen Behörden anzuerkennen.  - - VII   Im Kriegsfalle gelten Cosmopoliten als neutrale Ausländer. Der Staat hat weder im Frieden noch im Krieg das Recht, Freiheit oder Vermögen von Cosmopoliten anzutasten. Cosmopoliten dürfen zu keinerlei Kriegsdiensten, Kriegshilfsdiensten, Kriegssteuern oder sonstigen Kriegslasten herangezogen werden.  - - VIII   Ein Zwang zur Beibehaltung der Staatsangehörigkeit darf auch im Kriege in keiner Form und unter keinem Vorwand ausgeübt werden.  - - IX   Der Staat respektiert die Unabhängigkeit gemeinnütziger cosmo politischer Einrichtungen wie Fürsorgezentralen, Versicherungsanstalten, Bankinstitute, Rechtsstellen, Archive, Bildungs- und Erziehungsanstalten, Krankenhäuser, Altersheime, usw. Der Staat drängt

den Cosmopoliten keinerlei Einrichtungen und Dienste auf, die die

Cosmopoliten gewillt und fähig sind, sich selber zu verschaffen, oder auf

deren Gebrauch sie verzichten wollen. - -  Der Staat prüft Forderungen, die sich aus den Grundsätzen der C.U. ergeben. Auf Antrag der Schutzstelle tritt er mit ihr in Verhandlungen über den Ausbau der gemeinsam geschlossenen Ver-

träge ein. Ausführungsbestimmungen, die auch die praktisch gebotenen

Übergangsbestimmungen enthalten, werden vom Staat und der Cosmo-

politischen Union gemeinsam ausgearbeitet.  - Aus: RADIKALER GEIST (1930) bzw. «Zur Sache 9».  - - - - - - - Appeal to establish a COSMOPOLITAN UNION

~~~ Membership in the Cosmopolitan Union is free. Its members support – without any personal obligation – the following basic demands of the Cosmopolitan Union: I  Everyone has the right to secede from the State like from a church.  - - II   Cosmopolitans (people who have voluntarily renounced their State membership) possess the right to enter any country, settle, and work there. - - III   Persons who have lost their nationality against their will, may by simple option become either cosmopolites or members of a State. - - IV   The State recognizes as rightful a condition of non-membership and recognizes cosmopolites as an international minority according to modern international law.  - - V   The State respects the independence of a protective association of cosmopolites and recognizes its right to conclude treaties. This protective association may open branches with consular rights. - - VI   Cosmopolitan passports and personal documents issued by the protective association to its registered members, are to be recognized by all State departments. - - VII

In case of war cosmopolites are to be considered as neutral foreigners. The State has neither in peace nor during times of war a right to infringe freedom and property rights of cosmopolites. Cosmopolites may not be forced to serve in the armed forces or auxiliary war services of a State, to contribute to war taxes or other expenses connected with a war effort. - - VIII   Nobody may be coerced in any form and under any pretence to retain his nationality, not even in wartime. - - IX   The State respects the independence of cosmopolitan benevolent and mutual benefit associations like welfare centres, insurance companies, banking institutions, associations for legal protection, archives, educational and training institutions, hospitals, homes for aged people, etc. The State will not force any institution or services upon cosmopolites which the cosmopolites are willing and capable to supply themselves or which they do not desire. - - X   The State will investigate further demands resulting from the above fundamental principles of the Cosmopolitan Union. Upon application by their protective association it will enter into negotiations concerning an extension of the treaties concluded between them. Regulations concerning the detailed application of the above principles, including rules for the period of transition, will be worked out between the State and the Cosmopolitan Union. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Déclaration de principes de l'UNION COSMOPOLITE ~~~ L'adhésion à l'UNION COSMOPOLITE est gratuite. Les membres souscrivent simplement, sans que cela constitue pour eux aucune obligation personnelle, aux principes suivants dont l'U. C. poursuit la reconnaissance par les Etats. - -  Tout individu a le droit de sortir de l'Etat dont sa naissance le fait dépendre (comme le droit lui est déjà reconnu de sortir de l'Eglise où ses parents l'ont inscrit). - - II   Les Cosmopolites (Anationaux volontaires) possèdent partout le droit d'entrer dans un pays, de s'établir et de travailler. - - III   Les Anationaux involontaires (apatrides) peuvent par simple option devenir soit Cosmopolites soit ressortissants d'un Etat. - - IV   L'Etat reconnaît l'anationalité comme un état de droit et les Cosmopolites comme une minorité dans le sens du Droit moderne des minorités nationales.  - -V   L'Etat respecte l'indépendance d'un Centre protecteur pour les Cosmopolites et lui reconnaît les droits légaux de représentation. Le Centre protecteur peut instituer des succursales avec attributions consulaires.  - - VI   Les passeports et autres papiers d'identité cosmopolites, qui seront délivrés par le Centre protecteur aux Cosmopolites régulièrement inscrits, doivent être reconnus par toutes les autorités. - - VII    En cas de guerre, les Cosmopolites sont considérés comme des étrangers neutres. L'Etat n'a le droit ni en temps de paix, ni en temps de guerre de porter atteinte à la liberté ou aux biens des Cosmopolites. Les Cosmopolites ne doivent être soumis à aucune expèce de service militaire actif ou auxiliaire, d'impôts militaires ou d'autres obligations militaires similaires.  - - VIII   L'obligation de conserver sa nationalité d'Etat ne peut être imposée à qui que ce soit, même en cas de guerre, sous aucune forme ni sous aucun prétexte.  - - IX   L'Etat respecte l'indépendance des institutions cosmopolites d'intérêt public, telles que Caisses de prévoyance, d'assurances, établissements bancaires ou juridiques, Archives, Institutions d'enseignement et d'éducation, Hôpitaux, Asiles pour la vieillesse, etc. L'Etat ne peut imposer aux Cosmopolites une participation quelconque à aucune espèce d'institution ou de services qu'ils sont désireux et capables de se procurer eux-mêmes, ou dont ils répudient l'usage. - - X   L'Etat examine toutes autres revendications qui se fondent sur les principes de l'U. C. – A la demande du Centre Protecteur, il entre en négociations avec lui pour la rédaction de conventions conclues d'un commun accord. Les dispositions d'application, comprenant les dispositions transitoires exigées par la pratique, sont élaborées en COMMUN PAR L'ETAT ET L'UNION COSMOPOLITE.

COSMOPOLITANISM, COSMOPOLIS, WORLD-WIDE SOCIETIES: Cosmopolis. - A classic text is Immanuel Kant (1795) To Perpetual Peace, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1983. - The idea of a world government appears in H. G. Wells (1933) The Open Conspiracy, London. - For a series of passages taken from that text see: - (Alas, from my point of view almost all his writings are all too territorialist, statist, State-socialistic and centralistic. - J.Z., 25.8.11.) - For a similar proposal see also Bronislaw Malinowski (1941) An Anthropological Analysis of War. - In this essay the author asks himself the following rhetorical questions: "Shall we abolish war, or must we submit to it by choice or necessity? Is it desirable to have permanent peace, and it is this peace possible? If it is possible, how can we implement it successfully?" - Malinowski then replies that there is a price for it and "the price to be paid is the surrender of state sovereignty and the subordination of all political units to a world-wide control." - He concludes declaring that "the great enemy of today is the sovereign state, even as we find it in a democratic commonwealth." - The idea of a world government promoted by USA, Great Britain and USSR is also in - Albert Einstein (1945) Atomic War or Peace, in, Ideas and Opinions, Crown Trade Paperbacks, New York, 1982. - Gian Piero de Bellis in: "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - Under the voluntary & exterritorial options there could be xyz different world governments and world federations - all only for their volunteers! - E.g. free trade, free migration, free enterprise, monetary and financial freedom, postal and Internet services, science, technology, art, education, literature etc. do not need any world government at all. Its peace promoting attempts are likely to end up in violent revolutions and civil wars. Compare the USA civil war and the wars following the collapse of the Soviet Empire. - J.Z., 26.8.11.WORLD STATE, WORLD FEDERALISM, TERRITORIALISM, NO BORDERS OR FRONTIERS, ABOLITION OF TERRITORIAL NATIONALISM, BY COMBINING ALL OF THEM INTO ONE GIANT & WORLD-WIDE TERRITORY, AT BEST SOMEWHAT FEDERALISTIC BUT STILL ONLY ON THE TERRITORIAL MODEL.

COSMOPOLITANISM: I am not born for one corner; the whole world is my native land." - Seneca (The Younger). – We should not let ourselves be cornered or fenced in, into one large or small territory, like a domestic animal, exploited, ruled and used, sometimes even killed, by one or the other kind of politician, for any of his purposes or aims. – J.Z., 13.11.10. - TERRITORIALISM, RULERS, POLITICIANS

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: The concept of derived and personal right in social security legislation in Council of Europe member States, Strasbourg, 1986, 50pp.


COUNTER CULTURE. (Theodore Roszak et al.) Alas this term does not go far enough in the panarchistic direction, unless one includes political, social and economic faiths and institutions as culture items as well. - J.Z., 21.9.04.

COUNTRY: Almost everything done in the name of a country tends to destroy that country, by one or the other collectivist and coercive measure or action. - J.Z., 4.7.94. - TERRITORIALISM

COUNTRY: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country is doing to you." - Dana Rohrabacher, ca. 1968. - TERRITORIALISM

COUNTRY: Countries cannot become free. Countries cannot be oppressed. Only men can be free or not free." - Anthony Lejeune. - Men can also be partly free and that is all the freedom they should have and deserve and would choose for themselves, if free to do so - until they appreciate some more of the rest. - J.Z., 4.7.94. - PANARCHISM.

COUNTRY: Dying for a country? Almost all attempts to live or die for a country do much harm and could, with great benefits, be replaced by attempts to live freely for oneself, together with voluntary associates and on the basis of private and free exchanges with nationals and foreigners. - J.Z., 20.11.82. – DIS., NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, PATRIOTISM

COUNTRY: It is obviously not OUR country, because We are obviously NOT in CONTROL of it. Nor CAN anybody be in full control of any country. He can only act under the DELUSION that he COULD be. Politicians have little enough control over their marriages and children, friends and party associates. They can only pretend that they could control a whole country or its population and can be so deluded that they come to believe that their coercive controls could possible be rightful and have positive results. Even individual people function only when they are a) under automatic biological controls, b) under sufficient mental self-controls and c) when they enjoy full freedom of action - while not interfering with any rightful action of others. That requires that they are not e.g. subjected to more laws than they would have interest, time and energy to read, and to practically apply in their lives  if they are rightful laws, which is rarely the case. - J.Z., 4.7.94, 24.11.08..

COUNTRY: Most countries are over-regulated prisons - for all too many of their peaceful and honest inhabitants. - J.Z., 25.2.86. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM

COUNTRY: The World is my country." - D. A. Andrade, 1886, quoted by Bob James, Australian Anarchism, p.3. – Once we can travel safely, easily, cheaply and fast enough in space then the whole universe would be our country and that of any other reasonable being in it. – J.Z., 13.11.10. - COSMOPOLITANISM

COUNTRY: This is our country, yours and mine. If we're not running it, it's only because we've allowed someone else to do it for us." - Rene Baxter, FREEDOM TODAY, 9/75. - No country can be run by all its inhabitants as a body. It can only run, rightly, smoothly and productively, when all inhabitants are left free to run their own lives. - J.Z., 4.7.94. – DIS.

COUNTRY: We have all one country: the world.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his new, 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. - WORLD, COSMOPOLITANISM, NATIONALISM, PEOPLE

COURAGE: A very popular error: having the courage of one's CONVICTIONS: rather it is a matter of having the courage for an ATTACK on one's convictions!!!" - Nietzsche. - Quoted by Walter Kaufmann, Without Guilt & Justice, p.33. - A third kind of courage is required for attempts to live fully in accordance with one's convictions. - J.Z., 4.7.94. – Naturally, they should have been fully criticized first, instead of having been merely all too uncritically adopted. However, even in the latter case, one should be free to practise them - but only at the own risk and expense. – J.Z., 13.11.10. AUDACITY

COURAGE: The times call for courage. The times call for hard work. But if the demands are high, it is because the stakes are even higher. They are nothing less than the future of human liberty, which means the future of civilization.” – Henry Hazlitt. - Sound freedom, defence and liberation ideas and practices are even more important. Territorial governments are good in wasting the courage and the hard work of millions, without liberating their victims. – J.Z., n.d. - HARD WORK? DIS.

COURTS, JUSTICE SYSTEM, ARBITRATION, JURISDICTION: Allow various court systems to exist and to compete, each only for its voluntary supporters and advance subscribers. - J.Z., n.d., on reading Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty. See: BECKERATH, ULRICH von: On Panarchy.

COURTS: A westerner who has seen a quarrel flare dangerously in an Arab bazaar will never forget it. Once voice, one word, pierces that din of bargaining; the sound shocks the turmoil to utter silence. Out of it comes a mob-roar. 'Brothers! you are brothers! Moslems, remember you are brothers!' With that roar goes a mob-rush. Get out of it, quick. - It is over in a moment. Scores of hands tear the quarrelling men apart, snatch knives from their fists or sashes. An unperturbed din of bargaining rises again, while small crowds of men, who can leave their own affairs, surround the angry men and go with them to the nearest Cadi, who, if he wants to keep his reputation for wisdom, must then and there settle the quarrel in a way that satisfies everyone's sense of justice. - You admire the method, because it works. But it is not law. Actually, it is the way in which men always, everywhere, keep the peace, when no one of them has a recognized right to use force. Then each feels his responsibility..." Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.110. - Alas, we still live in such a barbaric age that the spectators often cheer on the fighting men instead breaking up the fight! - J.Z., 5.10.02. – MUSLIMS, ISLAM, JURISDICTION, KEEPING THE PEACE

COURTS: Adam Smith, whose remarkable spirit of observation extends to all subjects, remarks that the administration of justice gained much, in England, from the competition between the different courts of law: 'The fees of courts seem originally to have been the principal support of the different courts of justice in England. Each court endeavoured to draw to itself as much business as it could ...'." - Molinari, The Production of Security, p.13.

COURTS: Allow various court systems to exist and compete. - J.Z., n.d., on reading Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty. – PANARCHISM, COMPETING JUSTICE SYSTEMS

COURTS: Several objections may be raised to such free-market courts. The first is that they would 'sell' justice by deciding in favor of the highest bidder. That would be suicidal; unless they maintained a reputation for honesty, they would have no customers - unlike our present judges. Another objection is that it is the business of courts and legislatures to discover laws, not create them; there cannot be two competing laws of gravity, so why should there be two competing laws of property? But there can be two competing theories about the law of gravity or the proper definition of property rights. Discovery is as much a productive activity as creation. If it is obvious what the 'correct' law is, what rules of human interaction follow from the nature of man, then all courts will agree, just as all architects agree about the laws of physics. If it is not obvious, the market will generate research intended to discover 'correct' laws." - D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p.163.

COURTS: The judges of that court have had this question - what is 'the obligation of contracts'? - before them for 70 years, and more. But they have never agreed among themselves - even by so much as a majority - as to what it is. And this disagreement is very good evidence that NONE of them have known what it is; for if any one of them had known what it is, he would doubtless have been able, long ago, to enlighten the rest. - Considering the vital importance of men's contracts, it would evidently be more to the credit of these judges, if they would give their attention to this question of 'the obligation of contracts', until they shall have solved it, than it is to be telling 50 millions of people that they have no right to make any contracts at all, except such as congress has power to invalidate after they shall have been made. Such assertions as this, coming from a court that cannot even tell us what 'the obligation of contracts' is, are not entitled to any serious consideration. On the contrary, they show us what farces and impostures these judicial opinions - or decisions, as they call them - are. They show that these judicial oracles, as men call them, are no better than some of the other so-called oracles, by whom mankind have been duped." – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, Works I p.69.  - Juridical "principles" like "Mark equals Mark" still make a farce of government jurisdiction on matters of money, currency and economics, as the "currency reform" of the latest German unification demonstrated. - J.Z., 4.7.94. – FREEDOM OF CONTRACT & PANARCHISM, LEGAL TENDER LAWS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PERSONAL, TERRITORIALISM, LAW

COURTS: There clearly must, in the end, be somewhere in the society an ultimate court of appeal." - Cole, quoted in David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.130. - Why should there be just one court avenue and final court of appeal for all? Why not a court system and final appeals option according to individual choice, different in each exterritorially autonomous panarchy or for each contracted-for private enterprise service arrangement? For some the ultimate level may still be decided by a free jury. Others will see in a town meeting or referendum their ultimate decision maker. Still others might see it in the highest elected militia authority or assembly. Others will trust only their preferred international law and court system. Some will only trust some clerical judges or assemblies of their elders. Even tribal negroes in the Congo had up to 5 different court systems to choose from. No justice system will ever suit all people. - Draft and realize your own - and apply it to yourself! - J.Z., 4.7.94.

COURTS: There exists a government monopoly bigger and more inefficient than the Post Office. It is a service industry run so inefficiently that customers frequently wait in line for years before receiving any attention and spend years more waiting for the government to finish a job that should require a week or two. It is not surprising that 80 to 90 % of the customers give up, go home, and do the job themselves. - I refer, of course, to the service of arbitrating and enforcing private contracts. This service is now performed primarily by the civil courts. It could be performed better by private institutions. Sometimes it is." - D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p.109. - Compare: "Justice delayed is justice denied." - Source? - However, even instantly provided government justice would still in most instances be a denial of justice. For proof study the "justice" provided by rapidly assembled and sentencing military courts. - J.Z., 4.7.94. – When it comes to protection: The private security services and their manpower do often already outnumber the official police, although they have to be paid for and the police “services” are offered free of direct charges to the users. – J.Z., 13.11.10.

COUSTEAU, JACQUES-YVES: Fish Men Discover a 2,200-year-old Greek Ship, THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, Jan. 1954, JZL, page 31: "Above all, Delos was the most important transit port between the Levant and Greece, with traders of many nationalities living within their own enclave and following their own customs in the commercial part of the town. There was a synagogue at Delos and a Phoenician trading centre ..."


COVENANTS, COMPACTS OR CONSTITUTIONS OF DISSENTERS: The English view was that no government could exist in a colony without a grant of power from the crown. The opposite view, held by certain English dissenters in New England, was that a group of people could create a valid government for themselves by means of a covenant, compact, or constitution. The authors of the Mayflower Compact and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut operated on this assumption. ... It is the basic assumption of the Declaration of Independence, ..." - Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, 307. - Compacts should not be confined to territorial options. - J.Z., 2.5.89. - On the contrary, territorial compacts should be renounced in favour of exterritorial ones, because only the latter can fully represent individual preferences. - J.Z., 14.1.93.

COWEN, TYLER: Law as a Public Good: The Economics of Anarchy, a paper of 44pp, which the author did not want microfiched, perhaps because it was an early version or he has other publishing plans for it. Undated. His address was then, 1990: Tyler Cowen, Dpt. of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030. It deals mainly with competing protection agencies and arbitration. - J.Z. (Should information be copyrighted when upon it may depend the very survival of mankind? - J.Z., 13.9.04.) – Q., COPYRIGHTS

CRAFTS, HOBBIES & ARTS IVOLVEMENTS AS ANALOGIES TO PANARCHISM: I leave it to others, who are so involved, to write up this segment. – J.Z., 12.12.11.

CRANE, EDWARD H., There are only two basic ways to organize societal affairs: coercively, through government mandates, and voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals and associations."

CRAWFORD, R. M., Historical Aspects of the Problem of Recurrent Wars", (1967): in Paths to Peace, edited by V. H. Wallace, Melbourne University Press, 1967. - RDBJ. - See under PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE.

CREASY, SIR E. SH.: History of the Ottoman Turks, Beirut, 1961. Offers on pp. 207/8 some details on the capitulations. - Publ. Libr. of NSW. - Later, RCBJ also pointed out this book to me. - J.Z., 17.10.11.


CREATIVE ENERGIES: And, as the essential prerequisite to his maximum development, the Founding Fathers held that the individual must be FREE to direct his own CREATIVE energies without restrictive laws, rules and regulations imposed by political masters." – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.153. – Alas, they were still territorialists and did not notice this contradiction at all. – J.Z., 13.11.10.

CREATIVE ENERGIES: For it is only when the people are uninhibited by law and formal political authority that the creative energies of human nature may rise to the surface of human society and display themselves." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.18. - Otherwise, the worst, the scum, rise to the top. - J.Z., 5.7.94. - POWER, AUTHORITY, POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, LAW, ANARCHISM

CREATIVE ENERGIES: No man-concocted restraints against the release of creative energy." - Leonard E. Read, Meditations on Freedom, p.11. - "No restraints against the creative actions of anyone." – L. E. Read, where? – Except among volunteers. – J.Z., 13.11.10. – “Release all creative energies!" – Leonard E. Read brought it to that short formula, somewhere, I believe. Where? - J.Z., 5.7.95. – Expose, resist and destroy all forces and institutions that oppose, suppress or exploit creative energies, e.g. that keeps territorial States in power or makes them still more powerful. – J.Z., 19.10.06, 26.10.07, 13.11.08. - RELEASING CREATIVE ENERGIES, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

CREATIVE WISDOM: Those of us without such deep understanding are unaware of any impressive alternative to your or my rule. (*) To ever so many people, it's only a question of WHO shall rule: you, someone else, or I? Generally, I am more impressed with my knowledge than yours, and vice versa. Overlooked is the fact that your knowledge or mine is infinitesimal, that not enough knowledge exists in any discrete individual to rule a single person, let alone a society. Also overlooked - and this is my point - is the almost unknown alternative, strikingly impressive, once it is apprehended. That alternative is the aggregate of all the knowledge issuing in literally trillions of tiny bits from all who live, which I refer to as Creative Wisdom." – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.21. - Read overlooked the creative wisdom that would be expressed by competing panarchies or competing governments, established upon individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy. His model of an exclusive territorial limited government, as supposedly ideal, blinded him to this other model, which is a model for all models or framework for all frameworks. – (*) Or, like Read himself, of the diverse voluntaristic options of exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 5.7.94. – There is also almost no limit to the creative wisdom that could be accumulated in a world-wide Ideas Archive, starting with one containing all freedom, peace and justice ideas. – J.Z., 25.11.08. - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM OR PANARCHISM, RULERS, KNOWLEDGE, IGNORANCE

CREATIVITY & MAN: Man should not allow anyone or any but self-chosen bureaucrats and politicians to come between himself and any of his creative activities, in the widest possible sense. - J.Z. 25.7.91. - Compare L. E. Read: "Release all creative energies." Alas, Read still believed that a territorial and limited government would not inherently interfere with any of them and that it could effectively protect the others, who have not chosen it for this purpose. – If they are wrongfully and irrationally or exploitatively acted only towards their own voluntary supporters, then this would be their business. -  J.Z. 14.1.93.

CREATIVITY: And it seems just as obvious that all creative activities, without exception, should be left to men acting freely, privately, cooperatively, competitively, voluntarily. - We should always keep in mind that all creative action is spiritual, in the sense that ideas, inventions, discoveries, intuitions, insights are spiritual. Thus it is that everything by which we live and prosper has its inception in the spiritual before ever showing forth in the material. Physical force - forcible interferences - can only deaden, never enliven, the spiritual." – Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, p.161. - We live surrounded by the material manifestations of hundreds to thousands of old and new ideas and talents, largely unaware of their origin, taking them for granted, like we would any natural substance or force. - J.Z., 5.7.94. – We have churches and temples for the mere spiritual urges, art exhibitions and museums for the creative arts. Where are the equivalent displays and markets for new ideas in the social sciences, ideas on how to solve the remaining social problems, wars, inflation, unemployment, poverty, ignorance, prejudices? – J.Z., 25.11.08.

CREATIVITY: Another great radio inventor, the American Lee de Forest, stated that he found it difficult to work 'under conditions short of complete autonomy.'" - Source? - Back in 1960, as a shift-worker, I found it once impossible to sleep in daytime, with 4 radios blaring around me, far less to think and write. After 5 days of this I was close to madness - and we moved to another single room, much quieter and bearable with its noise, although it was next to a major thoroughfare. One can easily switch off the own radio - but not those of one's neighbors. Ever since I have wished for an invention like a small directional broadcasting unit that could be used to disturb and thereby finally quell radios of neighbours that are too noisy. - Has anyone invented such a gadget in the meantime? Since most of the few licenced radio stations concentrate only on appealing to the lowest common denominator, rather than offering special interest programs, as they might under fully freed competition in this sphere, I do not find the invention of the radio to be all that great. - J.Z., 5.10.02.

CREATIVITY: As it is, we have creative energy confined and destructive energy on the loose." - Joan Mary Leonard, THE FREEMAN, 3/77. – Let us finally confine all destructive and release all creative energies! – J.Z., 25.11.08. – The confinement of all destructive energies starts with freedom to seceded from them! – J.Z., 13.11.10. - PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

CREATIVITY: Creative activities? Leave them without exception to men acting freely, competitively, privately, cooperatively, voluntarily; that is, leave these activities to the free and unfettered market, for it is the market that possesses a wisdom unimaginably greater than exists in any discrete individual." – Leonard E. Read, Castles in the Air. - He overlooked, too, that even for libertarian ideas and talents no ideal market has as yet been established, not even by libertarians. - J.Z., 5.7.94. – Far less exists there a panarchistic market or framework for all kinds of utopias, all practised only by volunteers without a territorial monopoly for them. – J.Z., 25.11.08. – IDEAS ARCHIVE, PANARCHISM

CREATIVITY: Creativity is exclusively the outpouring of human energy not in bondage, of men when free to think, to dream, to imagine, to explore the limitless not-yet." - Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 11/74. - And free to act, at their own expense and risk, regardless of any constitution, law, regulation or authority! - J.Z., 11/74.

CREATIVITY: Creativity stems exclusively from individuals acting privately, competitively, cooperatively, voluntarily." –Leonard E. Read, Who's Listening? p.153. – It can also be cooperatively practised or by teamworks, by volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 13.11.10.

CREATIVITY: explaining the birth of the American miracle: FREEDOM TO ACT CREATIVELY AS WE PLEASE!" - Leonard E. Read, How Do We Know? p.91. – As if that had already been fully realized in Amercia. The USA even fought a civl war to prevent geographical secession and has still not realized individual and minority secessionism. – J.Z., 13.11.10. - AMERICANISM

CREATIVITY: Goods and services flow EXCLUSIVELY from individuals acting creatively and cooperatively as they personally choose. This is a fact of life, however difficult to grasp: FREEDOM AFFORDS THE ONLY WAY TO RELEASE THE CREATIVITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL." – Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, p.71. - While this is true for the FULL release of creativity, we should not forget that coercive criminals, acting privately or out of office, managed to extract for thousands of years from unwilling victims and their creativity and productivity much more than these slave masters, taxers and rulers could ever have created and produced by and for themselves. Moreover, we should become finally creative and productive with regard to successful resistance, defence, liberation and revolution systems rather than continuing with the territorialist statists errors, myths and criminal systems in these spheres. - 5.7.94. – One should also distinguish the routine “creativity” in mass producing already wanted consumer goods and services from the creativity expressed in new ideas, inventions and discoveries. For these there is not yet a ready consumer market, with the exception of some potentially very popular new gadgets or designs. – J.Z., 25.11.08.

CREATIVITY: It did not apply here, precisely because American Government was weak. The opportunity to exercise human rights (*) released a terrific human energy. No one expected what happened; no one could possibly have planned it. - When individuals are not prevented from acting freely, they create the unprecedented. Americans acted in ways that good subjects never dreamed of. Americans still seem to Europeans the most lawless of peoples." - Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.218. - How much more unprecedented would this example have been e.g. if, in it, full monetary freedom and fully free trading and voluntary taxation and competing governments had also been realized? The remaining wrongs and mistakes allowed Anti-Americanism to grow and grow. – (*) Even now, all individual human rights are not yet recognized and declared there or anywhere else on Earth, in a single idea declaration of them – to my knowledge. Do you know of such a declaration? Are you interested in helping compile it? - J.Z., 5.7.94, 25.11.08.

CREATIVITY: Kings - those with the sovereign mentality - concern themselves only secondarily, if at all, with inhibiting destructive actions. They are primarily concerned with the control and direction of creative actions. But this is precisely what no king can ever do; he can only suppress, deaden, destroy such actions. Creative actions can never be ruled, BUT ONLY RULED OUT! If this be accepted, then it follows that a king, whenever he exercises his kingly or dictatorial role, can never do right; he must always do wrong - and without exception!" – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.38. - It was a King, Alexander the Great, who provided the first great library in Alexandria, which other "kings", afterwards, destroyed and which is now being reconstructed on video tapes and on microfiche. Read should also have paid attention to the systematic and extensive governmental promotion of technical and natural science studies and creative activities, in these limited spheres, under the Soviet Regime, which accounted for many if not most advances occurring there, even while otherwise the system restricted and impoverished people, enslaved or murdered innocents, and suppressed creative alternatives to totalitarian communism. A close study of that promotion might have led to a private corporation or large cooperative to provide the same kind of service and more in all spheres, in the West, without the dead hand of bureaucratic planning, budgets, direction and intervention. - Furthermore, he might have pondered, why freedom lovers have not yet provided comprehensive library, information, encyclopaedia, ideas archive, publishing, bibliographical, abstracting, indexing and directory services for themselves, even though most of them could at least afford e.g., microfiche or CD self-publishing. - The list of omissions of creative and creativity promoting private activities is all too long, even now. - Creative people should take more interest in institutions, processes, methods, handbooks and tools that can and would promote creativity. - J.Z., 5.7.94. – TERRITORIALISM VS. CREATIVITY, INNOVATION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY: PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

CREATIVITY: Kings' keep others from being themselves, can do no more. Each man's right to be himself creatively." – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, VIII. - "To each the government - or the non-governmental free society of his or her choice!" - RIGHTS, SELF-OWNERSHIP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-MANAGEMENT, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

CREATIVITY: Laws tend to be temporary over the long haul, ... There is no such thing as rule-governed creativity." - Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune, p.69. - The rules that creativity and talents need are, among others: freedom of expression and information and experimentation, together with the special institutions to realize them as opportunities for anyone. If the network of liberties and opportunities is well constructed, it will "catch" or attract and pass on every idea, every talent, and allow them to become fully developed, ending the enormous waste that occurred and still occurs in this sphere and releasing creative energies that were so far largely undreamed of. However, even such freedoms and opportunities would require a) monetary and financial freedom and b) the peace, security and prosperity that can only be attained through panarchism: the exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities, combined with volunteer militias for nothing but the protection of individual rights. - J.Z., 5.7.94. – As if all repressive laws and institutions were quite ineffective! – J.Z., 25.11.08. – LAWS, RULERS, TERRITORIALISM

CREATIVITY: Leave all creative activities - without exception, education or whatever - to citizens acting freely, cooperatively, competitively, voluntarily, privately." - L. E. Read, How Do We Know? p.28. – Extend that even to the practice of whole political, economic and social systems, all only for volunteers under personal laws and without any territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 25.11.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM UNDER EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

CREATIVITY: Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.” - Charles Mingus – Are we already free to apply creativity in spheres that territorial governments have pre-empted and monopolized for themselves, at our expense and risk? – J.Z., 8.8.08. - PANARCHISM

CREATIVITY: man is an integral, small, but significant part of a universe that is creative at all levels." - Quoted by Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 11/76. - One should not overlook that it is also destructive at all levels. - J.Z., 5.7.94. – TERRITORIALISM IS LEAST CREATIVE. – J.Z., 13.11.10.

CREATIVITY: Man is free to act creatively or productively as he pleases. Here we have the absence of any and all political restraints on creative action, in short, total freedom from governmental interference in this area." – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.24/25. - When and where? - J.Z., 5.7.94. – Did L. E. Read anywhere envision full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, competing even with his supposedly ideal but still territorial “limited” government? – J.Z., 27.11.08.

CREATIVITY: man should never, under any circumstances, individually or collectively, through government or any other agency, inhibit the flow of creative energies or creative energy exchanges." - Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.31.

CREATIVITY: never use force to achieve a creative end, be it housing, power and light, education, medicine, welfare, security, prosperity, charity. Leave those desirable achievements to the creativity which can flourish among men only when they are free!" – Leonard E. Read, The Coming Aristocracy, p.61. - Free even to provide the wanted defence, protection and juridical services! - J.Z., 5.7.94. – The individually preferred political, economic & social systems. To each his own utopia, together with like-minded people! – J.Z., 25.11.08. - PANARCHISM

CREATIVITY: Nonstop creativity! - J.Z., 8.6.82, comment to Not a single stop sign to any creative action!" – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 1/79. – But only for and among volunteers! – J.Z., 25.11.08. - PANARLCHISM

CREATIVITY: That each of us should do his little creative thing and let everyone else - no exceptions - do theirs. These trillions times trillions of little things are, indeed, the seeds of all human progress and are founded on liberty for one and all." - Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 11/79. - And yet he wanted to achieve everything only via educational efforts towards a limited government framework, which in his view was an ideal concept, although it retained the territorial monopoly for the exercise of force & the practice of reforms and continued, by its very nature, the threat of wars and revolutions and terrorism, since many to most people subscribe to other ideals and also and quite wrongly assume that they could and should become

CREATIVITY: There is so much talk about creativity and creativity training. But what is meant is only a toy-land freedom of dealing with paper, putty, paints and chips etc. What would count is a general freedom for creative activities. Anything creative, anything peaceful, anything constructive, should in no way be obstructed. This should go as far as to permit e.g., competitive private postal and transport services. It would imply full consumer freedom to choose the services one likes best for oneself among many competing alternatives even to governments, communities and societies. It would mean experimental freedom for all tolerant experiments in every sphere. It would mean freedom to choose even alternative judiciary and protection and political and economic services and institutions for oneself - at one's own expense and risk. With this minimum of social agreement achieved, one could otherwise remain ignorant, prejudiced and suppressed and could, nevertheless, be basically considered as a free man, because whosoever remained even a slave under this condition, he would do so voluntarily, perhaps out of mental laziness or fear of responsibility. - J.Z., some old notes, slightly revised 5.7.94, 25.11.08.

CREATIVITY: when we express ourselves creatively, in whatever field, we best fulfil our nature." - Quoted by L. E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 11/76. – Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. also saw themselves are “creators” of new and supposedly ideal empires innovators and tried to fulfil their natures as power addicts! The means matter, too, not only the “ideals” or “utopias”. To each his own system, rather than territorial rule over dissenters. – J.Z., 25.11.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE

CREDIBILITY GAP: with few exceptions the U.S. has been governed by men of good will and good intentions. But since WW II something has gone terribly wrong in the government's 'dialogue with its citizens and with its audience in foreign countries. What was once a small 'credibility gap' has widened into a chasm. The angry rejection of the 'new Left' at home is matched by suspicion and distrust abroad. The international credibility rating of public pronouncements by the U.S. government has sunk to a par with that of the USSR, and the end is nowhere in sight."- Paul W. Blackstock, in W. J. Barnds: The Right to Know, p.64. - One wrong premise is indicated in the first part of this statement. It was high time to check all our premises on governments and to distrust all their promises and statements. And this distrust has by far not gone far enough. The governmentalist illusions and deceptions still predominate and guide all to many of our wrong and harmful actions. The credibility gap will disappear with territorially enforced governments, when they are replaced by exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities, peacefully competing with each other for converts. - J.Z., 5.7.94.

CREVELD, MARTIN van, The Rise and Decline of the State. - - I found three quite new books that seem relevant to exterritoriality. Have any of you had a look at any of them? – RCBJ. (See e.g. under TILLY, CHARLES & ? (3rd. name accidentally dropped or lost in sorting. – J.Z.)

CRIME & PANARCHIES: Criminals under panarchism would either find themselves at war with all peaceful and productive panarchists or bound by their own criminal laws to which they had given their own individual consent in advance. And these criminal laws would, naturally, apply only to the aggressions they commit among themselves, in their own community or communities. When they offend against the rights claimed and upheld by exterritorial and autonomous communities of non-criminal volunteers, they would thereby put themselves on a warfare footing against these - and must take the consequences. Whoever cannot control himself must be controlled by others - if necessary even killed or enslaved. - J.Z. 3.1.93. - - At least he puts himself thereby under the jurisdiction of the communities to which his victims belong. - J.Z., 9.12.03.

CRIME & TERRITORIAL RULERS: Territorial rules tend to fight like gangsters for what they consider to be their exclusive turf. And we are foolish enough to act as killers and as victims for tem. Organized criminals don not as often involve innocent non-combatants and do not kill as many of them and of their own soldiers. J. Z. 15.6.92.

CRIME REDUCTION: See: ZUBE, JOHN, Some Thoughts on how a Libertarian Society Would Tend to Reduce Crime, plan 241, pages 71-73, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507.

CRIME: Crime fighting is too important to remain nationalised. - J.Z. 75, 25.11.08. – POLICE, COURTS, PRISONS, BOUNTY HUNTERS, PRIZE MONEY PUT UP BY INSURANCE COMPANIES

CRIME: Crime will not decrease until being a criminal becomes more dangerous than being a victim.” – Donald Windsor, PUBLIC INTEREST, issue 14, March 98. – And that will not happen while police- and court-services are still largely monopolized and bureaucratically run. – J.Z., 24.9.08.

CRIME: Every action that is tolerant is not a crime but many intolerant actions are crimes! - J.Z., on Tolerance. – We may swat a fly that is sitting on us or shoo one away from a baby – but when we hit it while it is sitting on another adult then we are already too intolerant. - Revised: J.Z., 12.12.1