John Zube

An Anthology of

Wisdom & Common Sense

On the personal and social changes required to achieve
freedom, peace, justice, enlightenment, progress & prosperity in our time

Index - M

(1973 - 2012)



MAALOUF, A., The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, first published in French in 1983, translated and published in English in 1984. - RCBJ.

MABBOTT, J. D., The State and the Citizen, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, Arrow Books 1958. First published 1948, JZL. - I marked quite a few passages in this short book, indexed, 180pp, for my SLOGANS ON LIBERTY and of some panarchistic interest. It would take too long to details them here. - J.Z.

MACCALLUM, SPENCER HEATH, A Model Lease For Orbis. - - Politics Versus Proprietorship: Remarks Prefatory to Discussion of the Orbis Constitution for Proprietary Communities. - - See also his book on "proprietary communities", which, by now, should be online, as a libertarian classic. - J.Z., 20.10.11.

MACGREGOR, DAVID, The Death of Politics. [Market Services instead of Governmental Power, Decision-making, Monopolies, Exploitation & Coercion.] - David MacGregor, wrote: 9 May 2005. To: "John" - Subject: THE SOVEREIGN LIFE REPORT - EDITORIAL - 9 May 2005. Published weekly by: - News and Views for the Seeker of Freedom, Privacy & Opportunity. "A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." - H. L. Mencken - The Death of Politics. The UK election has put one more nail in the coffin. - Tony Blair has won an historic third term - the first Labour government ever to do so. And to look at his smile, you'd think he believes the hype - and that he is presiding over some sort of victory. Far from it. - Let's look at the real facts. Labour won with around 37% of the popular vote. That is 37% of those who bothered to cast votes. From the same UK election, we learn that it represented the second worst turnout in UK voting history - with just 61% of eligible voters bothering to exercise their franchise. - If you do the maths - then you get a decidedly uninspiring image of a political process - of a democracy - that's supposed to be worth exporting to the world. So, let's imagine 100 UK residents who are eligible to vote. However, only 61% of them do - just 61 people. Out of these, only 37% vote for Blair and Labour - or 22.57 [% of the?] people. - We now have a stark picture of the reality of the UK political scene. Labour has won its "historic" third term with the grand total of 22.6% of eligible voters. In other words, 77.4% of the voting age residents of the UK did NOT want this result. - If I was Tony Blair, I'd be deeply ashamed to call my win any sort of victory - and in fact would seriously consider resigning forthwith. - What's even more revealing is that only 61% actually voted - meaning that 39 people out of our sample of 100 didn't see the point. My kind of people! - - Now, you'd never get this 'spin' on things from either the politicians or their media tarts. For remember, the media needs politicians almost as much as the politicians need the media! The last thing they need is to have the true picture exposed - and then openly discussed. - Of course, this poor voter turnout is not exclusive  to the UK. No, it's a spreading phenomena - and in particular in the USA, where voter turnout is always low (in the world's "greatest" democracy). - To get a good turnout, you need to be a Saddam Hussein type of politician - who can force everyone to vote, or perhaps an Australian one, who can rely on that country's compulsory voting system to drag recalcitrant voters away from their sports on TV. - You can legally force someone to vote - but with our cherished anonymous voting system, you cannot make them tick the right box. Disgruntled forced-voters are just as likely to write "f*** you!" > on the voting paper, as vote for a real person. - It's got so bad that it's quite possible more countries [Countries have no eyes or minds. He meant territorial politicians, worried about their jobs. - J.Z., 23.9.11.] will begin to look at the Australian model. For nothing is more demoralising to politicians, than to have people ignore them! - It's actually a lot worse than just being ignored. A low turnout threatens to seriously undermine the legitimacy of the whole process - as Labour's win with 22.6% popular support clearly illustrates. - - This is the name of the new game - voter reluctance, or "apathy" as politicians prefer to call it. - But is it really apathy? Of course not. It's a gradual awakening to the scam of our modern times - the idea that we can vote to make our lives more bearable, interesting, exciting, profitable and healthy - or that we can vote for justice, freedom and a fat paycheque. - There is only so much failure you can endure, before you have to admit there is something wrong with the basic strategy or premise of what you are supporting. And year after year, the democratic political process leads us to believe it can solve all our problems - while demonstrably failing every time. - In fact, nothing the government turns its hand to works - except to choke people with ever more laws, restrictions and taxes. - Those great government projects - education and healthcare - are in complete tatters. More and more money is poured into these bottomless pits, year after year, election after election. And what do we get? Constantly deteriorating standards and services. - Now, if any of this was being run by business - people would be calling for blood. [No, they would just go to another business, one that offers them a better deal. - J.Z., 243.9.11.] But no, somehow people have bought into the idea that government is "different", and cannot be held to account for its manifest failures. - But that's changing - as witnessed by the ever-shrinking number of people who take the time to vote. - It's not apathy, it's frustration and a deep emotional awareness that nothing changes. No matter what party you vote for, or what policies they promise - it's all huff and puff, and not worth expending half an hour of your time to go out and endorse it with your vote. You'd be just as effective if you wrote your political opinion on a piece of toilet paper and flushed it. - This is the crux of the matter - that point of awakening, when one day you realise that your vote counts for absolutely nothing! - We fight this awareness with all our strength. We don't want to admit that we've been conned. We'd rather believe it could be better - if only people would try harder; if we could get better people into politics; or if people were more honest. We naively believe that "our" party will pull off the blatantly  impossible. - But, there comes a day when you will finally realise the folly of it all (if you haven't already). And when that fateful voting day comes, you will find yourself staying at home and joining the ranks of the "apathetic". And you won't be alone. If you're in the UK, you can rest easy, knowing that you are part of the 39% who has woken up - and finally started to act rationally. - What's at stake here is the legitimacy of the whole voting concept. If voter turnout continues to decline, then you will see a rise in the number of countries who employ proportional voting. At present, the UK uses a "first past the post" voting system - which means the person who gets the most votes in any particular electorate wins. This type of system leads to what the UK has experienced - a Labour win, with only 22.6% support. - To disguise this fall from legitimacy, you can expect to hear calls for voting system reform - to change to proportional voting, where a government ends up with seats that more truly reflects the percentage of votes gained. - This type of voting system inevitably ends up with multiple political parties in power - and usually necessitates that one or more of them form a working coalition. - Now, this concept is sold on the basis that it is a more fair voting system - more truly reflecting the will of the people. But in reality, it's a "finger in the dike" strategy to fool voters into thinking they will have more say - and that the resultant government is more representative. - The truth is, proportional voting is simply a way to prolong the voting scam. A UK-type result is a serious threat to the legitimacy of the whole process - so cannot be allowed to repeat indefinitely. By introducing proportional voting, coalition governments are formed - presenting the "appearance" of a result in harmony with the voters' wishes. - All this points to the crisis of our age - the means by which we govern ourselves. We have all grown up with democracy - the idea that the majority is right. Now, we are witnessing the degeneration of that idea to one of "the winner is right". This can only lead to more voter reluctance, leading to more and more desperate measures. - The burning question is this: what do we actually need the state for? If we can create our livelihoods, build our dreams, buy all the consumer goods we want - without government, then what, if anything, are they really doing? - The traditional answer is they keep the order. But do they? Is it not possible that they are a force for disorder? - Even those who recognise the limitations of the state, still want to preserve some domain for their activities - like defence and law and order. However, in a world where literally everything of value is created by the market, surely the market can devise solutions such things. - And the beauty of the market is that it is truly democratic. You vote every day - with every dollar you spend. If you don't like a particular service or product, you simply don't buy it - don't "vote" for it. You get instant gratification with your dollar votes - allowing you to exercise ultimate control over all aspects of your life. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to see how this economic voting can equally be applied to matters which we now consider to be the sole domain of the people we elect who form governments? - A company which does not satisfy the wishes and needs of its - shareholders and customers is not long in business. And it is this market discipline and competition, which engineers our very standard of living. Surely - in matters such as education, health, law and order, and defence - the market is more than capable of far exceeding the performance of government - of bureaucrats. - Why, just yesterday, I read of the launch of a new service called Spotter - - which offers rewards to people who text in information about stolen cars (in New Zealand). The stolen cars' registration numbers are listed on Spotter's database - and those who "spot" any of these cars and report them, using the text function of their mobile phone, can earn a monetary reward. - That's just one example of a market response to a law and order issue. And it won't take much to make it superior to the useless service the government police provide in this regard. - The feedback from the insurance industry has been positive - as they can see the value of any strategy that can actually recover stolen vehicles, and thereby reduce their own operating overheads. After all, such companies have a huge incentive to minimise crime - and given a free reign, in an open market, could be counted on to develop, endorse and support a wide variety of market initiatives. - Politics is the mechanism for achieving goals by edict, by force, by voting. The market is the mechanism for achieving goals via the division of labour and voluntary cooperation - tapping into the human character traits of profit seeking, competition, self- interest and a proven history of trading - of "making a deal". - As the UK election illustrates, the era of "politics as we know it" is coming to a close. People, especially young people, are waking up and realising the futility of it all. But don't expect politicians (or the vested interests behind them) to go down without a fight! - Yours in freedom [Who is already in full freedom? - J.Z.] - David MacGregor. - Join SovereignLife: > Declare your Independence Now! Discover powerful information, tools and strategies to Achieve Freedom and Prosperity. - - To subscribe to The SovereignLife Report - go to: - To view the archive of all Editorial Commentaries - go to: - Copyright 2005 - - All Rights Reserved. Feel free to pass this Editorial on to others, or to reprint in other publications. But please ensure that proper acknowledgement is given and that the hyperlink is included. -, 126 Aldersgate St, London, EC1 A4JQ, Great Britain. - - Territorial politics as usual will not die without the right, liberty and practice to secede from it and to either establish and run or to choose for oneself an exterritorially autonomous community of volunteers or to rely entirely on individual sovereignty, including consumer sovereignty and free enterprise sovereignty on a free market for all kinds of wanted goods and services. - Maybe the heading should have been: The coming or the future death of territorial politics. - J.Z., 13.9.11, 2.6.12. - VOTING, COMPULSORY VOTING, MAJORITY RULE, PRETENDED MAJORITIES, REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP, DEMOCRACY, IGNORING THE STATE, POLICIES, PLATFORMS, PARTIES, ELECTIONS, POLITICS AS USUAL, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIS., FREE MARKET, CHOICE, ORDER, DISORDER, CHAOS, WASTE, BUREAUCRACY, TAXATION, DEFENCE, LAW & ORDER, MARKET, BUSINESS, DOLLAR VOTES, TERRITORIALISM

MACGREGOR, DAVID, Voting, Self-rule, Voluntarism, Coercion, Freedom, Organization, Societies, etc., in THE SOVEREIGN LIFE REPORT - 1 March 2004. Published fortnightly by: - - News and Views for the Seeker of Freedom, Privacy and Wealth. "There are only two basic ways to organize societal affairs: coercively, through government mandates, and voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals and associations." - Edward H. Crane. – COMMENTARY: VOTING - LIKE GAMBLING - IS A RIGGED GAME. - If you've ever stepped inside a casino and played the tables, or the machines, then you must know the game is rigged against you. Casinos know their systems guarantee they are the real winners, and rely on people's hopes of striking it lucky to bring in the punters. Or in common parlance, "The house always wins". - Well, it's the same with voting. You, the voter, are the punter. You hope you'll be lucky and get the life you want. But the reality is that the "house" always wins. - - So, the issue that needs to be identified is: what is the exact nature of the political "house"? - Consider your voting options. No matter what part of the world you live in - you're probably very familiar with them. Take your pick: Republicans/Conservatives/Tories, or Democrats/Liberals/Labour. They represent the big boys of the two-party system. And in countries with some form of proportional voting system, then you may have additional choices like: Greens, Libertarians, Nationalists etc. The name doesn't really matter - because they all represent the "house". And the house always wins. - To clear the fog from your decision-making at voting time, you need to be very clear on the nature and purpose of the political "house". - So let's get it out in the open. No matter which way you vote, you will always get the same result which is, you will be RULED over. ["No matter who you vote for, always a politician gets in." - Common saying, inserted by J.Z.] - Of course, there are subtle differences between the various voting options - and the consequent ways you WILL be ruled over. [Over-ruled - may be a more suitable term. - J.Z.] - Republicans and Conservatives will generally promise more economic freedom, less taxes and more personal responsibility - while at the same time promise less personal freedom - (what you do with your own body). - Democrats and Labour/Liberal will generally promise more personal freedom, while at the same time promise less economic freedom - more taxes, more regulation. - Libertarians are a little unusual, in that they promise more economic AND personal freedom - making them hard to classify under the two party system. Greens, Nationalists and other special interest parties usually promise specific policies of control in respect of their pet issues. - - So, no matter what and who you vote for - it really comes down to a matter of degree - the degree to which you will be ruled. - The name of this voting game is democracy. And when push comes to shove, democracy means rule by the majority. So, you are ruled over by the majority - as represented by the rulers so voted in. - - What if you don't want to be ruled over? What if you see yourself as a self-owner and self-ruler? Who can you vote for? The answer is no one, and you shouldn't vote at all. - If you know the odds of losing your money at the casino - then you probably won't play there. Likewise, if you know the "odds" of getting what you want by voting in the political casino - then you won't "play" there either. So, what's the alternative? - To know that, you must first clearly understand that the political game of voting only offers you a choice between the DEGREE of rule you are subject to. It doesn't offer you the choice of opting out - of NOT being ruled. And that is the ONE choice we desperately need. - - I personally don't care if other people want to pay taxes, be told they can't ingest certain substances, have their business regulated, that they can't watch certain movies, must send their children to government schools, or can't make an alteration to their own home without official permission. It matters not one whit to me if OTHER people desire these rules - provided I'm not forced to go along with them. - You see, I don't want to be ruled. I believe I can rule myself. - And the term "self-ruler" is a good definition of a sovereign individual. - In more common usage, the word "sovereign" is usually applied to a king, or to a nation - as in national sovereignty. But this is "old-think". - The history of societies, from the beginning up until now, is the history of ordinary people being subject to the rule of others - whether king, dictator, president or parliament. And, as you would expect, the rulers aren't ruled themselves. - A sovereign individual is thus someone who declares themselves to be their own "king" - their own "government". [his - his - his. - J.Z.] - It's a declaration of personal independence. Is there another name for this political position? - Yes there is: "anarchy" - the absence of "archy" (which is a suffix meaning "rule", as in monarchy, oligarchy or minarchy). Or to quote the dictionary: "absence of any form of political authority". - Being an anarchist doesn't mean you are against social order, but against the "political" means of organising and achieving it. - Self-rulers work on the proposition of voluntary interaction with others - not forced compliance to edicts from above. - The political means of social organisation is the opposite of the voluntary means - for as Chairman Mao Zedong once said, "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun". - A free society, organised on the principle of voluntarism, relies on give and take, agreements and contracts, and the free market. A "ruled" society relies on force to get things done. - In a social order without POLITICAL control - the market would be the provider of everything. - - So, there you have it. The real choice should be either a society based on force (the political order) - or a society based on voluntary co-operation (the market order). - Of course, sovereign individuals are not interested in forcing others to think or do as they do - and would never presume to demand everyone live that way. No, all we require is the freedom to opt out of the force-based social system - and to live according to our own ideas and values. - How could this work practically? - There are a number of possibilities. One would be to allow such people to come together, in a specified geographical area, and live according to their own beliefs - without being disturbed or bullied by other states. This option usually involves the idea of a "new" nation being set up somewhere - but many have tried this and failed. The fact is that all land is under the sovereignty of one nation or another. The only possibility of a new state being "born" would be if a particular existing nation agreed to lease or sell not only the required land, but the sovereignty over it. - Another possibility would be to allow various "opt-out" choices on the voting paper. For example: An opt-out as regards certain taxes - in return for a signed agreement that says you won't draw down any social security. Or, an education opt-out, where you get to keep your kids out of government schools, and make your own alternative arrangements, in return for a tax deduction. Or, a health care opt-out, where your tax is further reduced in response to your agreement not to use public health facilities. - A third alternative is the "virtual" opt out - where you use your wits to dodge as much of the current system as you can. This at least has the advantage of being doable - right now. For an interesting insight as to "how" this could come about, then I'd recommend you read "A Lodging of Wayfaring Men". (We are currently offering a free pdf copy of this book to all new members. See: for more details.) - - Now, you'd think that nation states, democracies and so-called freedom loving countries would not be averse to such ideas - or letting those who choose to, to live them. But of course you'd be wrong. - The very idea of "no political rule" threatens the status quo and a myriad of vested interests - so don't expect such "opt-out" choices to be on your voting paper any time soon! - Is such an idea utopian? Absolutely not! A voluntary, market-based society would not in any way guarantee HOW such a society would evolve or turn out. It is not a plan, but a process. - Those who support force-based social organisation are the true utopians - whether marxists, religious fundamentalists, nationalists or liberal do-gooders - because they are never content with man's nature as it is. They are forever meddling and planning to produce preordained, ideological outcomes - at the point of a gun. - - There you have it. The current voting system gives you all the choices you'll ever need - IF you are content to be ruled. - On the other hand, if you want to be a self-ruler, you have no choice at all. - - Voting will be on the minds of many this year - so use your mind, get smart, and act accordingly. It's your choice whether you play the GAME or not. - Yours in freedom (*) - David MacGregor. - - - (*) - Should he have rather written: Still under territorial coercion? - J.Z., 15.10.11. - TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS AS USUAL, GOVERNMENTS, FREE SOCIETIES, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-HELP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, DEMOCRACY, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT OR SELF-DETERMINATION, TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, THE POLITICAL CASINO & POLITICAL GAMBLING, ANARCHISM, SELF-RULE, SOCIAL ORDER, FORCE, FREE MARKET, CHOICE, OPTING OUT, TOLERANCE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

MACGREGOR, DAVID: A Troublesome Document, Musings on July 4, in THE SOVEREIGN LIFE REFPORT, 5 July 2004, - An excellent article on group- and individual secessionism. - J.Z.  Reproduced also in


MACHINERY FOR FREEDOM: The most important “machinery of freedom” is not that contained in any libertarian party organization or platform or in David Friedman’s famous book with that name but consists in all the organizational steps required to mobilize and render effective all the best ideas and talents, resources and energies of all freedom lovers. An approximation to such a machinery was described in PEACE PLANS No. 20: An Ideal Market for Freedom Ideas & other Ideals. It is part of – Others are described in my libertarian peace book: And in another digitized book manuscript of mine, “New Draft” of Jan. 10. Zipped down 300 KBs., available from me as email attachment, until it appears online or on a disk. [So far only a review of it is online at ] However, such an enlightenment machine must be supplemented by full freedom of action and experimentation for all, which excludes all interventionism with the free actions and personal law, institutions and experiments of others. – J.Z., 7.12.07, 28.12.10, 6.6.12. – ENLIGHTENMENT, CULTURAL REVOLUTION, IDEAS ARCHIVE, SUPER-COMPUTER PROJECT, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENTS: The angels and the devils are definitely within us, not within the machines we use.” – Michael Dertouzos. - Well, I believe that there are certainly more “devils” with devilish powers and purposes in the machinery of territorial governments than there are “angels” in it with the highest morality, best knowledge, abilities, will and intentions. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. – DIS., GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, BUREAUCRACY, PARLIAMENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, RULERS, POLITICIANS, LAWS, REGULATIONS


MACKAY, JOHN HENRY & PANARCHISM: Extracts indicating his panarchist or close to panarchist positions - are still to be compiled, as far as I know. - J.Z., 1.9.04. - In my opinion he never expressed himself as clearly and concretely on this as e.g. Fichte, Spencer and de Puydt did. One should not expect too much in this respect from a poet and novelist. - J.Z., 17.9.04.

MACKAY, JOHN HENRY, The Freedomseeker, - The Freedomseeker - Panarchism is merely implied rather than clearly expressed in his two anarchist novels (the other one is: "The Anarchists" (it is also somewhere online) and some of his freedom poems. - Searching for "John Henry Mackay" + "The Anarchists" + downloading, Google offers me 83 results. At least one of them should offer the downloading option. - J.Z., 30.8.11.

MACLEOD-CULLINANE, BARRY, Lon L. Fuller and the Enterprise of Law. - Barry Macleod-Cullinane - Lon L. Fuller and the Enterprise of Law (pdf) - Libertarian Alliance, Legal Notes, 22, 1995.

MACMURRAY, J. V. A.: Treaties and Agreement with and concerning China, 1894-1919, 2 vols., N. Y., 1921.

MAD POLICIES, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, WAR, PEACE, PROGRESS & PANARCHISM: With panarchism against the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) policies that are “armed” with WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction. Here the term appeals to the numerous enemies of property rights. More suitable would be MMDs: Mass Murder Devices. – J.Z., 2.6.12.) – towards peace, justice, freedom, progress, prosperity, even intelligence expansion, life extension and the Stars. – J.Z., n.d.

MADDOX, RUSSELL W.: Extraterritorial Powers of Municipalities in the U.S., Oregon State U. Pr., 1955, 114p, pap. $ 4.95. (I'm not certain, either, what is meant by this. J.Z.) - A full review of all the relevant literature and even merely the collection and publication of abstracts of it, would require wide-spread collaboration, which has not yet been achieved. - This list is a standing invitation towards such a collaboration. - J.Z., 17.9.04. – In this sphere, too, all too dispersed knowledge has not yet been turned into a combined and well-organized power or influence. – J.Z., 2.6.12.

MADNESS: In a neurotic society nothing can be achieved by the sane men telling the mad men they are mad, because the latter think it is the other way around.” – John Davy, in Philip Toinbee, The Fearful Choice, p.67. – Why keep them together, in a compulsory territorial “unity”, instead of allowing both to secede from the others? – J.Z., 13.12.07, 28.12.10. - Toynbee? – Territorialism “armed” with mass murder devices is an indication of extreme ignorance, prejudice and even insanity. – J.Z., 2.6.12. - & SANITY IN SOCIETY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, MADNESS, INSANITY, TERRITORIALISM, NWT

MAFIA: As for Mafiosos, Cosa Nostras and their ilk, with all their bribes and having “friends” in high places, I consider them in many ways to be a part of the government, although an unacknowledged part of course.” – Jasper the Jester, THE CONNECTION, TC 124, p.85. – To the extent that they are able to ignore, successfully, penal laws of the State upon crimes without victims, I do rather admire them as successful anarchist activists. However, I do not approve of their violent methods against competitors - on what they claim to be their own turf - any more than I can approve of wars between territorial States. - Many free market activities were or are outlawed and then black market activities can be quite honest and moral. But lack of open quality controls, fully publicized, creates problems on black markets. Not black markets but the outlawry of free markets in certain things should be blamed for these problems. - In the times of food rationing and compulsory food quotas and deliveries and price controls on the official market, back in my youth in Germany, I may have survived only by having also engaged in some black market activities. – J.Z., 5.12.07. - ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATES, PANARCHISM, BLACK MARKETS

MAFIA: I have always admired the initiative of the Mafia in serving the wants of people without being diverted by mere legal restraints.” – Irving Wallace, PURSUIT, Oct. 69. – If even wrongful organizations can become as persistent and powerful then why should not rightful organizations like panarchies also become practical and powerful – regarding their own affairs? – J.Z., 13.2.09. – For the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties they should be even better armed, organized and trained than the Mafiosi are. – J.Z., 2.6.12. – MILITIA, PANARCHISM

MAFIA: The Mafia and other crime syndicates may become the last defenders of the territorial State - because its prohibitions provide their main sources of incomes - various underground market activities with drugs, sex, credit, gambling. They might, in a last ditch effort, completely take over some territorial States and try to defend their continuance! - J.Z., 19.5.00, 1.2.02. - PANARCHISM & TERRITORIAL STATES

MAGID, HENRY M.: English Political Pluralism, Columbia University Studies in Philosophy, 1941, indexed, 100pp. JZL. - This is not a panarchistic book. It does not deal with individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy and voluntarism, but, instead, mainly with the more or less pluralistic thoughts of Figgs, Cole and Laski. It asks more questions than it answers and with them it COULD stimulate more libertarian thinking on panarchistic subjects. It demonstrates well how far towards panarchism these philosophers went and how far they still stayed behind and away from it. - J.Z., 11.1.99. – FIGGIS?

MAGNETISM OF IDEAS: Ideas cannot be injected into minds of others; each person controls what he admits or rejects. The contest over ideas is a competition in magnetism.” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.100. chapter 12, The Art of Doing Something. – While one can and should try to express one’s own or one’s favourite freedom ideas of others as attractively as possible, the main job seems to me to make all freedom writings and all references works to them easily and permanently accessible, to survey them in libertarian encyclopaedias, to offer them in complete freedom libraries, now fitting onto a single disk and to discuss all of them thoroughly, throughout the whole movement, providing also translations into the major languages, electronic “argument maps”, directories, private drafts of individual rights and liberties. Moreover we need to work systematically towards freedom of action in this sphere, experimental freedom for voluntary communities trying out, under their own personal laws and full experimental freedom, all freedom, peace and justice systems, in free competition with each other, also in free competition with all statist systems. Only territorially imposed systems should no longer be tolerated anywhere. – Successful experiments would be most persuasive, speak louder than a thousand words or even a thousand textbooks. – A comprehensive market for all freedom ideas has still to be established. In it consumer sovereignty would prevail, demand would meet supply, even if the supply is not yet optimally expressed. - J.Z., 14.12.07. - PERSUASION, DIS., POWER OF ATTRACTION, VOLUNTARISM. PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, IDEAS ARCHIVE, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PANARCHISM, SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY, LIBERTARIAN ENCYCLOPAEDIA, ABSTRACTS & REVIEWS, REFUTATIONS ENCYCLOPAEDIA, A GENUINELY CULTURAL REVOLUTION, ENLIGHTENMENT, EDUCATION, TERRITORIALISM

MAGNETISM: It was the magnetism generated by his excellence that paid the dividend of a general reduction in error. The counsel of Frank Lloyd Wright comes to mind: “The moment you buttonhole somebody and begin to convert him it is all over. But when you let him buttonhole you and ask you questions that have been arousing his mind by the superiority of what you have done, or what you do, or what you can do, then you can talk to him … beyond that you cannot go.” (*) - - Only those who concentrate on their own improvement can ever acquire the art of doing something.” - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.106. – Here he speaks as if we had already freedom of action or freedom of experimentation for our own kind of voluntary communities, after seceding from the usual statist territorial messes. At least architects have considerable freedom to put their own ideas in practice, as shiny and lasting and also very visible examples of what can be done in their sphere. - Alas, Read favoured only limited governments, still of a territorial type, and not voluntary communities, exterritorially quite autonomous, freely and peacefully competing with each other, just like e.g. architects or shops and shopping centres and publishers etc. do. – J.Z., 14.12.07. - - (*) Mrs. Frank Lloyd Wright, The Roots of Life, New York, Horizon Press, 1963, p.41. – The power of attraction could be mobilized e.g. by an online list of all libertarian projects, already started or proposed, by a general ideas archive and a talent registry, to bring demand and supplied in this sphere together and e.g. by a comprehensive libertarian digitized encyclopaedia, which could by now become offered on a single large HD, by an encyclopaedia of the best refutations of popular errors, myths and prejudices and by a collection of digitized argument maps, as recommended online by Paul Monk et al, especially those dealing with all remaining libertarian controversies, which could thus be brought much closer and faster to their solutions. – J.Z., 2.6.12. -  PERSUASION, TEACHING, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

MAINE, SIR HENRY JAMES SUMNER, 1822-1888: Ancient Law, first published 1861, 3rd. Am. ed., N.Y., 1888, p. 99: "The principle of territorial sovereignty as stated in the epoch-making opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in the case of the Schooner Exchange, mentioned above, was unknown in the ancient world. In fact, during a large part of what we usually term modern history, no such concept was ever entertained." - This confirms the conclusion of Liu, Shih Shun. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY  FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM, HISTORY

MAIR, LUCY: Primitive Government, Pelican Books, 1962, introduction, p. 12. - She points out that tribal law was and is personal law, not territorial law and says that the most famous exponent of this theory was Sir Henry Maine, the founder of comparative jurisprudence. - J.Z., n.d.  – PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIALISM

MAITLAND, [Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.] Furthermore, according to Maitland (1898), the so-called Lex Salica was "a wonderful ‘system of personal laws’" and "let us remember that, by virtue of the Norman Conquest, the Lex Salica is one of the ancestors of English law." - RCBJ. - PERSONAL LAW, ENGLISH LAW, LEX SALICA

MAJORITARIANISM: The majorities have the right to determine their own fates, subjugating or liberating themselves by their own representatives, freely elected by them, or by direct democracy referendum, binding only the majority or, e.g. by choosing for themselves some form of monarchy or other authoritarianism. However, they have no right to subjugate any dissenting and peaceful minorities to the systems and laws preferred by the majority in any territory. - J. Z., 21 1.99, 10.12.03.

MAJORITIES & MINORITIES: Minorities and majorities have only the right to rule over themselves and any aggressors against them, as far as this is necessary, but not over any peaceful dissenters doing their own things merely to or for themselves. - J.Z., Dec. 04. - SELF-RULE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION FOR INDIVIDUALS & GROUPS, INDEPENDENT OF TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY CLAIMS.

MAJORITIES & PANARCHISM: Under panarchism any majority has only the right to rule itself. And so has every minority in every territory. The same applies to all majorities and all minorities, in every territory, that want to somehow confederate or federate with like groups in other countries of the world and across all presently existing or future “set” territorial borders. – J.Z., 13.10.96, 9.1.99. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM WITH ITS COMPULSION, MONOPOLISM & COLLECTIVISM

MAJORITIES, MINORITIES & PANARCHISM: Majority despotism for whole territories and all their people to be replaced by majority autonomy, combined with minority autonomy for all minorities desiring it for themselves, including individuals, desiring individual sovereignty, all at their own risk and expense. The latter might be practicable only once all services, including protective services, are freely and competitively offered, like soap and bread, on a genuinely free market. Then competing protective agencies, societies and communities of volunteers will offer to their members their various package deals, i.e will continue the "public affairs" and “public service” tradition in its rightful parts, i.e. without the despotic impositions of territorialism and compulsory membership or subjugation to one more or less centralized regime, coercively financed. - J.Z., n.d., & 2.6.12.

MAJORITIES, MINORITIES & SELF-GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY: Panarchy means neither government by numbers nor government by the supposedly best (the elite, elected, appointed or born to the job) but, rather, genuine self-government, based upon individual choices. For all and everywhere this is possible only on the basis of individual secessionism and associationism, exterritoriality, autonomy and personal laws rather than territorial ones. In most minor spheres of living this panarchistic liberty has already been achieved. It has merely to be extended into the sphere of social, political and economic systems. - J.Z., 9.2.88, 1.4.89, 2.6.12.

MAJORITIES: a voting majority always means a minority of the people.” – L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p. 73. – I believe that many communities of volunteers will prove to be exceptions from this rule. Voluntary membership and the voluntary taxation associated with it assure a large degree of unanimous consent. – J.Z., 27.9.07. – PANARCHISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT OF COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, MINORITIES

MAJORITIES: As if association gives absolution! As if mass participation rights a wrong! As if legality alters morality! This is an intellectual sickness that needs analysis.” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.132. – It is also an intellectual failure or sickness not to distinguish between compulsory territorial “associations” under territorial laws from voluntary and exterritorially autonomous associations under personal laws. – J.Z., 12.12.07, 2.6.12.

MAJORITIES: As they watched a TV newscast, a woman said to her husband, “It seems to me that the majority of people in this country belongs to some minority group.” – Dave Gerard, in READERS DIGEST, 8/75. – Yes, even the majority is made up of numerous minorities – and even minorities have their own minorities, too. The logical conclusion from this fact should be: full minority autonomy for all who desire this for themselves, as determined by individual rather than be collectivist choices. – Individual secessionism and quite voluntary associationism, in to any degree of exterritorial autonomy and any variety desired by individuals for themselves and like-minded people. – J.Z., 10.12.07. - MAJORITY, JOKES, MINORITIES, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MINORITIES

MAJORITIES: Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.” - Robert Heinlein – Under panarchism one would never be right too soon. Even a small group of volunteers could then already do its own things. Even an individual could then e.g. start a free bank or trade freely, internally and internationally and without having to pay tributes to any government or bureaucracy. – J.Z., 9.2.09, 2.6.12. - SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE, IDEAS, INNOVATORS, REFORMERS & PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, TIMELY ACTIONS

MAJORITIES: But if, to preserve individual freedom, we must confine coercion to the enforcement of general rules of just conduct, how can we prevent legislatures from authorizing coercion to secure particular benefits to particular groups – especially a legislature organized on party lines where the governing majority frequently will be a majority only because it promises such special benefits to some groups? The truth is of course that the so-called legislatures have never been confined to making laws in this narrow sense, although the theory of the separation of powers tacitly assumed that they were. … “ – F. A. Hayek, Economic Freedom and Representative Government, p.17. – Powers will be sufficiently separated only once individuals are free to separate themselves and all their own affairs from any existing territorial power and also free to associate with other volunteers under full exterritorial autonomy, thereby destroying that territorialism and replacing it by voluntarism under personal law. The collective, territorial and coercive sovereignty of whole populations ought to be replaced by individual sovereignties, combined, often or mostly in collectives, societies, communities, competing governments etc. all doing only their own things. – J.Z., 12.12.07, 2.6.12.

MAJORITIES: 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, 1911. – I do not recognize any constitution as rightful enough, which does not permit individual- and group secessions from it on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 3.1.08, 2.6.12. – CONSTITUTIONS, TERRITORIALISM AS OPPOSED TO EXTERRITORIAL MINORITY AUTONOMY UNDER PERSONAL LAWS: PANARCHISM

MAJORITIES: Counting noses is no way to decide moral, ethical, or economic matters.” – Leonard E. Read, THE FREEMAN, 4/74. – Nor scientific or technical matters. At most it is sometimes useful within groups of volunteers who do not wish to split up into their factions. – J.., 10.12.07. - MAJORITY, VOTING

MAJORITIES: Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.” - R. Howard in TANSTAAFL, 4/76. – Politically, under territorialism, and its collectivist and majoritarian decision-making, a million men are not wiser but dumber than most individuals are - but under economic freedom, when each decides for himself, then most of the million men are wiser than a few men among them are in their individual decisions. – The advantages of the individual choice method on the market for ordinary consumer goods and services should be extended to full consumer sovereignty for free choice among ‘public’ services of the political, economic and social system type, all quite competitively supplied also by free private or cooperative enterprises or societies and communities. – J.Z., 22.10.76, 11.12.07. - & DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IN ALL SPHERES FOR ALL SERVICES

MAJORITIES: Democracy says it is acceptable to take money or property from a non-consenting individual because he is outnumbered." – Unknown. - Nevertheless, it still pretends to be based on consent. One of the best replies to this argument can be found in Herbert Spencer's chapter 19, "The Right to Ignore the State", in his "Social Statics", in the early edition, in which he advocated the right of individuals to secede from the State. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06, 2.6.12. - MAJORITARIANISM

MAJORITIES: Do robbery and murder cease to be what they are if done by ninety-nine percent of the population? … and seeing that numbers cannot affect the question of what is right and wrong. Suppose some man with the cunning brain of a Napoleon were to train and organize the Chinamen, and should then lead them to annex such parts of the West as they desired; on your theory of numbers, if they exceeded the population of the country they appropriated it would be all right.” – Auberon Herbert, in Mack, Auberon Herbert, p.87. – Something like that was actually attempted by the Communist Chinese government in Tibet. And if we go far enough back, we would find that this was largely the policy of the growing Chinese Empire and any other empire. Pure territorial power politics went even beyond such national territorial power claims towards imperialistic or even world conquest aims - and still does. – J.Z., 12.12.07, 2.6.12. - MAJORITY, RIGHT & WRONG, CONQUESTS, INVASIONS, TERRITORIALISM, CONQUESTS MADE RIGHT BY MAJORITY RULE?

MAJORITIES: Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” – Robert Heinlein: Lazarus Long. – It can be right only in doing its own things for and to itself, at they own risk and expense. It should let all its involuntary victims and subjects go, i.e. secede, but stay where they are and associate voluntarily as they like, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal law, to do their own things among themselves. – J.Z., 29.12.10. - MAJORITY RULE, TERRITORIALISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, Q.

MAJORITIES: Does it not seem a vast waste of valuable human material that the pioneers of thought, those who by their genius dare to clear unknown paths in the art an sciences and in government, should have to conform to the dictates of that non-creative, slow-moving mass, the majority?” – Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.25.  – Even when the dissenters are wrong with their ideas, opinions and preferred institutions, should they not be free to try to realize them at their own expense and risk? – J.Z., 28.12.10.MAJORITY, INNOVATORS, PIONEERS, SCIENTISTS, REFORMERS, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

MAJORITIES: Even if it is a good idea, and even if 51 per cent of people agree, who has given them a greater right than the other 49 per cent? The government, that’s who. Again: It’s immoral and completely unnecessary.” – John Singleton with Robert Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.98. – However, among themselves, any group, large or small, should become free to practise any wrongs, errors or irrationalities, at the own expense and risk, at least for all the adults of such a group. We should only except e.g. child sacrifices and mass murder preparations from this ruling. – J.Z., 29.12.10. - & RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY, VOTING, TERRITORIALISM

MAJORITIES: Even worse, in three-party systems, minorities (as Adam Smith said) can coerce majorities almost twice as large (33.4 per cent can dictator to 55,6 per cent) as in recent years in Britain. Although the political process must be used for public goods proper, such as defence (*), it is not required for the many services that government does not have to supply at all. Here, as in education, medical care, housing and many other so-called ‘public’ services, it is possible to discover public demand by going behind mass voting for large numbers of policies and offering hypothetical choices between paying by taxes and by prices for individual services, as in the IEA Choice in Welfare studies ( quoted by Hutchinson and by Buchanan and Tullock in The Calculus of Consent ).” R. Harris & A. Seldon, Not From Benevolence, p.105. - - (*) Even defence should not be a territorial monopoly for a State government but, rather, the responsibility of volunteers of the population who appreciate, practice and want to defend their individual rights and liberties, against the own territorial government as well as against all other such governments and all others aggressors against such rights and liberties. Regarding the high price in blood and property for governmental defence and liberation see e.g. the US Civil War, WW I & WW II and the Vietnam War. – Territorial defence only seems necessary in many cases, against other territorial regimes, when the personal law and exterritorial autonomy liberation and self-government alternatives are ignored on both sides. - J.Z., 11.12.07. – The percentage of “independents”, who do cast decisive votes, on the side of either of the major parties, can even be much smaller still. Presently, we have only about half a dozen of such “independents” in the Australian Federal Parliament. Under panarchism these “independents” could go their own way, together with their supporters, without having to affiliate themselves with one of the other party in some or the other compromise. – J.Z., 29.12.10. – INDEPENDENTS, MAJORITY RULE COMBINED WITH MINORITY DOMINATION, PUBLIC SERVICES & PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES TO THEM, DEFENCE & TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM & GENUINE LIBERATION, PARTY POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM

MAJORITIES: Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power.  They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their hands.” - H. L. Mencken – We need full freedom for innovators, at their own risk and expense, as one of their basic rights. – Especially since the majorities and their “experts” have still left so many major problems unsolved, while leaving their real solutions outlawed.J.Z., 29.12.10. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIALISM, MAJORITY VS. INNOVATORS, PROGRESS, NEW IDEAS, TRUTHS, REFORMERS

MAJORITIES: For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by things that seem than by those that are.” – Machiavelli, quoted by Malcolm Muggeridge in Jesus Rediscovered. - Consequently, the majority should only rule the majority, while all non-aggressive minorities should get full exterritorial autonomy - if and to the extent that they want it. - J.Z. 6.4.89, 8.4.89. - So far the majorities were satisfied with the appearance of self-rule, although even they were, in reality, governed by a minority of politicians. Should it really be beyond the capacities of the majorities to accept for themselves a condition in which they would only rule themselves, directly or indirectly, and not also all the minorities with whom they disagree and which they are, presently, more or less forced to struggle with, subdue and keep subdued? Maybe a referendum would be successful, i.e., approved by the majority, which offered the majority full exterritorial autonomy, legally and constitutionally separated from all individual and minority group “trouble-makers”, by allowing these dissenters also their kind of exterritorial self-rule or self-management on the basis of their own personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. The majority might then adopt the attitude: Good riddance of fools and rubbish! - Naturally, that would apply only to all peaceful minorities, not to terrorists and other intolerant and aggressive minorities. – The majority might even be brought to realize that it does itself, pay most of the total amount of taxes raised, which it wrongly presumes as being paid by the very highly taxed rich people. - With all the exemptions, which at least some of the rich people can claim, these high income people may pay less in taxes, as percentages or even in totals, than some of the medium range of taxpayers do. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 6.12.07, 29.12.10, 2.6.12. - MAJORITY, MINORITIES, PANARCHISM, TAXATION

MAJORITIES: For the principle of majority rule is the mildest form in which the force of numbers can be exercised.  It is a pacific substitute for civil war in which the opposing armies are counted and victory is awarded to the larger before any blood is shed.” - Walter Lippmann. - Again, only the territorial model is taken into consideration. In the panarchistic model of voluntaristic and exterritorial autonomy for all groups of volunteers, the majority rules, too, but even when it constitutes the vast majority, a close to unanimous majority, one that allows dissenters to secede from it, it would then rules only over its volunteers. Thus and obviously, it would then be a much milder rule than any territorial majority rule, because then, internally, there would be almost unanimous agreement and no strongly protesting minorities, freedom fighters and terrorists against such a regime. It would tend to be a benign and paternalistic one,  a self-financing one, without acting parasitically upon dissenters and having to repress them or to persuade them by propaganda lies. Did Lippmann recognize this anywhere in his writings? - J.Z., 22.8.02, 2.6.12. – DIS.

MAJORITIES: I care less about how many people are behind me (or share my views) than about how right my views are. – J.Z., 14.12.83. – But on second thoughts I do care that I am not free to act upon my thoughts and ideas, at my own risk and expense. – I do wish this right for myself as well as for all others. - J.Z., 29.12.10.

MAJORITIES: If 50 million people say a stupid thing, it’s still a stupid thing.” – David Severn. - And if they do it, nevertheless, then this is even worse. Nevertheless, they should be free to do it as long as they do it only among themselves, at their own risk and expense. The same right and liberty is needed for every minority. In short: full experimental freedom for all! - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – PUBLIC OPINION, DISSENTERS, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT VS. TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

MAJORITIES: If a local majority, formed by all but one of the local inhabitants, would wish to secede, it should, naturally, be free to do so. But it should have no right, nor should it be granted the power, to make the single dissenter join or submit to its own preferences. - J.Z., 27.2.89, 3.4.89. - Naturally, the single dissenter should be free to secede even from such a large majority. Unless he prefers a hermit's existence he will, in this case, probably want to emigrate towards areas in which he can find some like-minded people. - J.Z., 17.9.04. - AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL, PANARCHISM

MAJORITIES: If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” – James Madison, in THE FEDERALIST, No. 51. Modern Library edition, p.339. – Obviously, this applies only under territorialism. Otherwise the majority would be free to do its things for and to itself but not to any of the non-aggressive minorities. – J.Z., 17.1.05. - MAJORITY RULE, TERRITORIAL DESPOTISM, VOTING, MINORITY RIGHTS, CONSENT, MANDATE, DEMOCRACY

MAJORITIES: If majorities were only extensively destructive that would not be so bad but they also create and maintain mass-murderous Frankenstein monsters, like territorial States and do prevent the birth of new, just, voluntary, rational and much better institutions, among volunteers. – Full freedom from majorities or territorial rulers is required, in the own affairs, at the own risk and expense, so that volunteers are free to develop and to set new standards and assure progress, finally copied even by the majorities in all country. – At least technical innovations are already free to spread from a few innovators and volunteers to the masses. – The same freedom is required for innovators in the political, economic and social spheres. It should be no more restricted than the supply of e.g. safety razors and ballpoint pens or of “organic” foods. - J.Z., 2.10.88. 5.12.07, 2.6.12. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

MAJORITIES: If the assumption is that the majority from their nature would do wrong, then the outlook for humanity and for civilization is indeed a poor one, and a scheme of government based on that assumption is in itself a condemnation of the nation and the race.” – Sir Ernest Benn, The State, The Enemy, p.120. – Alas, Benn, too, did not consider the possibility that the ever-changing majorities, as well as all the diverse minorities, could and should be confined to rule only over their own voluntary members, under personal laws. Territorial organization, laws and institutions, all of them, are great obstacles to enlightenment and free experimentation with alternatives. Bar for whole political, economic and social systems, we have long given up such nonsensical approaches to the remaining problems and allowed individuals and minorities to do their own things for or to themselves. We should expect the remaining majority to finally do likewise, just by persisting in its usual ways, but now exclusively at its own risk and expense, until even it becomes sufficiently enlightened by learning from its own bad experiences. – Would e.g. anti-Semitism have ever arisen if Jews would have had their own self-government, everywhere, under their own personal laws? How could one possibly blame any people who would only mind their own business? – J.Z., 4.12.07. - MAJORITY, DEMOCRACY, NATIONALISM, LIBERTY, HUMAN RACE, JEWS, ANTISEMITISM, SCAPE-GOATISM, BLAMING OTHERS RATHER THAN ONESELF – UNDER TERRITORIALISM, RACISM, NATIONALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

MAJORITIES: In a community where homosexuals outnumber heterosexuals, should the majority have the right to outlaw sex between married partners of the opposite sex?” - Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.52. - Yes, if it is an exterritorially autonomous community of volunteers, who, in this case, would be likely to be a 100 % majority. And, vice versa. - In spite of his clear thinking against majority despotism, I found no panarchist notions in this work. - J.Z., 22.12.07. – PANARCHISM & HOMOSEXUALITY

MAJORITIES: In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.), De Re Publica (54-51 B.C.). - But it should have power over itself and should concede to the minorities as well full exterritorial power over their own affairs. In short, it must renounce its unjust and self-defeating territorialism, monopolism, centralism, compulsion and coercion. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 29.12.10. – MINORITY AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY, REPUBLICANISM, POWER, PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAJORITIES: in all ordinary matters (*) there is no right on the part of the three to govern the two, or of the two to govern the three. Both must be content to govern themselves. Self-ruling, not each-other-ruling, was the goal in front of the world. It is merely, as they contended, one of the assumptions of governing pedantry to suppose that the whole five ought to be made to walk in the same path and wear the same intellectual uniform.” - Auberon Herbert, in the Mack edition, p. 206, Essay Five. - This assumption is a corollary of territorialism, extremely expressed by Adolf Hitler: "One people, one empire, one leader!"  - (*) Even more so in extraordinary matters! - Let them separate, make their own decisions and suffer the consequences of their actions themselves, rather than imposing them on those of other communities of volunteers. Let each group mind only its own business. Each will tend to be more careful then. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - MAJORITY RULE VS. SELF-RULE & PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM, MYOB

MAJORITIES: In every State, the government is nothing but a permanent conspiracy on the part of the minority against the majority, which it enslaves and fleeces.” – Michael Bakunin. – Territorialism leaves it no other option than rule or be ruled. – Moreover, only one minority can rule territorially and all others, including the majority, have to submit to it – under territorialism. By rights the majority should thus as much be interested in majority autonomy, as all rational and moral minorities should be interested in achieving exterritorial minority autonomy. But do they? Are they as yet moral and rational enough, as well as sufficiently informed? – J.Z., 2.1.08, 29.12.10. - MAJORITY, TERRITORIALISM

MAJORITIES: In fact, every advance in civilization – in the arts, in language, in science, in invention and discovery – has been achieved, not because of the wish of the majority, but by the constant work and urgent demands of a persistent few.” – Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.26. – Why should they remain confined to a territory-wide struggle rather than becoming liberated to realize their ideals immediately, among themselves, thus offering them to the majority and to other minorities also, as their choices for themselves, as soon as they are convinced by the practical proofs offered by pioneering minorities, which are then likely to be much sooner offered than they could be provided under territorialism. After centuries of struggle e.g. the Free Traders and the Limited Government advocates are still, largely, subdued or forced to submit to compromises and as a result the majorities have also for all too long missed out on the benefits of these two reforms, not to speak of all others, for all too long. – 29.12.10, 6.2.12. - MAJORITY, MINORITIES & INDIVIDUALS, CIVILIZATION & PROGRESS BY EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PIONEERING, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

MAJORITIES: In place of a highly stratified society, in which a few major blocs ally themselves to form a majority, we have a configurative society – one in which thousands of minorities, many of them temporary, swirl and form highly novel, transient patterns, seldom coalescing into a 51 per cent consensus on major issues.” - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.429/30. - The resulting compromises do seldom satisfy most people for long. – Voluntary and free market relationships, also in the sphere of political, social and economic systems, could, on the other hand, satisfy all these groups as far and as long as this is humanly possible and desired. – J.Z., 24.9.07, 29.12.10. - & MINORITIES, CLASS SOCIETY, CONFIGURATIVE SOCIETY, CONSENT, REPRESENTATIONS, TERRITORIALISM, COMPROMISES

MAJORITIES: In practice this majority opinion usually represents no more than the result of bargaining rather than a genuine agreement in principles.” – F. A. Hayek, Economic Freedom and Representative Government, p.11. – Compromises are no substitutes for sound principles and free as well as tolerant actions by all individuals or the different groups of volunteers. – J.Z., 29.12.10.

MAJORITIES: In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” - Galileo Galilei. - Nor is it in any of the “social sciences” – except, subjectively, for the prejudiced or mislead. Thus they should be free to practice their errors, opinions and spleens only among themselves, their own expense and risk, that is: not at the risk and expense of even a mere single objector. – Experimental freedom for majorities as well as for minorities! - J.Z. 5.4.91, 3.12.07, 29.12.10, 6.2.12. – However, the same results in a thousands separate experiments of the same kind do have at least some authority among natural scientists. In the “social sciences” we have only the same kind of flawed territorial reform attempts, dozens to thousands of times, e.g. price controls and the issue of legal tender monopoly money, with thousands of their failures on record – all with the same results. And yet these experiences are still and quite habitually ignored by the territorial rulers and the dissenters are not freed to avoid these wrongs and irrationalities among themselves. Thus there should be introduced full experimental freedom in the social sciences as well – thus turning them, finally, into genuine sciences as well, but always only among volunteers and only at the expense and risk of these volunteers. – That seems to be so self-evident and yet it is still not achieved for the victims of territorialism. - J.Z. 14.2.09, 29.12.10. - MAJORITY, DEMOCRACY, SCIENCE, SOCIAL SCIENCES, TOLERANCE, FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DOING THE OWN THINGS

MAJORITIES: In the world of thought, majorities count for nothing. Truth has always dwelt with the few.” – Robert G. Ingersoll. – Alas, the past and present territorial establishments did and do not rest upon thoughtfulness and correct ideas but upon popular errors, prejudices, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions. Usually and for a long time, only a few recognized truths and were captured or convinced by them, while the majorities, for all too long, went on ignoring them, regardless of the bitter price they had to pay for this themselves together with the minorities, whom they outvoted or overwhelmed. – Essentially it is territorialism and the suppression of experimental freedom for all, which makes this possible. We should become free to choose our favourite social, economic and political system for ourselves as much as we are already free to select from a menu or to purchase only those consumer goods and services that we really want for ourselves. – Let us individually opt for any solution offered, to escape any of the problems that are now constitutionally, legally, juridically – territorially – imposed upon us! – To each the own utopia – at the own risk and expense! – Together they would form a “meta-utopia”, as Nozick called it. – How many would subscribe to the current taxation and government spending system? Only they would still deserve them. - J.Z., 29.12.10. - & TRUTH, INFLATIONS, DEFLATIONS, CRISES, WARS, CIVIL WARS, DESPOTISM, TYRANNY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE FOR INDIVIDUALS & MINORITIES, TOO. WELFARE STATE, FREE CHOICE AMONG PUBLIC SERVICES, COMPETITIVELY OFFERED, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY & FREE ENTERPRISE IN EVERY SPHERE, EVEN FOR THE SUPPLY OF STATIST “SERVICES” TO THEIR WILLING VICTIMS. METAUTOPIA, NOZICK

MAJORITIES: Instead of 51 % of the people ruling 49 %, let 100 % rule 100 % simply by the 51 % ruling the 51% and the 49 % ruling the 49 %. – D.Z., 15.6.76. (He was 13 then.) – It is a very old idea, only independently re-discovered by him. – J.Z., 2.6.12. -  PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOTING, SELF-RULE, MAJORITY RULE, DEMOCRACY, AUTONOMY

MAJORITIES: Invariably, the idea of national self-determination is linked with the political process of election of parties into power by democratic majority vote, which is said to represent the “will of the people”. In fact, it represents the will of only some of the people, that of the most powerful and numerous political group, which may well choose (and, in history, often has chosen) a system which slaughters, enslaves or robs the minority. Yet the advocates of national self-determination would call the political ability to do these things a “right” or a “mandate”. It is worse than absurd to claim such a right …” - Dr. Duncan Yuille, on territorial Nationalism. - All these territorial political messes, compulsions or compromises, struggles and dissatisfactions, instead of letting all groups of volunteers doing their own things, in full exterritorial autonomy, under their own and self-chosen laws, institutions and systems! Man isn’t a territorial animal but all too many men sure “think” like them and, as a result, act like them. How much longer will it take until they finally get some better ideas into their thick heads? – J.Z., 9.12.07. - MAJORITY, MANDATE, PEOPLE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, RIGHTS,: MINORITIES, VOTING INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM

MAJORITIES: is it possible to make the majority responsible to the whole?” – W. G. Sumner, The Challenge of Facts, p.271. - If we did not allow, in the first place, any territorial majority to make decisions for the whole population, then we would not have to try to hold it responsible afterwards. If we allowed and even insisted that all dissenters be free to secede and manage their own affairs, with the majority running only its own, the cases for holding some people responsible to others would only rarely arise. Then, in the “public” affairs, we would have the same situation as we have now, when all people were are running only their own private affairs. With some intelligence and ingenuity almost all supposedly inevitably public affairs can be turned into private, cooperative of voluntary arrangements so that majority opinions would become irrelevant except for the affairs of the majority, where they would be decisive, while all minorities, who had seceded, would run their own shows, in all spheres, just like they do now in numerous permitted private spheres, from arts and games, entertainments to sports, reading and studying. – J.Z, 11.12.07, 2.6.12. - MAJORITY, MINORITY, PEOPLE, RESPONSIBILITY, Q.

MAJORITIES: It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people (*) there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.” – Lord Acton, (John E. E. Dalberg), The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877. Quoted in Seldes, also in FREE MAN’S ALMANAC, for May 11 & in THE FREEMAN, 9/75, p. 521. -  All the more important is the right of individuals and minorities to secede and organize exterritorially. - J.Z., 24.9.02. – (*) The majority never makes up the entire population of a country. – J.Z., 2.6.12. - MAJORITY VS. MINORITIES, DEMOCRACY, MINORITIES, MASSES, POWER, PEOPLE, TREASON, OPPRESSION, DESPOTISM

MAJORITIES: It is hard in all causes, but especially in religion, when voices shall be numbered and not weighed.” – Francis Bacon, Of Church Controversies. – Counting or weighing of voices or any other system of decision-making should be practised only among volunteers. – J.Z., 29.12.10, 2.6.12. – VOTING, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, CENTRALIZATION, TERRITORIALISM

MAJORITIES: it is possible, on occasion, to be rid of a dictators. But minorities find it quite difficult to rid themselves of the majority. (*) “Democratic socialism” is just as far from the ideal as is communism!” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.125. - (*) Especially when the right of individuals and of minorities to secede and to organize themselves under their own personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy is not yet recognized even by great minds and libertarians like Leonard E. Read was. – J.Z., 12.12.07. – There are some significant differences between territorial and democratic socialism and territorial and totalitarian communism, indicated e.g. by refugee streams from the latter to the former. – J.Z., 2.6.12. – MAJORITY, DEMOCRACY, TOTALITARIANISM, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

MAJORITIES: It took Voltaire and others of his kind half a century to convince the majority that it was being robbed and enslaved; and when a part of that majority was at last convinced, it did not use the educational method that had convinced them, but resorted to force to convince the rest. War, not logic, is the method of the mob. - - If majority rule is right, then we have no just complaint to make against existing conditions, for the majority favors them or it surely would change them. The majority looks to its politicians for guidance. The successful politicians never advance new ideas, knowing that they must stay by the majority, echoing only the sentiment of the majority, or they will lose their jobs. The real educator does his work at his own expense, sows the seed, builds up a movement, perhaps the politician snatches his idea, and the majority accepts his assertion and follows him.” - Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.26. - - The dissenters and innovators ought to be free to opt out and to try to demonstrate, among themselves, through their free actions, personal laws and competing institutions, whatever truths they believe to have discovered. In this way they can even pull along the majority, relatively fast, if they really have something good to offer and do convincingly demonstrate it. – J.Z., 10.12.07, 29.12.10. - MAJORITY, POLITICIANS, PROGRESS, LEADERSHIP, POLITICIANS, PANARCHISM, ENLIGHTENMENT

MAJORITIES: Majorities have the right to rule themselves – and no one else! – J.Z., 3.2.84.

MAJORITIES: Majority despotism for whole territories and all their people to be replaced by majority autonomy, combined with minority autonomy for all minorities desiring it for themselves, including individuals, desiring individual sovereignty, all at their own risk and expense. - The latter might be practicable only once all services, including protective services, are freely and competitively offered, like soap and bread, on a genuinely free market. Until then competing protective agencies, offering to their members their various package deals, will continue the "public affairs" tradition in its rightful parts, i.e. without the despotic impositions of territorialism and compulsory membership or subjugation to one more or less centralized regime. – J.Z., n.d. - MINORITIES & PANARCHISM

MAJORITIES: Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.” – John Adams 1793. – Majorities should not be bridled, either, but become exterritorially autonomous – just like all the minorities. – Self-responsibility and experimental freedom for all to replace territorialism and its monopoly powers and coercion and its all too few and usually under-informed and wrongful experiments, including others than volunteers. – J.Z., 9.2.09, 2.6.12. – DEMOCRACIES, DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

MAJORITIES: Mill realized … that the principle of majority-rule, which democrats had made their goal, bore no necessary connection with the liberties of the individual.” - Ivor Brown, English Political Theory, Methuen, London, 1920, p.119. - Professor Rummel has made a very strong case for there being a relationship between freedom, peace and democracy on the one hand and oppression, war and dictatorship on the other, but, obviously, democracy, even direct democracy, is just not good enough to solve all the remaining problems in our world. - If practised only exterritorially and only among volunteers, in free competition with all other systems, it would be as harmless as other, better and worse systems would be under this condition. - J.Z., 23.1.02, 2.6.12. – At least for all those, who did not join them or who left them in time. - MAJORITY PRINCIPLE & INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY & PANARCHY, SECESSIONISM

MAJORITIES: Neither current events nor history show that the majority rules, or ever did rule.” – Jefferson Davis, to J. F. Jaquess and J. R. Gilmore, July 17, 1864. – Rule over peaceful dissenters, who just want to have the freedom to do their own things for or to themselves, is always wrong, whether it is done by a majority or by a minority. They obvious way out of the territorialist dilemmas posed by their “rule or be ruled” “principles” and practices, consists in the general agreement or social contract to let the majority rule itself and let all the diverse minorities also rule themselves, all in accordance with their own convictions and beliefs, to the extent that they do desire this. Then, when something goes wrong or contrary to their expectations, they will have only their own choices and actions to blame. – - All my notes, remarks and formulas are to be taken as standing invitations to all other people to correct me and to offer better formulas, slogans etc. – It would be terrible if all had to depend on the limited reading of one man and on his own formulations. Whatever wisdom all of mankind has so far accumulated should be shared in optimal ways. - J.Z., 3.11.85, 10.7.86, 5.12.07. – Genuine self-rule, self-government or self-determination vs. territorialism, majority rule and representation via parties and voting for other candidates for public offices. Territorial politician and their henchmen, the bureaucrats, do always only constitute a wrongfully ruling minority. – J.Z., 2.6.12. 

MAJORITIES: No majority should be strong enough or authorized to uphold any monopoly. Any minority should be strong enough and free enough to break or ignore any monopoly. No majority should have any monopoly for decision-making – except over its own affairs only, i.e., its own voluntary members. – J.Z., 27.11.93, 3.12.07. & MONOPOLIES

MAJORITIES: One with the law is a majority.” – Calvin Coolidge, Speech of Acceptance, July 27, 1920. – A just man is a majority! – J.Z., 12.11.82.  -A just man should have the power of a majority. - One with natural law on his side ought to be able to outvote the majority. – However, rightfully only over his own affairs. – J.Z., 6.12.07, 9.12.07. – INDIVIDUALS, MAJORITY & JUSTICE

MAJORITIES: Panarchism does not force you to wait, hopefully or desperately, until the majority finally would become sufficiently enlightened to adopt your ideas. Instead, it would permit you to practise them now, tolerantly, together with like-minded people, however few they may still be, and thereby to contribute to achieving the enlightenment of the majority as fast as this can be done. – J.Z., n.d. - MAJORITY RULE COMPARED WITH PANARCHISM

MAJORITIES: Panarchism rather than minority or majority despotism. – J.Z., 29.12.04. – DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM

MAJORITIES: Panarchy means neither government by numbers nor government by the supposedly best (the elite, elected, appointed or born to the job) but, rather, genuine self-government, based upon individual choice. For all and everywhere this is possible only on the basis of individual secessionism and associationism, exterritoriality, autonomy and personal laws and self chosen institutions rather than territorial ones. In most minor spheres of living this panarchistic liberty has already been achieved. It has merely to be extended into the political, social and economic spheres. - J.Z., 9.2.88, 1.4.89, 2.6.12. - MINORITIES & SELF-GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY

MAJORITIES: Political thinkers have often noted the tendency of majorities to become as tyrannical as monarchs and aristocrats once were. De Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, provided a classic exposition of this dilemma in his chapter “Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States, and its Consequences”. – “When an individual or party is wronged …” De Tocqueville asks, “to whom can he apply for redress?” Spooner poses the same problem and argues that “the doctrine that the minority ought to submit to the will of the majority” really leaves the minority in a position of unconditional surrender – “subdued and enslaved”. – Charles Chiveley, p.7, in the introduction to Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, p.212. - TERRITORIALISM

MAJORITIES: Seeing the losses in lives, rights, liberties and wealth or prosperity involved, we should finally cease to think in terms of such primitive concepts and to practise them upon others than volunteers. – J.Z., 9.2.09. – Territorialism produces terrorism, violent revolutions, civil and international wars and also despotism, tyrannies and totalitarianism. – J.Z., 29.12.10. - TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION, VOTING, VOLUNTARISM

MAJORITIES: Seventh. The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that – however bloody – can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.” - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, I/9 in Works, vol. I.

MAJORITIES: That majority rule is meant only for rational beings, not for all forms of life, becomes obvious, is one were to make the thought experiment of giving the franchise to germs, viruses, animals and plants, fish, amobae, birds, etc. That “one man, one vote”, cannot safely be applied to infants and children is also relatively obvious. Also that madmen, violent criminals, fundamentalists, fanatics and terrorists ought to be excluded from them – apart from their own and communities of volunteers. There only they should be free to do each other in – in any way they like. – J.Z., 9.2.09, 29.12.10. – Do the more rational, educated and moral people usually form the majority or only one of the minorities? – J.Z., 2.6.12. – Q., PANARCHISM, SELF-RULE, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

MAJORITIES: The assumption is that we have to choose between a minority ruling a majority, or a majority ruling a minority. If that was all there was to it, then it would seem more just to have a minority submit to the wishes of the majority. However, the dichotomy rests on the assumption there are only two possibilities, when in fact there is a third: neither group rules the other. In other words, have all individuals free and autonomous, subservient to no group, no matter whether a majority or a minority.” – John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip van Australia. – Unless the dissenting individuals have joined a voluntary and competing governmental institution, a society or community of like-minded people, all of them under their own person laws and full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 12.12.07. – I had forgotten that they had committed themselves to this idea in their 297 pp, Cassell, Australia, 1977 book, one of the still all too few libertarian A to Z books. – Bob Howard lives now in Brisbane. I have only got his email address a short while ago: - J.Z., 29.12.10. - MAJORITY, MINORITIES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT OR SELF-DETERMINATION OR VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM & CENTRALIZATION & THEIR POWER “GAMES”.

MAJORITIES: The despotism of a majority is as little justifiable and as dangerous as that of one man.” (*) – Thomas Henry Huxley, On the Natural Inequality of Men, THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, January, 1890. – Thus individual secession and autonomy from either a majority, a minority or one man ought to be striven for, so that no one can any longer be territorially ruled or mis-ruled against his will. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 2.6.12. – (*) It may even be worse. For an intelligent and well informed king – by no means the rule – can well be better informed about some public problems than is the public opinion of the majority of people, with little interest in and information about anything but their private lives, jobs and hobbies. At least many wise sayings have been placed in the mouths of rulers or used by them, for their purposes. On the other hand, their power corrupts them, just like the power of majorities over minorities corrupts the majorities. – Panarchism is the way out of such dilemmas. - J.Z., 9.2.09. – PANARCHISM VS. MAJORITY RULE, MONARCHY & ANY OTHER DESPOTISM

MAJORITIES: the ever-present readiness of the majority (even in America) to oppress the minority.” – Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, p.127. - I would add: - requires that minorities, which wish to gain or retain their independence, become free to secede and to organize under full exterritorial autonomy and that their rights are guarded as well by volunteer militias for the protection of individual right and liberties. – J.Z., 6/73, 11.12.07. – MAJORITY, MINORITY AUTONOMY, SECESSIONISM

MAJORITIES: The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return.” - Gore Vidal. – Have voluntary communities and voluntary contribution and taxation systems been sufficiently publicized and discussed? Certainly not in governmentally controlled educational institutions. But, alas, also not yet among libertarians and anarchists. – J.Z., 4.1.08. - TERRITORIALISM, RULERS, POLITICIANS, THE SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS, STATISM, Q.

MAJORITIES: The growing cynicism about democracy must be combated by explaining why it has become corrupted. People have been taught that if they can get together big enough gangs, they have the legal power to hijack other citizens’ wealth, which means the power to hijack other people’s efforts, energies, and lives. No decent society can function when men are given such power. A state does need funds, but a clear cut-off line must be established beyond which no political group or institution can confiscate a citizen’s honorably earned property. – Simon, A Time for Truth, 221. – The clearest cut-off point is voluntary membership. Under it the seceded minorities have to finance their own projects and so has the majority that is left. – J.Z., 11.12.07. - MAJORITY RULE & DEMOCRACY

MAJORITIES: The majorities have the right to determine their own fates, subjugating or liberating themselves by their own representatives, freely elected by them, or by direct democracy referendum, binding only the majority or, e.g. by choosing for themselves some form of monarchy or other authoritarianism. However, they have no right to subjugate any dissenting and peaceful minorities to the systems and laws preferred by the majority in any territory. - J.Z., 21 1.99, 10.12.03. – DEMOCRACY, GENUINE SELF-RULE OR SELF-GOVERNMENT

MAJORITIES: The majority principle is sensible only within voluntary communities in which the minority goes along with a majority decision because it has no more convincing proposal and remains free to escape intolerant consequences by secession. But in a coercive organization like the State the majority principle amounts to aggressive force, which denies the equal right of all. – K. H. Z. SOLNEMAN, “LERNZIEL ANARCHIE”, Nr. 2, p.54.

MAJORITIES: the one who has educated himself to a higher degree can always assume that he will have the majority against himself.” - Goethe, “Sprueche in Prosa”, J.Z. tr. of: “… derjenige, der sich in hoeherem Sinne ausgebildet, kann immer voraussetzen, dass er die Majority gegen sich habe.” – That still would not matter as long as he is free to act alone or together with a small and similarly enlightened minority. – J.Z., 15.9.08, 2.6.12. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION

MAJORITIES: the principle of dividing every five men in the nation into two groups – a group of three men, who have all rights, and a group of two men, who have no rights, or turning the three men into those who own others, and the two men into those who are owned by others.” – Auberon Herbert, in Mack, Auberon Herbert, p.232. – “Divide and rule!” say the modern politicians and bureaucrats as well. -  It would be better to speak of control rather than ownership, as long as outright slavery is supposed to be abolished. But the result can be, largely, the same. – J.Z., 17.6.89, 10.12.07, 29.12.10. - MAJORITY RULE VS. RIGHTS, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY VS. SELF-OWNERSHIP & SELF-DETERMINATION, MINORITY AUTONOMY

MAJORITIES: The principle that some men, according to their numbers, ought to own and possess the selves, the faculties and property of other men? But your justice and your good sense at once condemn that principle as absurd. It means, not order, but eternal anarchy and strife for the world.” – Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion, in Mack edition of Auberon Herbert essays, p.177. – Rather, it means the disorder and chaos of all mutual attempts at territorial domination. Even Auberon Herbert adopted here the popular notion of anarchism and order. – J.Z. 111.1.07.

MAJORITIES: The voice of the majority is no proof of justice.” – Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller, Mary Stuart, II, 1800. - The most common version of his name is, I believe, is: ”Friedrich Schiller”. - The majority can justly rule only over itself and over aggressors or criminals against it. – J.Z., 10.7.86. - JUSTICE, MAJORITY RULE

MAJORITIES: The will of the majority to be rightful must be reasonable.” – Jefferson. – Even an unreasonable minority has the right to practise its unreasonableness among its own volunteers. Need one remind people of religious liberty and tolerance? – J.Z., 19.12.07.

MAJORITIES: There is no particle of truth in the notion that the majority have a right to rule, or to exercise arbitrary power over, the minority, simply because the former are more numerous than the latter. Two men have no more natural right to rule one, than one has to rule two. Any single man, or any body of men, many or few, have a natural right to maintain justice for themselves, and for any others, who may need their assistance, against the injustice of any and all other men, without regard to their numbers; and majorities have no right to do any more than this. The relative numbers of the opposing parties have nothing to do with the question of right.” - Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, Works II/207. – However, when it comes to a defence against a majority, then it would be wise to attempt to dissolve this majority into its constituent factions or minorities, offering them full exterritorial autonomy, under their own personal laws as well, all only by individual choice. – J.Z., 11.12.070. - MAJORITY, PANARCHIES & MILITIAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

MAJORITIES: True, the majority seldom says distinctly and deliberately: “This is good for US, and hence it must be”; it generally says: “This is good for all of us, and therefore it must be.” But, on the other hand, there stands the minority protesting and insisting that “That is good for all of us!” – Victor Yarros, LIBERTY, 30.5.1896, p.2. – The peace- justice- and freedom promoting way out of such dilemmas consists in giving up territorial rule and introducing instead full exterritorial self-determination for the majority and for all minorities that desire it. In other words, by turning compulsory membership and subordination into voluntary relationships, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. In the process each side would be a winner. No one would lose anything that he rightfully owns. - J.Z., 5.12.07.

MAJORITIES: Truth is not determined by majority vote.” – Doug Gwyn. - Indeed not. But whether ideas are correct or not, the holders ought to be free to practise them among themselves, independent of the views and approval of majorities, of existing constitutions, laws, states and bureaucracies, but always only at their own risk and expense. Majorities also, not only minorities, do have the right to practise their flawed opinions among themselves. - J.Z. 26. 11. 06. - PANARCHISM, ERRORS & TRUTHS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, TOLERANCE, VOTING, ELECTIONS

MAJORITIES: Under panarchism any majority has only the right to rule itself. And so has every minority in every territory. The same applies to all majorities and all minorities, in every territory, which want to somehow confederate or federate with like groups in other countries of the world and across all presently existing or future “set” territorial borders. – J.Z., 13.10.96, 9.1.99. - & PANARCHISM, MINORITIES, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, DEMOCRACY

MAJORITIES: Under the wrong assumption that there can be or ought to be only one organization for one purpose and that (whenever unanimity in decision making cannot be achieved) the majority can rightly determine not only its own fate but also that of dissenting minorities, and that these minorities do not have the right to secede from the main body, individually or in groups, we have for all too long imposed majority decision-making upon all people living an a territory. But there is no magic number at which combined actions of members becomes possible. Majority voters could always do their own thing, at their own expense and risk, while leaving all dissenters alone to determine their own fate. And if internal friction, sometimes going to civil wars and promoting international ones, is to be avoided, if each reformist step is to be given its maximum chance for realization, under optimal conditions, i.e. based upon unanimous support and preventing any kind of resistance or sabotage from dissatisfied insiders, then exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups, based upon personal laws and free individual secessionism and associationism, is the way to go. The customer should be king, in this sphere, too. - J.Z., 1.4.89, based on some notes of 11.2.87. - The public service preferences of the majority should no more be imposed upon the minorities than their menu, fashion or sports preferences. Services preferred by the majority can, obviously, be financed and provided by it. Those wanted by the minorities are their problem and they should be left free to provide them for themselves. - Numerous minority tastes are already catered for by numerous shops and supermarkets. Probably only very rarely will shopping carts be filled exactly alike by different people. - J.Z., 17.9.04. – MAJORITIES TO BECOME EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS, TOO, BUT NO LONGER TO REMAIN TERRITORIALLY DESPOTIC: PANARCHISM

MAJORITIES: Were it necessary to bring a majority into a comprehension of the libertarian philosophy, the cause of liberty would be utterly hopeless. Every significant movement in history has been led by one or just a few individuals with a small minority of energetic supporters.” – Leonard E. Read. (*) - The logical conclusion from this is: Full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of voluntary communities and experiments, or panarchism, with a multitude of peacefully competing panarchies, all only under personal laws. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – (*) If this is a recognized fact then we should conclude from this that all dissenting minorities should be given full freedom of action and experimentation, under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, no mater how much we may disagree with their laws and institutions. Territorial monopolies for political, economic and social systems will, inevitably, prevent or slow down progress in these spheres. – J.Z., 2.1.08.  - MINORITIES & LIBERTARIANISM, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, EDUCATION & OTHER VERBAL ENLIGHTENMENT ATTEMPTS, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, MINORITY RIGHTS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

MAJORITIES: When a majority rules, a minority is ruled.” – Robert Klassen, 10/3/02. - Actually, in most cases more than one minority is ruled then. Even the "majorities" are usually merely temporary alliances of different factions and, under territorialism, they are not quite free to rule themselves without encountering much opposition. – J.Z. – MINORITY AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, MAJORITY RULE:

MAJORITIES: When any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community (*) they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. For that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being one body, must move one way, it is necessary the body should move that way the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority.” - John Locke, Treatises on Government, II, 1690. - As if individual and group secessions were not rightful or possible and could not lead to voluntarism and genuine self-government and consent of every individual. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - (*) Which communities, political ones, were and are established in that way, apart from the free associations in commerce, the arts, hobbies, sports etc.? - Ignorance of or non-appreciation of alternatives to majority rule is not to be misinterpreted as full individual consent to majority rule. - Why should every enlightened individual or minority group be held back by majority rule of people who are less enlightened on a particular subject? - J.Z., 3.11.85. - Majority rule should only be applied to those who do individually consent to it. For individuals and minorities the dissent and self-government options must be kept open. They are rightful and also can achieve much more than majority rule can. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM UNITY SPLEEN, CONSENT, DIS.

MAJORITIES: Wherever this line may be best taken, not only abstract speculation, but the practical and spontaneous tact of the world, has decided that there are limits, alike in the interest of majority and minority, to the rights of either to disturb the other. In other words, it is expedient in certain affairs that the will of the majority should be absolutely binding, while in affairs of a different order it should count for nothing, or as nearly nothing, as the sociable dependence of a man on his fellows will permit.” – John Morley, On Compromise, p.103. – However, to reduce all clashes between them to a minimum, majorities should be able to separate themselves from all minorities and all minorities should be free to separate themselves from the majority and all other minorities living in the same area, e.g. by living under personal laws and exterritorially autonomous institutions rather than territorial ones. The main compromise would then exist in each leaving the others as far as possible alone, apart from free exchanges. – J.Z., 8.12.07, 6.2.12. -  & MINORITIES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, SELF-GOVERNMENT, COMPROMISES VS. UNCOMPROMISING SELF-GOVERNMENT

MAJORITIES: Why, he asks, should there be any more magic in numbers than in a king, a tyrant or an oligarchy? The accident that three people may prefer one thing while two people may prefer another hardly justifies the rule of the three over the two. If there is common ownership - say of a piece or property - a majority vote is a convenient way of settling differences. But when ownership is not involved, rule by majority vote can be just as tyrannical as rule by a dictator.” - John Chamberlain, on Auberon Herbert, in THE FREEMAN, 6/79. - Alas, under territorialism common ownership in public property and in decision-making power is hypothesized and territorialism simply does not allow all groups to make their own decisions for themselves in all the sphere that it has territorially monopolized to itself. Thus the mutual domination attempts in this system, rather than letting each group go its own way, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, all for volunteers only. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - MAJORITY RULE

MAJORITIES: would not allow themselves to be swamped by mere numbers.” – Lord Action, Lectures on Modern History, p.295, on smaller States vs. the larger States of the USA. – Better: Autonomous minorities would not let themselves be swamped by mere numbers, except among their own kind of volunteers. And even then secession would always be an option for the remaining dissenters. – J.Z., 9.2.09. – MINORITY RIGHTS, SECESSIONISM, AUTONOMY

MAJORITY AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL: If a local majority, formed by all but one of the local inhabitants, would wish to secede, it should, naturally, be free to do so. But it should have no right, nor should it be granted the power, to make the single dissenter join or submit to its own preferences. - J.Z., 27.2.89, 3.4.89. - Naturally, the single dissenter should be free to secede even from such a large majority. Unless he prefers a hermit's existence he will, in this case, probably want to emigrate towards areas in which he can find some like-minded people. - J.Z., 17.9.04.

MAJORITY DESPOTISM: Panarchism rather than minority- or majority- despotism. – J.Z., 29.12.04.

MAJORITY DESPOTISM: The despotism of a majority is as little justifiable and as dangerous as that of one man." - Thomas Henry Huxley, On the Natural Inequality of Men, THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, Jan. 1890. - Thus individual secession and autonomy from either a majority, a minority or one man ought to be striven for, so that no one can any longer be territorially ruled. - J.Z. 5.4.89.

MAJORITY DESPOTISM: There is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." - Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, 1742. - NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, LAW, JUSTICE

MAJORITY RULE COMPARED WITH PANARCHISM:  Panarchism does not force you to wait, hopefully or desperately, until the majority finally would become sufficiently enlightened to adopt your ideas. Instead, it would permit you to practise them now, tolerantly, together with like-minded people, however few they may still be, and thereby to contribute to achieving the enlightenment of the majority as fast as this can be done.

MAJORITY RULE, TERRITORIAL DESPOTISM, VOTING, MINORITY RIGHTS, CONSENT, MANDATE, DEMOCRACY: If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” – James Madison, in THE FEDERALIST, No.51. Modern Library edition page 339. – Obviously, this applies only under territorialism. Otherwise the majority would be free to do its things for and to itself but not to any of the non-aggressive minorities. – J.Z., 17.1.05.

MAJORITY, DEMOCRACY, SCIENCE, SOCIAL SCIENCES: In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. - Galileo Galilei. - Nor is it anywhere else - except for the thousands and at their expense and risk. J.Z. 5.4.91.

MAJORITY: For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often influenced by things that seem than by those that are." - Machiavelli, quoted by Malcolm Muggeridge, in Jesus Rediscovered. - Consequently, the majority should only rule the majority, while all non-aggressive minorities should get full exterritorial autonomy - if and to the extent that they want it. - J.Z. 6.4.89, 8.4.89.

MALATESTA: Unter Anarchisten und Sozialisten. (Among Anarchists and Socialists), in: Gesammelte Schriften, Band 1, S. 138: "Aber wie oft sollen wir denn noch wiederholen, dass wir niemandem etwas aufzwingen wollen, dass wir es weder fuer moeglich noch wuenschenswert halten, den Menschen mit Gewalt zu ihrem Wohl zu verhelfen, und dass wir nur wollen, dass uns niemand seinen Willen aufzwingt, dass niemand den anderen eine Form gesellschaftlichen Lebens aufzwingen kann, die nicht frei akzeptiert ist?" - Zitiert von ROF CANTZEN, Freiheit unter saurem Regen, S. 27. – (How often shall we have to repeat that we do not want to force anything upon anyone, that we consider it neither possible nor desirable to force people into what would be best for them and that we merely desire that no one forces his will upon us and that no one can impose any form of social life upon others which they have not freely accepted?) The heading does already indicate that he favored this kind of panarchism only among anarchists and socialists. Towards others he was, I believe, just as intolerant as most of the left anarchists are. Thus I was never attracted to his writings. - J.Z., 17.9.04.

MALEIN, NIKOLAI SERGIEVITCH: Civil Law & the Protection of Personal Rights in the USSR, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1985, 238pp. "Real socialism, theory and practice", "personality (law), Soviet Union". With bibliography.  – Contains, probably, more paper fiction than facts. But even these can be interesting as concessions to ideas that are somewhat popular among involuntary victims. - J.Z., 25.1.99.

MALEVOLENCE: Conscious malevolence rarely, if ever, controls actions. - - If no person is consciously malevolent, then it follows that imputing bad motives to others is a mistake. And, if this be an alienating influence, then it behooves us who would make friends for freedom to discover what really causes the friction. Animosity need not accompany ideological differences, if we know why the differences (*) and if we correctly act on the knowledge.” – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.136. – The most correct attitude towards ideological differences is tolerance, for their verbal expression as well as for their tolerant practice among their believers. – That requires full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of beliefs and convictions that can be tolerantly practised by volunteers among themselves. – Not only e.g. capitalism among consenting adults but also any kind of communism or socialism among consenting adults. – With that tolerance realized, mere verbal arguments become largely superfluous or futile. Actions speak louder than words and provide better proofs or refutations. – (*) occurred? Exist? – J.Z., 14.12.07, 29.12.10, 2.6.12. - BENEVOLENCE, VOLUNTARISM & TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS

MALTESE ORDER: Other Entities, Nanni v. Pace and the Sovereign Order of Malta, from: D.J. Harris, Cases & Materials on International Law, 3rd. ed., London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1983, 2pp: 102, in PP 1539. -- HARRIS, J. J.: Cases and Materials on International Law, 3rd. ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1983, indexed, 810pp, JZL. Almost the only relevant information that I could find in it is a case in Italy. 1935-1937, in which the sovereignty of the Order of Malta was recognized. Pages: 123-124. - - REYNOLDS, MACK: Ace Books, Inc., N.Y. 1968, has on page 131 a note on the sovereign order of the Maltese: "It was a sovereign country with its own citizens, ambassadors, air force, licence plates and so forth and it occupied the second floor of a villa in Rome, as its sole territory." JZL.

MALTESERS: An order of knights, still existing, that enjoys a degree of exterritorial autonomy. But, almost as an involuntary joke, the Soviet Union was its official "protector"! - - FRANCISCIS, AZIO DE: In der Via Condotti, DIE WELT, 3.3.1955, p. 3 - an article on the sovereign order of the Maltese, internationally recognized, oldest government-in-exile in the world. 4,000 members, 440 in Germany. They enjoy diplomatic privileges & exemption from custom duties for their personal requirements. See the following article, in German: (File:  Pan Maltesers & Tanger, in German) - - - DIE WELT, 3.3.1955, Nor. 52, Seite 3: Von unserem Korrespondenten, Azio de Franciscis: IN DER VIA CONDOTTI … Das Spiel um den 77. Ordens-Grossmeister der Malteser. Rom, 2. März: In einem unauffälligen Palais in der eleganten Via Condotti in Rom residiert die älteste Exilregierung der Welt: Der Staatsrat des souveränen Ordens der Malteserritter. Über zweieinhalb Jahrhunderte herrschte der Orden auf Malta, dann wurde er von Napoleon vertrieben, und später gab England die strategisch wichtige Insel den rechtmäßigen Herren nicht zurück. 157 Jahre dauert schon das Exil, aber die Souveränität des Malteserordens, dessen Führung sich ausschließlich aus dem ältesten europäischen Adel katholischer Konfession rekrutiert, ist bis heute international anerkannt. Unübersehbar das Schild am Toreingang des römischen Palais neben dem Wappen mit dem weißgezackten Kreuz auf rotem Grund: „Exterritoriales Gebiet." - - Wieviel von dieser Tradition in die zweite Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts hinübergerettet werden kann, wird sich in diesen Tagen entscheiden. Seit 1951 sind die Beziehungen zwischen den katholischen Malteserrittern und dem Heiligen Stuhl gespannt. Aus welchen Gründen ist nur zum Teil klar. Menschliches, Allzumenschliches ist auf beiden Seiten mit im Spiel. Einen Nachfolger für den vor vier Jahren verstorbenen 76. Ordens-Großmeister Fürst Chigi Albani della Rovere gibt es jedenfalls bisher nicht. Dem Papst war keiner der ihm vom Orden vorgeschlagenen 28 Kandidaten recht. Seine Billigung ist aber nach den Ordensstatuten unerläßlich. - - - Auf päpstliche Weisung - Pius XII. drängt auf eine Modernisierung des Ordens, Nicht länger soll der Geburtsadel das Hauptkriterium für die Aufnahme in die Organisation sein. Auch soll der neuen Elite ein Mitregierungsrecht eingeräumt werden. Vor wenigen Tagen wurde ein handgeschriebenes Dekret Pius XII. veröffentlicht, aus dem hervorgeht, daß eine Kardinalskommission zur Prüfung der vom Orden auf päpstliche Weisung selbst ausgearbeiteten Reformvorschläge eingesetzt worden ist. Es ist kein Geheimnis, daß es im Vatikan starke Bestrebungen gibt, den Malteserorden nicht nur wie schon immer in religiöser Hinsicht, sondern auch in seiner weltlich-karitativen Tätigkeit, auf die er sich seit über 75 Jahren konzentriert, der Kirche zu unterstellen und damit praktisch einzuverleiben. Die rund 4000 Malteser aus 21 Nationen wollen aber bei aller Ergebenheit gegenüber dem Heiligen Stuhl die Eigenständigkeit ihres Ordens, des ältesten existierenden Ritterordens überhaupt, bewahren. - - Eine Donquichotterie? Ein Musterbeispiel von mondänem Anachronismus? Ein bloßer Vorwand, am paepstlichen Hof und in der weltlichen Gesellschaft mit praechtigen Uniformen zu glänzen und Orden zu verteilen? - - Hier und da mag die Eitelkeit eines der Motive sein. Anderseits aber kann der Orden auf folgende Leistungen hinweisen: Er unterhält fast in allen Erdteilen insgesamt über 40 Krankenhäuser und Ambulatorien für arme Leute, darunter zwei Hospitäler in der Bundesrepublik — eines in Flensburg, das zweite in Bockum-Hövel in der Nähe von Hamm in Westfalen, ferner zehn Heime und Erholungsstätten vorwiegend für Kinder — in Westdeutschland allein fünf - , eine Anzahl medizinischer Institute (zum Beispiel für Leprakranke in Uganda und für Diabetiker in Neapel) und schließlich etwa je 20 eigene Land- und Seeflugzeuge, die in Italien für Katastrophenfälle zum Transport von Verunglückten und Verletzten und von Medikamenten bereitstehen. - - Ihr Hoheitszeichen ist das Malteserkreuz. Bei den Überschwemmungen in Holland, Bayern und Österreich griff der Orden helfend ein. Während des letzten Weltkrieges hatte er auf beiden Seiten Kriegslazarette. Der Ordensstaat ohne Land ist einer der Mitgründer des Internationalen Roten Kreuzes und hat einen ständigen Vertreter an dessen Sitz in Genf. - - Die Organisation der Malteserritter hat große Besitzungen jenseits des Eisernen Vorhanges verloren, ist aber noch reich genug, um höchst respektable Hilfswerke zu finanzieren. Viele Ritter vererben dem Orden ihr Vermögen. - - Die Malteser sind keine Mönche. Sie leben wie normale Sterbliche und sind im übrigen Ärzte, Rechtsanwälte, Gelehrte, Kaufleute oder üben andere Berufe aus. Nur die höchste Rangklasse der Justizritter — zurzeit rund 30, von denen jeder sowohl väterlicher- als auch mütterlicherseits von mindestens 250jährigen Adelsgeschlechtern abstammen muß — legt das Gelübde der Keuschheit, des Gehorsams und der Armut ab, das letztere jedoch nicht in streng franziskanischem Sinn. - - Die  Souveränität des  Ritterordens hat eine lange Geschichte. Die Malteser nahmen im 11. Jahrhundert — damals Johanniter genannt — am ersten Kreuzzug teil. Nach dem Verlust Jerusalems zogen die Kreuzritter, die in Hospitälern die „Armen Christi” pflegten, 1310 nach Rhodos und 1530 nach Malta. Kaiser Karl V. hatte ihnen dieses Eiland zu ewigem Lehen gegeben. Der souveräne Status des Ordens datiert aber schon seit der Zeit seiner Herrschaft auf Rhodos. Er ist außer beim Heiligen Stuhl wie ein regulärer Staat diplomatisch in 15 Ländern: in Spanien, Portugal, Brasilien, Argentinien und fast allen kleineren süd- und mittelamerikanischen Staaten vertreten und steht in offiziellen Beziehungen mit Frankreich, Italien, Belgien und der Bundesrepublik. - - - Missionschef nach Bonn - - Nach Bonn soll ein Missionschef im Range eines Gesandten delegiert werden. Es gibt gegenwärtig 440 deutsche Malteserritter. Die leitenden Funktionaere des Ordens und seine Gesandten geniessen diplomatische Privilegien, auch die Zollfreiheit fuer ihren persoenlichen Bedarf. Ihre Wagen tragen das internationale CD-Zeichen. - - Das Urteil eines vom Papst zur Präzisierung des rechtlichen Status des Malteserordens einberufenen Kardinals-Tribunals bestätigte vor zwei Jahren die doppelte Eigenschaft des Ordens: Als religioese Gemeinschaft unterstehe er dem Heiligen Stuhl, als weltlicher Souverän genieße er jedoch gewisse Sonderrechte. - - In wenigen Tagen wird man erfahren, wie die unerläßliche „Demokratisierung” des Malteser-Ritterordens aussehen und vor allem in welchem Maße ihm der rechtliche Sonderstatus erhalten bleiben wird, den er zur vollen Entfaltung seiner auch von nichtkatholischer Seite sehr geschätzten humanitären Arbeit braucht. - Azio de Franciscis - P.S.: Ich habe keine Nachricht ueber die Folgen gefunden. Vielleicht gibt das Internetz darueber einige Auskunft? – J.Z., 9.12.04.  Frey, 01, says that it has ambassadors in several national capitals. - However, exterritorial autonomy should be used for much ore than charitable or humanitarian actions. - Sexual abstinence, combined with religious notions, may have helped them to ignore these rightful alternatives for all too many centuries. Moreover, they have ceased to be warriors for what is right. Thus they might be compared, by now, with e.g. the Apex or the Rotary Club. Territorial States tolerate charitable activities because they do not threaten their power base or not enough. They should be ashamed, though, seeing how much in taxes they spend on their Welfare State activities - and yet leave so much to be done still by private charities. Both could be largely replaced by sound social insurance arrangements, all without any kind of government interference, legislation and regulation. - J.Z., 20.10.11.

MAN & PROGRESS: How fast should we be expected to advance from the primitive semi-ape man towards an almost perfect man? Not faster than is humanly possible but also as fast as we can make it. That does require individual choice regarding all development options and free associationism and disassociationism, all at the own expense and risk. That has long been recognized as a basic requirement for speech and writing, art, technical and scientific innovation, cultural and sports development, religious and educational efforts. This kind of freedom of action and experimentation is relatively new and not practised only in the political, social and economic system spheres, which are still monopolized by territorial States. It will be as successful there, too. - J.Z., 17.9.87, 1.4.89.

MAN, HIS FREEDOM & DESTINY: Man must be free to settle man's destiny." - Poul Anderson, Conflict, p. 62, story: High Treason. - Rather: The individual must become free to settle his or her own destiny. - J.Z., 24.4.88, 26.12.11, 2.6.12.

MAN: A forced association with a territorial State can be much worse than an enforced marriage or even a polygamy marriage with partners not chosen by oneself. – Already Aristophanes wrote a comedy against non-discrimination by age, in an egalitarian “society”, in which young women men were forced to provide sexual services to old men and young men to old women, i.e. none were chosen by the individual service providers. – Now imagine multiple and territorially imposed obligations of that or any other kind, upon whole populations, which we do already have via taxation and enforced obedience to xyz rules imposed upon us. Panarchistic individual choices would free us from such chains or “duties” as much as we want to be freed. – We all “belong”, as humans, to the over-all human society, to some extent, but we are not its property, it is, after all, not a person but an abstract notion, nor do we belong or ought to obey any particular society or system or territorial State that was not chosen by ourselves, individually. - J.Z., 10.2.09, 30.12.10. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, FREE EXCHANGE EVEN IN THE SPHERE OF LOVE OR SEXUAL RELATIONS 

MAN: A real man wanted only to be left alone by all authority, to be neither taxed nor pampered. The only government he should rightly desire is that which protects him, and all men, from force by another man or group of men that would stop him from living his own life.” – Con Sellers: Mr. Tomorrow, p.78. – Where is such a government on offer? Where and when did it ever exist? – J.Z., 14.12.07. - Only through freely competing governments or communities, all confined to like-minded volunteers and exterritorial autonomy under personal law can we hope to approach the ideal “man” and the ideal society close enough and soon enough. – J.Z., 14.12.07, 20.12.10. - ADAPTABILITY, CONFORMISM, NON-CONFORMISM, CHARACTER, INDIVIDUALISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS

I had several times trouble with this segment. I was unable to turn the red into black. Part of the paragraph disappeared and all the catchwords lost their bold print. It has something to do with the formatting choices A/A, but experimenting with them did not eliminate the problem for me. Perhaps one has to retype that section in black. - John

MAN: Ah! When shall all men’s good / Be each man’s rule, and universal peace / Lie like a shaft of light across the land?” – A. Tennyson. – When each man’s and each voluntary group’s self-rule, in all the lands, is finally and generally seen to be for all men’s good, criminals and aggressors excepted. – J.Z., 26.4.06, 11.9.07. - GOODNESS, COMMON GOOD, ALTRUISM, PEACE, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM & STATISM

MAN: All at once I felt myself dazzled by a thousand sparkling lights. … I realized} that man is by nature good, and that only our institutions have made him bad.” - Jean Jacques Rousseau, Letter to Malherbes, January 12, 1762. – We should advance from compulsory and territorially imposed constitutions and “social contracts” to individually and freely chosen ones, all without a territorial monopoly but exterritorially autonomous, to find out what some men are capable of almost immediately and most people at least in the long run. – Territorialism casts us into moulds that cripple and deteriorate us. – As sovereign consumers for all services and associations most of us will not for very long or forever make the worst choices. Many who, initially, did so, will come to opt out of them. - J.Z., 30.12.10. - GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, INSTITUTIONS, GOODNESS, PANARCHIST CHOICES.

MAN: All living things, with the exception of nearly all men, in 1977, are true to themselves. Fish are true to themselves, Amoeba are true to themselves. - - Men are not. Men and women, as children, are told that they are evil. This is a crime. Christianity is a crime against the human spirit.” – Zarlenga, The Orator, 41. – They were also subjected to the lie that they ought to be subjects of territorial States – and all too many of them still believe it. They believe in a powerful “Big Brother” just like all too many still do believe in a loving and benevolent as well as wise “father” or “God” in “Heaven” and manage to ignore or rationalize away masses of contrary evidence, stretching over thousands of years. All the more important it is that those relatively enlightened are no longer forcefully subjected to these false faiths and corresponding actions and institutions of the masses and thus become free to try living, working and exchanging as more and more free men, in accordance with the best in man’s nature, and thus to set shiny and attractive examples to all others. – J.Z., 30.12.10. - CHRISTIANITY, HUMAN NATURE, SELF-APPRECIATION, SELF-REALIZATION, SELF-RESPECT, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-DETERMINATION, RATIONAL SELFISHNESS, FREEDOM, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, SIN, EVIL, FAITH, RELIGIONS, GOD, INDIVIDUALISM, TERRITORIALISM, BIG BROTHER, STATISM, EMANCIPATION INSTEAD OF FAITHFUL OR COMPULSORY SUBORDINATION: TERRITORIALISM.

MAN: All of us are being continuously tested as human, rational and moral beings – and almost all of us, if not all, are continuously failing, to a large extent, where it really matters. Just look at the messes we made of things or those we tolerated for all too long, e.g. mass extermination devices, and government-caused wars, inflations, deflations and mass unemployment and mass poverty. – J.Z., 4.3.84, 13.12.07, 24.12.07. – We still haven’t shown sufficient interest in all genuine individual rights and liberties and in having them finally and optimally declared. Instead, most of us still remain attached to many fixed and false ideas and become correspondingly victimized by their consequences. E.g.: Territorialism, collective responsibility, nuclear strength, monetary despotism, equality, unity, law and order, “voting”, majority rule – and thousands of other popular errors, prejudices, myths, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions, nowhere systematically collected and refuted in one digitized reference work, cheaply and easily accessible to all. Nor have we so far bothered to make accessible to all of us, mankind’s best ideas and talents, via an Ideas Archive and Talent Centre and full experimental freedom for communities of volunteers, thus largely wasting our greatest resources. – J.Z., 30.12.10.

MAN: An individualist, if a purist, looks upon society as the upshot, outcome, effect, recapitulation incidental to what is valued above all else, namely, each distinctive individual human being. The goal is Creation’s finest image: man singular! This is the so-called micro view of life.” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.79/80. – What would man be like if he did not grow up in society, through free exchange with members of society, indirectly millions of them? – Man, who is free, peaceful, just and tolerant, while in society and surrounded by xyz different societies, is the only human being who can become really human and humane. Men quite on their own do deteriorate. They do then fail to grow to their full potential. – J.Z., 14.12.07. – Laissez faire does not mean isolation of single individuals but free interactions. Free individuals, only voluntarily and to mutual advantage associated. – J.Z., 30.12. 10. – INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, FREE SOCIETY, FREE EXCHANGE.

MAN: Are not church steeples an affront to the principles of equality? There is not equality and cannot be. People are born with unequal gifts.” - - “Precisely because of this”, answered Lichtenberg, “because men are born with unequal gifts and the strong would gobble up the weak, people have united into societies and have introduced a greater equality through the rule of law. (*) Is the so-called balance of power in Europe any different? It would be certainly better to say: Balance of power between classes, rather than equality.” - Carl Brinitzer, A Reasonable Rebel, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1960, p.176. – Did L. envision different panarchies for all the different classes, perhaps even one within which class differences would be maintained? – Thereby he would certainly have done away with compulsory class distinctions, privileges and discriminations. - J.Z., 17.9.07. – (*) They should have introduced individual liberty through free choice of personal laws and exterritorially autonomous societies and communities. False fixed ideas are still dominating all too much of our lives. – Attempts to balance the power between territorial States has only led to more and more wars and costly arms races during the armistices in-between. – Classes, too, should be self-chosen and open, rather than imposed. – The Augean Stables full of the excrements of men’s mental immaturity: flawed ideas and opinions have still to become cleaned, best by an equivalent of flooding them out. - J.Z., 30.12.10. - MAN’S INEQUALITY, EQUALITY, EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUALLY AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM, BALANCE OF POWER, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS OF POPULAR ERRORS, PREJUDICES ETC., ENLIGHTENMENT

MAN: As Charles Mackay expressed it in the preface to the 1852 edition of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they recover their senses slowly, one by one.” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, 113. – Human herd animals to become more and more individualized and thus civilized, enlightened and mature, free, just, peaceful, prosperous and progressive. – Territorialism does not promote that. The free individual choices under the experimental freedom for exterritorially autonomous communities and societies of volunteers would achieve that, perhaps only slowly in the average, for a few people fast, and all-over with as much certainty as is possible for human beings. – In the social sciences and by the same means, we have finally to achieve the same progress as we already have in natural sciences and in technology and in all other spheres, where free competition is already taken for granted. Only in the religious sphere has it led to peace between the various religions, in most cases, but not to genuine enlightenment, for those who remained religious. - J.Z., 10.2.09, 30.12.10. - IN HERDS OR AS INDIVIDUALS, COMPETITION, CHOICE, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE & DO THE OWN THING, RELIGIONS

MAN: At his best man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice, he is the worst.” – Aristotle, Politics, I, C. 322 B.C. – Dogmas like this have remained un-contradicted for all too long. - Rather than territorially imposed laws and justice systems he needs and is entitled to personal laws and diverse justice systems, all individually chosen only for like-minded people, rather than imposed by territorial rulers or parliaments, at best only with the support of a temporary majority. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.12.07. Only personal laws, in self-chosen societies and communities, could do justice to man’s diversity, his genuine individual rights and liberties and the choices he would make within them. – J.Z., 30.12.10. – PERSONAL LAWS, YES, JUSTICE, BY HIS OWN STANDARDS & THOSE OF LIKE-MINDED VOLUNTEERS, AMONG THEMSELVES – BUT NOT TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAWS, PANARCHISM

MAN: At the heart of the matter are the different natures of man and government. The nature of man is to be free, or it might be said the nature of man is individualism. Where is the nature of government is to govern – to regulate – to control, or we might say the nature of government is unity. - - And there we have the eternal conflict: individualism versus unity – freedom versus regimentation. It is vitally important to understand that the natures of man and government are diametrically opposed!” – Kenneth W. Ryker, THE FREEMAN, Sept. 77. – However, if men become free to individually choose the government, society or community they want to live in, under personal laws, in full exterritorial autonomy, then only the territorial unity and control gets lost – good riddance – and the remaining “competing governments” or “competing societies” will then correspond to the nature and preferences of their individual members, from radical statists to individualists, libertarians and anarchists. On that basis all of them can peacefully coexist and will have a very strong tendency to do so and to secure this liberty against all remaining aggressors and criminals. – J.Z., 9.12.07, 30.12.10. - NATURE OF MAN, GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUALISM, REGULATION, CONTROL, REGIMENTATION, UNITY

MAN: Compared to what we ought to be, we are only half awake. We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resources. Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within his limits. He possesses power of various sorts which he habitually fails to use.” - William James. - At least in the political, social and economic spheres his potential creativity and self-responsibilities, his individual rights and liberties are still largely pre-empted by territorial governments. He is kept in a perpetual and nation-wide kindergarten. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 3.6.12. - HIS POTENTIAL, HUMAN NATURE, MATURITY, LIBERATION, OPPORTUNITY, FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAN: Each human being is a more complex structure than any social system to which he belongs.” – Alfred North Whitehead. – Thus, should he be subjected, against his will, to a less complex social system, that he has not chosen for himself, or should he be a sovereign consumer towards any social system or even a free entrepreneur, trying to provide a better social system than others offer? – J.Z., 7.12.07. & COMPLEXITY, TERRITORIALISM, UNIFORMITY, IMPOSED ORDERS & SYSTEMS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM

MAN: Embodied here is the idea that man, by his nature, has the ability to think and act on his own volition. This is true regardless of the wishes of any priesthood or bureaucracy.” - Robert LeFevre, LE FEVRE’S JOURNAL, Fall 75. - AUTONOMY, BUREAUCRACY, RULERS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

MAN: Every man is as Heaven made him, and sometimes a great deal worse.” – Cervantes, Don Quixote, I, 1605. – Let each live his own life in every respect – to minimize the evil one could cause and to maximize the potential benefits of his actions. – J.Z., 10.7.86. - - Give him a chance to make himself, as far as he can or wants to. He should not only be free to learn to speak and walk etc. but to develop and apply his inborn non-criminal and non-aggressive potential in every way, always at the own risk and expense and without the aid or obstructions of supposedly divine or secular territorial authorities, as far as he can or wants to, alone or with self-chosen associates. – J.Z., 5.12.07. - HUMAN NATURE & PANARCHISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

MAN: Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping, and unintelligent. – H. L. Mencken. – We should not reject exterritorially autonomous and freely competing governments and societies and communities of volunteers of volunteers that are only exterritorially autonomous, together with all territorial governments, which are wrongfully imposed even upon all kinds of peaceful dissenters. – J.Z., 2.1.08, 30.12.10. - CIVILIZATION & GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, DIS.

MAN: Government is necessary, not because man is naturally bad … but because man is by nature more individualistic than social.” - Thomas Hobbes. - Rather, he is both, anti-individualistic and anti-social. - J.Z., 11.10.02. - Territorial government isn't a necessary evil. Societies and communities of volunteers are rightful for all civilized beings who do not wish to live like hermits in a wilderness. - J.Z., 24.11.02. & 30.12.10. – GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

MAN: Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished.” - Thomas Paine; Rights of Man, Part II. - NATURE OF MAN, SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT & ANARCHISM, SOCIETY

MAN: He warned that human history gave no evidence of a potential perfection present in human nature, and pointed out that Man proved to be a convenient abstraction whereby some men forced their ideas on others. Protesting against the 'tyranny of the majority' and against projections of the perfect society as hatched in the brain of some philosopher, Tocqueville insisted upon the necessity of traditional standards and institutions as the only means of preserving liberty. Thus, on most counts, Alexis de Tocqueville was a Burkean conservative. Like Burke, he was willing to accept change and modification of society, provided the change was not revolutionary and utopian in nature. Tocqueville could accept the new age of democracy, if democracy meant an equality of opportunity and the liberty for each man fully to develop his own talents. But he warned that a society cut loose from its mooring would be likely to introduce not an equality of opportunity, but an equality of condition, with all of the terrible repressions which accompany such a political scheme. The events of the nineteenth century proved him entirely correct." - G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone. - For me this long paragraph is in several ways typical for they way one can misjudge men, ideas and institutions and future options if one does not take the tradition and future of exterritorial autonomy among volunteers into consideration but confines ones thinking and observations to monopolistically and coercively ruled territories, i.e. to standards and institutions which are inherently tyrannical, no matter what form the governments in them may take and how many participate in them. Panarchistic changes are at the same time revolutionary and evolutionary, utopian and realistic, because they are limited by the choices and actions of individuals. They do open up opportunities and liberties for all dissenters, too. Furthermore, they would cut no one loose from his moorings against his will. They would allow even egalitarians to attempt to establish their preferred equality of conditions among themselves, at their own expense and risk. This kind of outlook outdates and revolutionizes and changes all other political points of view and expectations and predictions. Without taking it fully into consideration - the "sciences" of politics, sociology, psychology, sociology and economics have barely even begun to explore all the options and opportunities open to us, i.e. they have not yet become real sciences. - J.Z. 7.1.93, 30.12.10. - MAJORITIES & TRADITIONS, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM

MAN: He was stuck in the adolescent groove of bitter cynicism, not yet progressed to the point of realizing that in spite of its faults and hypocrisies, there were some elements in humanity worth a man’s respect and faith, Even a thinking man.” – Mark Clifton, Clerical Error, in ASTOUNDING SF, July 56, p.73. – Not that there aren’t still many all too despicable men and women. – Hopefully, many of them would improve under full experimental freedom. They would tend to become excommunicated by the better societies and communities of volunteers. If murderers were confined to their own societies, then they would either wipe themselves out or wise up. If thieves and robbers had only other thieves and robbers as their victims, the returns would be getting smaller and smaller and finally they would have to give up this silly behaviour. – Then perhaps only societies of sado-masochists and of mutual rapists could be continued. Indefinitely? - J.Z., 30.12.10.

MAN: Human action is not to be understood by study of the body or the nervous system. It can only be understood in terms of what makes man, man – namely, purpose.” – John Z. Davenport, THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Spring 73, p.151 – Another version, ibid: Man can only be understood in terms of what makes man, man – namely, purpose. – John Z. Davenport, THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Spring 73, p.151. – The purposes of individual men differ as much as different truths on different matters do differ. So what kind of an “explanation” is that? – J.Z., 14.12.07. – Man should be free to live for his own individual purposes and should allow all other men the same freedom. – J.Z., 10.2.09. - DIS.

MAN: Human Nature”, he began, “is so constructed that the vast majority of men can proceed only so far against obstacles. The limit of average endurance is a known quantity in every human activity. Success is achieved by those who beat this limit by extremely small margins. - - “What most of us cannot perceive is that an additional ounce of energy at the final breaking point will distinguish us from thousands or millions of ordinary human beings. - - “This is the reason why sports are so important. In athletics young men learn that victory is usually achieved by an amazingly slight advantage – by a yard in a mile race. Those who go in for sports become sensible to this. Those who live within the walls of study rooms are denied this knowledge.” – THE WILLIAM FEATHER MAGAZINE, quoted in THE INDIAN LIBERTARIAN, 15.8.67. – Panarchies would allow all to realize their ideals or aims, to win, as far as humanly possible, their kind of race towards an objective self-chosen by them, whether their actions represent only a small advantage or disadvantage over those in other communities of volunteers or a very large advantage or disadvantage. Territorial gamesmanship or sports are essentially unfair. Exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers can be fair to everyone, not inclined to commit crimes with victims or other aggressive actions. – They correspond best to the varieties in mankind, and are kind to individual men as well as to all their voluntary societies and communities. - J.Z., 14.12.07. - HUMAN NATURE, INDIVIDUAL ABILITIES, EXPLORING ONE’S LIMITS, SELF-DEVELOPMENT, COMPETITION, EXCELLENCE, ELITE, PIONEERS, THE EXTRA EFFORT, CHARACTER, PERSISTENCE, STRIVING

MAN: I am the measure of everything, not man. Even the truth has its value not in itself but in me. (*) For itself the truth is valueless and, like the thought, merely a creature. “I love only the truths that are below me.” Truths that are above me I do not know. ”True is what is mine; untrue is that to which I am subject.” True is the free association. Untrue is the State and the society.” - Stirner, quoted in: John Henry Mackay, Max Stirner, S.147. - - (*) Compare the subjective value theory and the different kinds of principles, values and ideas that volunteers will attempt to realize within their own and freely competing societies, associations, panarchies, polyarchies or communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 19.9.07. - VS. EGOISM, SELF-OWNERSHIP, EGO AS VALUE MEASURE, VALIDITY OF TRUTHS, PANARCHISM

MAN: I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards. (*) It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. – Thoreau, Civil Disobedience. - - (*) Subjects at most only to individually self-chosen personal laws and institutions! – J.Z., 13.12.07. – PANARCHISM, FREEDOM, RIGHTS, INDEPENDENCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, SUBJECTS

MAN: I, like every interstellar spaceman, we knew we had chosen a special way of life. But it was in the service of man, which is the service of God. We expected to return to the Astronautic Society, at least, our own spacemen’s nation within the nations – do you understand that? …”- Poul Anderson, Orbit Unlimited, p. 17. – GOD, NATIONS WITHIN NATIONS, PANARCHISM, STATES WITHIN STATES? DIS.

MAN: If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.” – Robert LeFevre – All governments are to become confined to their own volunteers and to exterritorial autonomy and personal laws only. – J.Z., 9.2.09. - Only then would they become relatively rightful and harmless - at least for others than their own members or subjects. - J.Z., 30.12.10. - GOOD & BAD GOVERNMENTS, THE SUPPOSED NEED FOR GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL & VOLUNTARY AUTONOMY ALTERNATIVE: PANARCHISM.

MAN: If we lived upon the moon and were not men, but rational creatures, could we imagine such fantastical beings as mankind? Could we have any idea of so strange a compound of foolish passions and wise reflections?” - P Bernard de Fontenelle, Entretiens sur la pluralitée des mondes, II, 1686. – Alas, so far we are more at liberty to act foolishly, obeying foolish official instructions, based upon foolish notions, than to act wisely, voluntarily and rightly as well as tolerantly in our own affairs and interests, within the limits of our rights and liberties, leaving the fools, who want to persist with their foolishness, to their self-chosen fates. - Let the fools and the wise sort themselves out, individually, with the two or more groups to live largely only among themselves, their own kind of volunteers, all free to do only their own things for or to themselves, under personal rather than territorial laws and institutions. Whose examples would be likely to be more successful and to be more widely adopted by others, one by one? – J.Z., 3.11.85, 10.7.86, 5.12.07. - FOOLISHNESS & WISDOM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

MAN: In Rousseau’s vein, Paine further maintains that man is naturally good but depraved by governments; ‘man, were he not corrupted by governments, is naturally the friend of man.’ Human nature therefore is not itself vicious.” - Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.138. - We have, certainly, to a large extent been corrupted, abused and exploited, misled and mis-educated by territorial governments. Would the same or something different happen if territorialism and compulsory subjection to it were altogether abolished and we would get a choice between numerous competing governments and societies, all without a territorial monopoly and power and all with voluntary members only. - Would all or many less people become o remain wrongfully institutionalized then? - J.Z., 30.12.10. - GOODNESS & GOVERNMENT, HUMAN NATURE & ITS CORRUPTION

MAN: Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with another as equals in voluntary, unregulated exchange.” - Ayn Rand, The Only Path to Tomorrow, in: “The Ayn Rand Column”, revised edition, 1998, p.114, Second Renaissance Books, New Milford, Connecticut, – - Other concepts may be rightfully practised only among volunteers, i.e., panarchically, polyarchically exterritorially and tolerantly towards outsiders. - Freedom for fools, too, at their own expense and risk! – J.Z., 17.9.07. - RIGHTS, INDIVIDUALISM & FREE EXCHANGE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MAN: Instead of calling man a ‘rational animal’ one should rather call him a ‘religious animal’. All animals are rational. Man alone is religious.” – Abbé Galiani, in W. Wiegand’s biography of G., p. 148. Are all animals rational or merely instinct driven and reactive? – By now, luckily, there is a considerable percentage of atheistic, a-religious or irreligious men around and some of them have developed and abide by a better ethics than any religion provides. – The irrationality and immorality of all religions is well demonstrated by the continuance of wars, civil wars, violent revolutions and terrorism, all too often still motivated by religious notions – or, otherwise, not prevented by them. – The only good precedent that religions have provided is religious tolerance or religious liberty. But even its adherents have so far failed to apply its principle and practice into the political, social and economic system spheres, whether they would work just as well. - J.Z., 10.2.09. - & RELIGION & PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, DIS.

MAN: It is easier to get along with most people – at a distance.” – J.Z., 3.1.97. – The distance might be special or legal and associational, via voluntary associations that are exterritorially autonomous, so that one can live under personal laws that are different from those of one’s direct neighbours. – J.Z., 10.2.09. – FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, HUMAN RELATIONS, PANARCHISM

MAN: Man cannot function successfully under coercion.” – Ayn Rand, Man’s Rights, 1963. – The enslaved man acts differently from the free man. The man under territorialism acts different from the man under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. Most political "scientists" have still not explored and understood the exterritorial autonomy alternatives. – J.Z., 13.12.07, 30.12.10. - SUCCESS, COERCION, FREEDOM, RIGHTS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM,

MAN: Man has declined and deteriorated within the small private circles of liberties still allowed them by the politicians and bureaucrats and their territorial, centralistic, coercive, monopoly systems and institutions, constitutions, laws, regulations and jurisdictions. – J.Z., 5.12.98, 4.12.07. – They have turned almost all of us into “paternalistically” administrated “reservation Indians” or “reservation Aboriginals”. – 4.12.07. - INDIVIDUALISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, BUREAUCRACY

MAN: Man has learnt to understand, and utilize many to most of the forces of nature to his purposes, but he still has to learn to understand other men as purposes in themselves and to adapt to that fact, - largely by leaving them alone or engage only in voluntary transactions with them. In other words, man has learnt to live with and through nature but not yet sufficiently to live with and through the nature of other men, which are also forces of nature. – J.Z., 26.4.83, 30.12.10. – Especially he has not yet recognized the kinds of organizational form, system or framework which most corresponds to the great varieties of human nature and of the diverse ideas, beliefs and opinions of man. The kind of mutual tolerance already widely practised in religion and other private matters has still to be applied to political, economic and social systems, so far territorially monopolized by States and their governments. – J.Z., 13.12.07. – This kind of new and genuine "social science" has still to be established! - J.Z., 30.12.10. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, TOLERANCE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION.

MAN: Man is a being with a natural taste for varieties of association.” (*) – Paul Leroy Beaulieu, The Modern State, 1891, p.42. – Alas, the territorial State does not allow for this characteristic of man. – It rather forces itself and its services and disservices, as well as its costs and risks upon a great variety of dissenters. – J.Z., 5.12.07. – (*) In an email I received today it was asserted that there are now ca. 35,000 different churches, sects and religious movements on Earth. A possibly still greater variety of panarchies is still to come, exploring the whole range of political, economic and social alternatives for human beings that can be practised among volunteers who are exterritorially autonomous and living under their own personal laws. But since facts, experience and rationality tend to play a much greater role, at least in the long run, in the political, economic and social spheres, I would expect the initial number of different societies to become gradually very much reduced. More and more false and flawed systems will become rejected. Only those really responding to different human types, ideas and preferences will survive in the long run. – However, if one considers the varieties experienced in consumer goods and services, the multiplication of varied human societies and communities might go on and on, even if they distinguish themselves only by e.g. their preferred music, paintings, sculptures and architecture, fashions and games. – J.Z., 9.2.09. - PANARCHISM, FREE ASSOCIATIONISM, FREE SECESSIONISM

MAN: Man is a burlesque of what he should be.” – Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena, II, 1851. - - Although that may be true for most people, that would be no reason not to let the few, who are already somewhat developed, mature and enlightened men and women, act freely as such. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 30.12.10. - Even fools are entitled to a fool’s liberty – at their own risk and expense. – No one the right to lay down and enforce territorial and uniform laws for all of them. - J.Z., 5.12.07. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FOOLS’ LIBERTY

MAN: Man is a creature of habits, he thinks, acts, suffers, eats, drinks, plays and amuses himself as a creature of habits and has, habitually, becomes a creature of territorial powers, rather than an independently thinking and acting sovereign individual. As a conscript and trained soldier he even murders and risks his life as a creature of habit, military discipline and all too much obedience. Territorial voting and welfare State conditions and government-controlled education haven’t really enlightened and emancipated him sufficiently, nor have the all too limited bills or rights of governments informed him about all his rights and liberties, all his freedom, peace and justice options. – Even in his use of alternative media he is largely a creature of habits than of rational choice and decision-making. – J.Z., 25.8.03, 31.10.07, 30.12.10. – How many government soldiers and policemen are fully aware of their own natural rights and liberties and of those delivered into their hands? – J.Z., 6.11.07, 30.12.10. - HIS HABITS, TERRITORIAL SUBJECTS VS. ENLIGHTENED & FREE MEN

MAN: Man is an embodied paradox, a bundle of contradictions.” - C. C. Colton, Lacon, 1820. – Most of the paradoxes and contradictions would soon be diminished or even disappear if all the diverse individuals that constitute mankind were freed to follow only their own individual inclinations and choices, applying them only to themselves and like-minded volunteers, leaving other individuals and their associations alone to do their own things for or to themselves. Freedom of action and experimentation, always only at the own risk and expense, even in the last 3 major spheres still monopolized by territorial States, would lead to fast progress and enlightenment. - - (Also to peace, justice, much more security and almost general prosperity. - J.Z., 30.12.10.) Man does not exist as a single creature. There are very many men and all are different. The paradoxes and bundles of contradictions are mainly to be found in different individuals and in their different voluntary groups or in their compulsory associations under the “principle” or spleen of territorialism or territorial monopolies. - Why bundle him together, coercively and territorially, under one political, economic and social system, with all other men, subjects or conscripts, when every one of them is different and has different opinions ideas and aspirations? That means asking for trouble between as diverse critters and as diverse aspirations. Compulsory territorial association leads inevitably largely to “dog eats dog” competitiveness, to zero sum games, rather than free enterprise, free exchange and consumer-sovereignty in every sphere. Territorial statism does artificially produce most of the paradoxes and contradictions that Colton complains about. – J.Z., 5.12.07, 30.12.10. - HUMAN NATURE & PANARCHISM: MAN, DIS.

MAN: Man is but a reed, the feeblest thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire world need not arm itself to crush him, a vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies, and the advantage which the universe has over him: the universe knows nothing of this.” – Pascal, Pensées, 1670, 347. - - Alas, that thinking habit that he so far and habitually engages in, happens all too rarely or only in very limited spheres. – Nor is knowledge of death sufficient, if he has not learnt how to life in freedom, justice and peace. - Schiller said something like: “In narrow circles the mind becomes narrowed. Man grows with his higher purposes.” (“Im engen Kreis verengert sich der Sinn. Es waechst der Mensch mit seinen hoehern Zwecken!” – Only cited from memory! – J.Z.) And who of us is not largely and more or less coercively confined to a narrow private circle, as far as his independent decision-making is concerned? Territorialism has seen to that. We are all inmates of territorial prisons and their monopolistic, centralized and coercive decision-making. - - How would the average man come to change - once sufficient men thought long and seriously enough e.g. about individual rights and liberties, especially economic liberties, individual secessionism, individual sovereignty, personal laws, exterritorial autonomy, voluntary institutions, monetary freedom, the right to resist, libertarian revolutions and similar topics - and then did apply this knowledge, acquired in such thinking, research and opinion exchange efforts, to his own affairs, in every respect and if he did this also suitably armed and organized, together with many others? – What would become of man under full freedom? We do not know as that as yet, from experience, because we haven't had full freedom yet, at any time or any place, while already sufficiently enlightened on what men and women could make out of themselves under full freedom. - J.Z., 13.12.07, 30.12.10. – Under that condition I would be optimistic for the future of man. – J.Z., 3.6.12. - HUMAN NATURE, TERRITORIALISM, HUMAN POTENTIALS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, GOVERNMENTS. MILITIA

MAN: Man is by nature a political animal.” – Aristotle, Politics, I, ca. 322 B.C. – There are also many apolitical men and women, not to speak of children. Thus, at least, let all men and women opt out of the existing, territorially imposed monopoly systems or establishment and let all the diverse political animals, individually, follow only their own preferences and instincts, ideas, knowledge and beliefs, all into their own kind of political associations and economic and social systems and institutions, always only at their own risk and expense. - - Is man also a territorial animal and one that has to live only under compulsory associations and systems? - That is merely one of the flawed territorialist assumptions, analogies and conclusions of Robert Ardrey, e.g. in his “The Territorial Imperative”. – Admittedly, some animals have territorial instincts. But does man have them also, apart from the nesting, privacy and proximity instincts? Has he rather been captured, all too much, by territorialist ideologies, in the interests of the religious or political rulers? – Have we not yet had enough of the repressions and slaughters that ideologues of territorialism led us into? – Should we not rather apply here, also, the experiences we have had with religious tolerance and with consumer sovereignty? – Why should only political, economic and social systems be territorially monopolized and enforced? – And this in spite of all the bad experiences we had with them - for thousands of years? Are fairness, tolerance and free individual choices between a great variety of sports activities only good in sports but not in politics? – All political, economic and social alternatives should be given their sporting chance as well, for their own volunteers. - J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.12.07, 10.2.09, 30.12.10 - A POLITICAL ANIMAL ONLY? EXTERRITORIAL VOLUNTARISM VIA COMPULSORY TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM FOR HIS DIVERSITY, Q.

MAN: Man is in daily danger from man.” – Ancient Roman proverb. (Ab home homini precirulum quotidianum.) – Man is his own worst enemy, especially when he remains territorially intolerant and all too ignorant of or prejudiced against his own individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 10.2.09.

MAN: Man is not made for defeat.” – Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea, quoted in Seldes. - But has he as yet been given or established conditions which make it at least possible for all to succeed or fail in accordance with their own beliefs, convictions and actions, quite unhindered by customs, States, laws, majorities and institutions of others? – In the arts, in sports, in amusements, in reading or writing, gardening, fashions, travels, hobbies, crafts etc. he is already free to follow his own bend – but not when it comes to political, economic and social systems. Here he is still coerced, resisting, fighting, just like he did formerly (and still in some countries) when it comes to religious convictions and activities, a sphere which was pacified via religious liberty or religious tolerance. We still need the same freedom in the above-mentioned and very important three underlined spheres, now monopolized by territorial governments. - J.Z., 24.12.07, 13.12.10. – In these spheres there can not only be one victor, with all the others becoming the defeated ones, but as many victors as there are human beings, as long as the victory is that of an individual over his own older self, by having taken one significant further step towards self-improvement, i.e. when an individual becomes free to choose or establish his own utopia for himself, together with like-minded people. Alas, we are free to achieve self-determination victories so far only in private spheres, and in the natural sciences, in sports, arts and crafts etc., not in the public spheres, where political, economic and social systems are still territorially monopolized and imposed. The many alternatives to them can, at most, be collectively, politically and territorially fought for or verbally or visually proposed and recorded. – J.Z., 10.2.09, 30.12.10. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY UNDER PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE FOR TOLERANT ACTIONS

MAN: Man is the cruellest enemy of man.” – J. G. Fichte, Die Bestimmung des Menschen, XII, 1800. – Hardly, as long as he is free to secede from the State, as Fichte proposed that he should be, in his work on the French Revolution, only 7 years earlier. Then e.g. the fools and the wise men could opt out and form their own communities, doing their own things only for or to themselves. All those they left behind would be left to their own prior devices or laws or to the various other ones that they would collectively select for themselves. Why, under that kind of exterritorially free choice, should they persist in being enemies to others and cruel and intolerant towards each other? Under such options the cruel and intolerant people might soon find themselves alone among themselves, with no more involuntary victims for them and all the others strongly federated against them. - One of the greatest cruelties is to force them into and keep them in territorial associations, which resemble rather concentration camps, forced labour camps, which tend to maximize dissent and opposition, whenever any opportunities for them remain. It is almost like herding sheep together with wolves. Such cruelty certainly increases discontent and does not represent general consent or approval. The old parable of the Bed of Procrustes is a good analogy for the nonsense of territorially enforced equality or egalitarianism. All are forced to adapt to the only size of bed offered to them by the great leader Procrustes, even if he has to make them fit the bed by chopping off their heads or their legs. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.12.07, 30.12.10, 3.6.12. - HUMAN NATURE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAN: Man is the measure of all things.” – Protagoras, as quoted by Plato, ca. 450 B.C. – In George Seldes, THE GREAT QUOTATIONS. - Let man’s individual choice, his own values, also be the measure or decisive aspect for the economic, political and social system, society or community for himself. – J.Z., 10.7.86. – If individual human beings are the highest values then should not their individual preferences count most in these sphere, too? – As long as he does not interfere with the different choices, which other individual made for themselves! - How can something be a measure when the individuals involved are so immeasurably different? – The average individual man does not exist any more than the average individual labour hour. - J.Z., 5.12.07, 10.2.09, 3.6.12. - VALUES, MEASURES, PANARCHISM, SUBJECTIVE VALUE THEORY, DIS., Q., INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, FREE EXCHANGE, FREE ENTERPRISE, FREE MARKETS IN EVERY SPHERE, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

MAN: Man must be free to settle man's destiny." - Poul Anderson, Conflict, p. 62, story: High Treason. - Rather: The individual must be free to settle his own destiny. - J.Z., 24.4.88. – At most he could and should set a good example to others or provide them with a good idea. – “He is not his brother’s keeper!” - J.Z., 10.2.09. - IS FREEDOM & DESTINY, INDIVIDUALISM VS. COLLECTIVISM

MAN: Man must have a vision and a dream not ignorance and illusion. Man must have inspiration, not desperation. Man desires justice not injustice. Man desires freedom not slavery. Man desires the right not the wrong. Man desires virtue not vice.” – Zarlenga, The Orator, p.109. – If only that were quite true for all or most men. – However, all of them should be given the chance, individually, to choose for themselves or to establish communities and societies that correspond to such ideals and even to any other ideals that they hold, always only at their own risk and expense, i.e. without any territorial monopoly and power over peaceful dissenters and non-members. – J.Z., 6.12.07.

MAN: Man must make his own decisions.” – Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, p.189. – And he must become free to do so, in every sphere. – J.Z., 13.9.07. - DECISION-MAKING

MAN: Man was created free, and he functions better in a state of liberty.” – Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 4/year? - And yet he is everywhere still under the rule of territorial States, run by less than perfect human beings. – J.Z., 24.12.07. – TERRITORIALISM VS. LIBERTY, FREEDOM, RIGHTS

MAN: Man, as a species, does not have to fight other men. He is rather a producer and trader and can prosper more from such activities than from wars and crimes, except under present conditions, which favour private and official criminals all too much and have legalized wrongful monopolies and misinformed and misled all too many people, even into mutual slaughters. With all groups, societies and communities of volunteers free to secede and to practise their own beliefs and convictions under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy among themselves, e.g. most violent clashes and most economic crises could be avoided, as soon as this freedom option is fully understood and utilized. - Territorial States tend to produce and prolong such clashes and crises, with their monopolies, centralization, collectivism, domination and imposed uniformity and obedience. – J.Z., 26.5.06, 30.10.07, 3.6.12. - WAR, AGGRESSION, HUMAN NATURE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, DOING THE OWN THING – UNDISTURBED BY OTHERS, TOLERANCE

MAN: Men are not philosophers, but are rather very foolish children, who, by reason of their partiality, see everything in the most absurd manner, and are the victims at all times of the nearest object.” – R. W. Emerson, The Conservative, 1841. – Did he class himself among them? – J.Z., 5.12.07. - Not all of them. Not everything, although some of them, too. Men are not uniform robot types but all are different. Thus no judgment applies to all of them, except some biological and zoological ones. Let individuals and minorities opt out, to do their own things, everywhere, to try to improve their own conditions – and at least some of them will succeed and their examples will soon be followed by many others. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.12.07. - HUMAN NATURE & PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAN: Men must have corrupted nature a little, for they were not born wolves, and they have become wolves.” – Voltaire, Candide, 1759, 4. - I hold that it was largely the system of territorial States that turned them, to some extent, often involuntarily, into beasts of prey. – J.Z. 13.12.07. – We have to ask ourselves: What kind of political, social and economic systems would tend to make people more peaceful, tolerant, non-violent and then try to find ways to establish such systems, as far as possible also in a non-violent, tolerant and peaceful way. Various self-management schemes, monetary freedom and panarchism offer such options. – J.Z., n.d. - TERRITORIALISM, ATROCITIES, IDEOLOGIES, INTOLERANCE, TERRORISM & WAR INSTEAD OF EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS: PANARCHISM, WITH PEACE, JUSTICE & FREEDOM FOR ALL, DIS., TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, NON-VIOLENCE, Q.

MAN: Men will be men again once they take back the power and freedom to decide over their own lives. – J.Z., 30.5.79, 13.12.07.

MAN: Most humans are and remain unfulfilled potentials. – It requires quite free societies and free individual choice among them to let them reach their potential and this not only in the sphere of bread-earning jobs. Panarchies in their varieties - and general form or framework - would constitute some of the best opportunities for continuous adult self-education and self-development. - J.Z., 12/86 & 1.7.92, 6.12.07, 30.12.10. – I continue to attempt to improve various statements and can only hope that others will continue with such labours to approach truths as accurately and concisely as we can, between us. – J.Z., 6.12.07. - HUMAN NATURE, POTENTIAL, MATURITY, PANARCHISM

MAN: Most people are merely reactive machines.” – From a peace talk heard on 20.11.86. – If they were, why did that someone bother to give a peace talk? – J.Z., 10.2.09. - Compare: “Act, don’t merely react!” – However, outside a narrow privacy sphere, how much freedom to act and experiment are we left with and thus accustomed to? – Action without freedom of action? How does one act to achieve sufficient freedom of action? How many authorities and laws try to direct our behaviour and to condition us to obey rather than resist and act freely? They do so not only in schools and universities and in the armed forces but throughout our adult lives, e.g. as tax payers. How does one act, unarmed, unorganized and untrained, towards armed, organized and trained aggressors, be they the own government or the forces of foreign governments? Or against an attack with ABC mass murder devices? As Goethe once said: “There is no more terrible sight to behold than ignorance in action.” – Has the science of truly liberating revolutions and of truly defensive actions been sufficiently developed as yet? Have people learnt to know and to appreciate all their individual rights and liberties? Has at least sufficient interest been shown for such programs and declarations? Who has a really effective peace action program to offer? Or a really effective libertarian liberation or revolution program? How does one act quite effectively against wars, taxes, inflation and mass unemployment? – Without sufficient freedom, opportunities and sensible programs too few important actions are possible still. – Think of the masses of civilians, mostly Jews, herded by Nazis into extermination camps and some of them even being forced to clean out the gas chambers and burn the bodies. Think of the victims of other genocide attempts, the starvation of many prisoners of war, often opponents of the regimes they were forced to fight for. – What freedom of action had they left? – What freedom of action was left to the civilian victims of area bombing? – What freedom of action is left to a conscript or tax payer? What freedom of action is left to interned illegal immigrants?What freedom of action have we left under millions of laws, while individual and group secessions and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers are still not permitted and not even sufficiently discussed as an alternative to territorial authoritarianism? – Admittedly, some actions are still free and possible. E.g., to combine all freedom writings and ideas and platforms and their discussions on one or a few disks, affordable or reachable by almost everybody in still somewhat free countries. – But even for this project not enough interested people could be found by me, so far. – All the possible, proposed or already somewhat tackled projects are not even listed together, inviting participation by others. – The mere advice: Act! – does already indicate a lot of ignorance, stupidity and prejudice, almost as much as the advice: pray! - J.Z., 5.12.07. - ACTIONS VS. MERE REACTIONS. Q., DIS. - Compare my Jan. 2010 digitized freedom book: New Draft, not yet online but only available from me as an email attachment. - J.Z., 30.12.10. A review of it by GPdB is on

MAN: No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” – Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Ill, Oct. 16, 1854. – However, even he did not govern with unanimous consent, i.e., had only voluntary subjects. If he had claimed no more than that, then the Civil War could have been avoided. More and more other subjects would have followed that shiny example and set up genuinely self-governing and voluntary communities. Alas, instead, he strengthened and perpetuated the territorial powers of the federal government, i.e. his own political position, at the price of about half a million lives of fellow-Americans. The abolition of slavery came in only late and incomplete, in the Civil War, as an afterthought – when he thought it to be politically convenient for him. – J.Z., 9.12.07. - CONSENT & SELF-GOVERNMENT

MAN: Only through freely competing governments or communities, all confined to like-minded volunteers and exterritorial autonomy under personal law, can we hope to approach the ideal “man” and the ideal society close enough and soon enough. – J.Z., 14.12.07, 20.12.10. - ADAPTABILITY, CONFORMISM, NON-CONFORMISM, CHARACTER, INDIVIDUALISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS

MAN: Our technology and our natural sciences correspond to man’s nature, from the way he is built, bones, sinews, muscles to brain, limbs, hands, eyes, ears, other senses and metabolism. The social sciences, especially politics and economics have still to catch up with the diverse nature of man in these spheres. He is a multi-purpose biological and self-programmed robot, with considerable reasoning powers, by his very nature. As such he should be fully autonomous, sovereign, self-determined, as long as he respects the equal rights and liberties in others - if he bothers to learn about all his rights and liberties and how to utilize them in his own interest, as far as they go and no further. – J.Z., 19.8.03, 18.10.07. – Our territorial rulers want to impose a uniform “software” and “hardware” upon all of us, in their interest, which makes life all too unjust, hard and irrational at least for the freedom lovers among us, while the territorial statists thus get no more than they deserve for themselves. – J.Z., 18.10.07. - HUMAN NATURE, TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, BIOLOGY


MAN: Separate the doer from the deed.” – Advice by Gandhi. – How can one do this in case of mass murderers or even ordinary murderers, as if they were not responsible for their deeds? The standards and tolerance one accepts towards infants and children should not be extended to adults who are supposed to be mature and rational and moral enough for decent behaviour regarding the individual rights and liberties of others. What is tolerable in the case of an infant or child, e.g. some theft, is not in an adult. – J.Z., 30.11.07. – Compare: “Thou shalt recognize them by their fruit.” and “Judge them by what they do and not by what they say.” – To my knowledge Gandhi only favoured non-violent resistance by individuals and groups, rather than full individual and minority group secessionism, resulting in exterritorially fully autonomous and very diverse communities of volunteers and their political, economic and social experiments among themselves. He remained a territorialist and wanted all people in a territory to change towards his ideals. The result of this has been much infighting and territorial separatism and even the production of mass murder devices, at least by Pakistan, if not also by India. – J.Z., 14.2.09. - RESPONSIBILITY, GUILT, PUNISHMENT, DISCRIMINATION, CRIME, BLAME, GETTING PERSONAL CRITICISM, CHARACTER, DIS.

MAN: The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”(*) – H. L. Mencken. – . - So let him have it, at his own expense and risk, in his own voluntary communities, insured, guaranteed, protected to the limits of the possible, the ultimate Nanny State or Police State or Welfare State, if he or she do want that for themselves. But that is no reason for the more enlightened people not to establish more free or quite free societies for themselves. The model for all should include all these options for all - except e.g. madmen, criminals with victims and aggressors. These must become sufficiently restrained, instead of opening even the highest public offices to them for their mad ambitions. - J.Z., 25.11.06, 30.12.10. - Let him have his choice, exterritorially, under his own kind of personal laws and institutions. But let all others, likewise, have their choices, exterritorially. Territorially this could not be done. Exterritorially it is easy - like it is for hobbies, crafts, arts, sports, fashions, favourite dishes etc., etc. Why should we treat political, economic and social systems different from consumer, gaming and entertainment choices or privately undertaken risky adventures? To benefit territorial power addicts and “leaders” or “misleaders”? At our expense and risk? Well, at most, among volunteers for any particular hero-cult or personality cult. Some would then choose great singers, actors or athletes as their leaders. They would deserve them. – J.Z., 3.1.08. – (*) Or merely to feel safe. Whether that is objectively true or not. – On the other hand, many feel really alive only when they do take dangerous risks.” - J.Z., 10.2.09. – Q. AVERAGE MAN DESIRES SAFETY MORE THAN FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, SECURITY, DIS.

MAN: The bulk of mankind are schoolboys through life.” - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on a Money Unit, 1784. - - Because neither at home, in school, at work, or in the army do they enjoy freedom of action or even freedom of expression and information, assembly and association. They do have it only in play or later in adult games, amusements, arts, crafts and hobbies. All the real important decisions are taken away from them and placed into the irresponsible hands and minds of a few people in authority. – J.Z., n.d. - Yes, always under more or less despotic and paternalist authorities, first the parents, then the teachers, then the official authorities and the employers. They are hardly given a chance go become self-responsible and determine fully their own affairs, aims and methods, including the political, economic and social system that they would prefer for themselves. They are kept in “nurseries” or "concentration camps" or "prisons" all their lives under an authoritarian regime. Obey or else! What good results can one expect from such a system? It is surprising that anything still functions under it. Probably most of that is due to loopholes, smuggling, black market activities or in the remaining small privacy spheres, more and more infringed by avalanches of legislation. Territorial governments have now begun with policies and programs even for the remaining leisure periods. How effective and required the remaining individual initiatives still are is indicated by the kind of strikes that are expressed in “working according to the rules” “working by the book” or “obeying orders quite literally”, intentionally not applying the least individual thinking and initiative. Slave societies, too, are known to be not very productive, in the absence of other incentives than starvation or the whip and in the absence of proper tools and machines. – Life-long coercive subordination does not directly produce self-responsible and self-reliant individuals. - J.Z., 5.12.07. - HUMAN NATURE, MATURITY, GROWING UP, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES & PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAN: The heart-warming account of the lioness, filmed as „Born Free“, comes to mind that remarkable creature flowed with life from an instinctive, not a rational, direction. Man, as Gerald Heard suggests, has lost many of the instincts that guide the animals and, unfortunately, has not, by and large, acquired or developed that human uniqueness – the power to reason and choose – on which his ascension, the lifting of consciousness – depends. (*) It might be said that we are, with few exceptions, neither animal nor true man. Only rarely is there a person who has significantly bridged the gap. Support for this observation is to be found in contrasting wolves with men. A wolf never kills a wolf; men do kill each other. Or note how so many of us have come to hate evil so much that we forget to love good”. – Leonard E. Read, Who’s Listening? p.82. - - (*) He is not yet free to choose for himself the political, economic and social system in which he wants to live. That is much more important than religious liberty and even freedom of information and expression. For our fate it is now even more important than a free philosophy, science and technology are. – J.Z., 14.12.07. – PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, ALL ONLY UNDER PERSONAL LAWS & FOR VOLUNTEERS! NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

MAN: The problem of organizing a state, however hard it may seem, can be solved even for a race of devils, if only they are intelligent. The problem is: ‘Given a multiple of rational beings requiring universal laws for their preservation, but each of whom is secretly inclined to exempt himself from them, to establish a constitution in such a way that, although their private intentions conflict, they check each other, with the result that their public conduct is the same as if they had no such intentions.” – Kant, Perpetual Peace, 1795, 366; Beck, p.112. - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, the Philosophy of Right, 111/112. - DEVIL, AGGRESSION, PEACE, JUSTICE, STATE, SOCIETY, HUMAN NATURE

MAN: There is no god but man. // Man has the right to live by his own law – to live in the way that he wills to do: to work as he will: to play as he will: to rest as he will: to die when and how he will. // Man has the right to eat what he will: to drink what he will: to dwell where he will: to move as he will on the face of the earth. // Man has the right to think what he will: to draw, pain, carve, etch, mold, build as he will: to dress as he will. // Man has the right to live as he will. // Man has the right to kill those who thwart these rights.” – The Equinox: A Journal of Scientific Illuminism, 1922, edited by Aleister Crowley. – Quoted in Wilson/Shea, ILLUMINATUS II. - Underlining by me. - J.Z - GOD, RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS

MAN: There is nothing to take a man’s freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else.” – Ayn Rand, Anthem. - - The only function of government (*) is to protect the freedom of man from other men’s commission of force, by either the means of Rand’s limited Constitutional government or Murray Rothbard’s free market defence agencies”. – Arthur Ketchen, in Moving into the Front Ranks of Social Change, p.71. – As if there were only these two options. Panarchism opens up all options to individuals that can peacefully coexist in the same territory. - - (*) To me it seems to function least well in that sphere and most efficiently only in suppressing individual rights and liberties. That applies to territorial governments. Voluntary or competing governments, societies or communities, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, freely chosen by individuals for themselves, leave all other rightful and voluntarily practised options open to individuals. – Thus they are not obstacles to progress like the territorial, monopolistic and coercive governments are. - J.Z., 14.12.07, 30.12.10. - FREEDOM & BROTHERHOOD, PANARCHISM

MAN: There is this horrible idea, beginning with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and still going strong in college classrooms, that natural man is naturally good … Anybody who’s ever met a toddler knows this is nonsense.” – P. J. O’Rourke, 1947, Parliament of Whores. - - Natural man, not coercively reshaped by territorial States, should be distinguished from infants, especially toddlers. The natural man of rational, reasonable and moral persons is meant and his moral thoughts, sense and actions. – J.Z., 9.9.07. - According to the biogenetic fundamental law, each individual, from its first beginnings, goes at least roughly through all the stages of the development of its species. The full range of individual rights and liberties is only meant for sufficiently rational adults. - J.Z., 30.12.10. - Compare: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” - NATURAL MAN, HUMAN NATURE, GOODNESS OF MAN, DIS.

MAN: Thou knowest how great is man // Thou knowest his imbecility.” – P. B. Shelley: Queen Mab, III, 1813. – That might be true if there were only one man. But when there are hundreds to thousands of millions of them, all of them different, then this remark becomes nonsense, i.e., not applicable to all of them, although, partly true for many of them. The great men are usually not imbeciles, unless they are power addicts. And the imbeciles are usually not great, unless they make a discovery, quite unintentionally. – Thus let the imbeciles associate with each other and with the teachers who want to joint them. Also let the wise men or somewhat enlightened people associate freely, as individuals, into their own kinds of communities, to learn and act as free and sensibly as they can and want to. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.12.07. - HUMAN NATURE & PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAN: Twenty years ago, I worked as an ambulance attendant in Harlem, and I saw what poverty and racism can do at their worst. Nobody needs to teach me anything about the inhumanity of humanity. Yet I still believe that there is, as the Sufis say, a divinity within each person that can be released if love and faith and optimism can be released.” – Robert Anton Wilson, in ILLUMINATY PAPERS, 51. – If individual rights and liberties are once understood, realized and thus made effective. – J.Z., 13.12.07. – “Release all creative energies!” – Leonard E. Read. – Let free exchange turn our system around into a free society: “Society is exchange!” – Frederic Bastiat. – Experimental freedom or voluntarism for everybody, in form of panarchies, polyarchies, competing governments and competing societies etc., all without a territorial monopoly! – Panarchism and full monetary and financial freedom: Let e.g. all wanted goods and services become temporarily expressed in monetary demand for goods and services, and this, by those offering them, issuing their own “ticket money” or goods- and service vouchers, clearing certificates, notes or IOUs, and by being ready to accept these, their own obligations, at par with their nominal value, for whatever they have to offer, also free-market-priced in a good and self-chosen value standard. Then ponder: How much involuntary poverty would then remain for long? Think of the huge stocks of ready for sale consumer goods in the stores. How much more of labour, goods and services could then be turned over easily? How much more productive capital could then be built up, rather fast and made relatively cheaply and easily accessible, to all productive people? – How much racism would then remain? – Central banks with their monopoly money and forced value and compulsory acceptance cannot provide that self-help service. Merely “love, faith and optimism” or free practice of all individual rights and liberties, including the economic and monetary ones? - - J.Z., 10.2.09. – MONETARY FREEDOM, UNEMPLOYMENT, SALES DIFFICULTIES, CRISES, SELF-HELP, REALLY FREE EXCHANGE, Q., DIS.

MAN: We probably are or have become social animals, but certainly not political animals, because politics is not the essence of human life; it is not even a primary need, nor a condition on which our existence depends. Nevertheless, its importance has been disproportionately magnified and allowed to influence everything we do. Our standards, judgments, laws, morals, beliefs are all geared to political aims and are interpreted and evaluated accordingly. …” - Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.193. – I would rather say: We are not territorial political animals, because territorial politics is not the essence of human life (apart from the different real estate rules for private property, work and privacy, covered by house rules), it is not even a primary need, of a condition on which our existence depends. - J.Z., 10.2.09. – TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, HUMAN NATURE, POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM

MAN: What a chimera is man! What a nonesuch what a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, and imbecile maggot; depository of truth, and sewer of uncertainty and error, the glory and the rubbish of the universe!” – Blaise Pascal, Pensées, VIII. – His greatest mistake was here to throw all types, interests, characters, inclinations, etc. into one common pot, one equally imposed territorial organization, farce and fate, giving the individual no choice in this matter, although they could learn much more from individual choices in the political, economic and social spheres than from any mere arguments with the territorial masses or their rulers and much more than territorial rulers seem to be able or willing to learn. – If in science, technology and business we tried to advance only territorially and collectively, in step with majority-approved dogmas and procedures, how far would we get and how fast or how slowly? … J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.11.87, 5.12.07, 30.12.10. - HUMAN NATURE & PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, DIS.

MAN: What creature else // Conceives a circle, and then walks the square? // Loves things proved bad, and leaves a thing proved good?” – E. B. Browning, Aurora Leigh, VII, 1857. – Man does not exist as a collective but only in form of very diverse individuals. Let each individual choose for himself and at his own risk and expense. Do not force him to collaborate with others on the lowest common denominator, e.g. via majorities of the population of whole territories. Then we will gradually see more and more rightful and rational choices and less and less wrongful and irrational choices made by individuals. Territorial rule does not give man that chance for self-improvement. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.12.07. - HUMAN NATURE, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAN: What is possible and likely for moral and rational beings will not always be sufficiently done by man as he is now. – And men will not sufficiently mature under territorial rule, which keeps them in nation-wide nurseries, under not so benevolent territorial managers, even if they are freely elected ones. – J.Z., 9.10.88, 5.12.07. & MORALITY, MATURITY, DEVELOPMENT, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

MAN: When we ask for the abolition of the State and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality. But no, a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are by such institutions!” – Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism, Its Philosophy and Ideal.” – His institutions should conform to his nature and inclinations, his own choices, not he to institutions territorially or otherwise imposed upon him. – J.Z., n.d. & 9.2.09. - STATE, ANARCHISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, FREE CHOICE FOR ALL RIGHTFUL & RESPONSIBLE ACTIONS, PANARCHISM, DIS.

MAN’S CHOICES, STILL TOO LIMITED BUT TO BECOME UNLIMITED: CHOICE TODAY, ALL TOO LIMITED: 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.

MANAGEMENT: Management can survive only if people submit to it. And more and more people, as they develop a sharper sense of their full human potential, are saying in one way or another that they will not take their places in line anymore, that they will not be housebroken, that they will not be treated like furniture. – A new kind of society is displacing the old. Unofficially, outside the political process, America is de-managing itself.” - Richard Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.141. – Beginning with individual secessionism, it would also de-manage itself politically. Alas, we are not yet free to give notice to territorial political corporations and to cease tribute payments to them. – J.Z., 14.12.07.

MANAS: A journal of independent inquiry, in discussing George Woodcock's Aug.1968 article in "COMMENTARY", which was reproduced in ANARCHY 96, of Freedom Press, pp. 52-55, comes to a panarchistic conclusion, commenting on a remark, by Woodcock ("... endeavouring to give practical application to libertarian concepts of decentralization, voluntarism, and direct participation in decision-making."): "This may be a way of saying that the systems under which men are living must be replaced by a combination of diverse activities, including leavening, withdrawal of nourishment, and counter-functions which absorb vital elements, one after the other, into the new structures of an emerging community life. The heart has to go on beating while the changes are accomplished." - MANAS loves such generalities, rather than discussing details like individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy, voluntary taxation, monetary freedom, militias for the protection of individual rights, better individual rights drafts etc. - J.Z.

MANCHESTER GUARDIAN: Some time in 1919: When the atrocities of the Soviet government became known, the Manchester Guardian called for a crusade against this government. It demanded that the "capitulations" which in the whole far and near East granted the Europeans the privilege to establish their own legal and juridical communities under their own consuls, should, correspondingly, be extended to Soviet Russia. Economic, religious and ideological communities should, as in the system of the capitulations, become independent and no longer submitted to the "justice" of the Soviet Union. Lenin may have learned about exterritorial autonomy for volunteers from this source. - Hint by Ulrich von Beckerath. - This M. G. article is wanted by J.Z. - Alas, even mass media articles on this subject did not encounter sufficient receptive minds. - J.Z. See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON, Panarchie – immer konkret beschreiben.

MANDATE: No politicians has a mandate from those who did not vote for him or for his party, who did not vote or not validly or who even voted against him and his party. Towards such people he is always more or less a usurper or dictator, regardless of how many people voted for him or his party. – J.Z., 15.3.88. – Nevertheless, no politician or party has so far recognized the right of all dissenters to opt out from under their rule. – It is high time for their subjects to demand this right. - J.Z., 6.12.07. - POLITICIANS, VOTING, PARTIES, CONSENT, TERRITORIALISM

MANDATE: Politicians are loath to concede, whenever they have lost their majority mandate, that they never possessed that of most minorities and that, in practice, they represent mainly special interests and privileges that conflict with the rights, liberties and interests of all others. Only Panarchies would possess a mandate - from all of their voluntary members. They would not rule over any radical dissenters, since these would opt out. But they would continue to rule or control aggressors, totalitarians, criminals against their members. - J.Z. 15.7.89, 10.10.89.

MANDATE: Politicians still quite wrongly assume that majority approval gives them also the authority to rule over the peaceful and dissenting various minorities and that the vain attempts of minorities to participate in elections and influence them in their favour would constitute consent to whatever the victorious party has in mind for them. Elected officials never possessed a proper mandate from all those, who did not vote for them or abstained from an election or voted only informally. In practice they represent at most the majority and beyond that mainly special interest groups, whose special claims and officially granted privileges conflict with the rights and liberties of all others. No politician possesses the power of attorney from all his subjects or has made an individual contract with all of them. Only the personal law communities or panarchies or polyarchies can claim to possess a mandate from all their voluntary members, all of them free to secede from them. – J.Z., 25.7.89, 5.12.07, 30.12.10. - POLITICAL, TERRITORIAL, VS. PANARCHISTIC MANDATES, VOTING, TERRITORIALISM

MANELI, MIECZYSLAW: Freedom and Tolerance, Octagon Books, A Division of Hippocrene Books, N.Y., 1984, bibl., index, 571pp, JZL. - This is not a panarchistic book or written by an anarchist or libertarian. Democracy and anti-totalitarianism are his leading ideas. But it is a good defence of tolerance, including even freedom of action (p.336). There is some hint to Jewish autonomy on pages 528/29, and an interesting Catholic response to the nuclear war threat on p.531.

MANHOOD: Society everywhere is a conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson. – Society, perceived as a voluntary association, is not. The territorial State, as a coercive monopolist is. – J.Z., 4.6.82, 14.12.07. At most what he said is true for territorial States. It is not quite true or even false for communities of volunteers, all doing only the kind of things for or to themselves that they had all agreed upon. – I rather hold with Bastiat: Society IS Exchange. - However, Emerson did not mean, most likely, the free market society or exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers under their own personal laws, from which dissatisfied individuals could freely secede. – J.Z., 14.12.07, 30.12.10. - STATISM, GOVERNMENT, INDEPENDENCE, CONSPIRACY

MANIFESTO, A PANARCHIST MANIFESTO: Declaration, Appeal, Human Rights statement. - Compare the draft reproduced in PEACE PLANS No. 4 & 61-63. Also: K. H. Z. Solneman’s Manifesto for Freedom and Peace, which contains a chapter on panarchism.

MANIPULATION: Our contemporary obsession is alchemy’s cousin – the belief that society can be made more perfect – in fact, transformed – by manipulation. It is no a science at all, but a secular religion, sometimes mistakenly called liberalism.” - Richard Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.63. – This kind of manipulation requires territorial rule. Without it, those who really want certain reforms, could drop out, secede, reorganize under personal laws and introduce, among themselves, the reforms they like and experiment with them as long and as extensively as they want to – as long as they leave the others alone. Nature allows its mutations or improvement attempts to go on in the same way. Territorial statism or the over-all imposed “society” largely prevents such experimentation, when it comes to political, economic and social systems. Consistent classical liberalism would welcome it. – Modern liberalism opposes it, as infringing the power and monopolies it claims for itself, its statism. – J.Z., 15.12.07.  REFORMISM, LIBERALISM, LEGISLATION, TERRITORIALISM

MANIPULATION: The great issue here is between those who regard human beings as mere things to be manipulated into some social pattern versus those who believe that persons need liberty, because without it they cannot work out their proper destiny; which requires this life and the life to come for fulfillment.” – Edmund Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 7/75. – We need separate development not only for religious believers and various kinds of atheists, rationalists and humanists. - All significant changes or reforms should be left to volunteers, rather to than to territorial “leaders” with power to manipulate the population of whole territories. The volunteers should be free to secede and engage in separate developments, under institutions and laws of their own, as long as they don’t claim any territorial monopoly for themselves. Their experiments among themselves, at their own risk and cost, should not be hindered in any way. They would then “manipulate” only themselves, as much as they like, while respecting the rights, liberties and different choices of all others, who disagree with them. – J.Z., 15.12.07. - LIBERTY & HUMAN DESTINY, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTARY EXPERIMENTERS

MANKIND: Everywhere mankind as a whole is involved, during war as well as during the so-called peace. National economy has become world economy. All national politics has become world politics.” – Bishop Otto Dibelius, speech, 16.3.47. – And yet many millions of private enterprises and associations do their own things, without disturbing the others. Only when it comes to political, economic and social systems, so far territorially imposed, do others often become quite involuntarily involved and THUS it comes to political strife, going even to civil wars, revolutions and international wars. If dissenters could escape the territorial prison cells, to do their own things among themselves, then the rest of the “nation” and the world would not be immediately affected. It could then not be harmed or wronged or changed against its will. It would then have experiments performed by others at their risk and expense and would tend only to copy some of those, which proved successful. It would then have no right or occasion to complain about these experimenters, not any more than it would have a right to complain about experiments in laboratories or workshops, by scientists and technicians. – J.Z., 15.12.07. - UNIVERSAL INVOLVEMENT, NATIONALISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, INTERNATIONALISM

MANKIND: Mankind is something like a coral reef structure – but on land. Individually the life form involved in this reef may be quite stupid but in combination and in the long run it can be quite impressive. – J.Z., 27.6.85. – Coral reefs offer in shape and colour almost something like a panarchist variety of life forms, living next to each other and, as far as I know, peacefully coexisting with many other life forms, except a few which prey on coral reefs. – J.Z., 13.12.07.

MANKIND: While I oppose all artificial barriers between the peoples of this and any other world and the various territorial domination systems over minorities, I do not favour any compulsory unification of mankind or “nation-States” under a single territorial system, but, instead, the abolition of all borders or frontiers and of all territorial monopolies. Then likeminded people should be quite free to associate within and across all former borders, on the basis of personal laws or voluntary societies and communities, including statist ones, also free to federate alike communities as much as they like, but all individuals should remain free to opt out of all of them and to maintain only free market and free contract relationships with all others prepared to deal with them. People are too different to be united by more than e.g. common human rights and liberties, to the extent that they want to make use of them, transport and communication and trading options, their own kinds of preferred exchange media, value standards, credit and finance system, etc. This implies also freedom for all to subscribe to various package deals for like-minded people, including all former government services, to the extent that they still like them for themselves and always only at the own expense and risk and for their own benefit and that of their dependents, as e.g. their insurance contracts are. Freedom and tolerance for diversity, rather than any enforced or even world-wide unification. We are not just one single big and happy human family. There is much conflict remaining even in the nuclear families and in the extended families. No world state, or world federation or world community could satisfy all kinds of people. One should not even try. But one should break down all artificial barriers, all compulsory discrimination, all compulsory segregation and compulsory integration and let all people choose their own friends and allies or associates, as well as their own ideological enemies, as long as they do not engage in physical fights with them - in other than sports arenas. – J.Z., n.d. and 30.10.07, 30.12.10. - FAMILY OF MAN, UNIFICATION OF MANKIND? DIS.

MANN, J.: Texts and Studies, vol. I, Cincinnati, 1931, on self-government.

MANN, JACOB: The Exilarchic Office in Babylonia and Its Ramifications at the end of the Gaonic Period, in Hebrew, in "Livre d'hommage a la memoire du Dr. Damuel Poznanski", Warsaw, 1927, Hebrew section, pp 18-32.

MANN, JACOB: The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs, 2 vols., 1920-22, Oxford, London, 1920-1922, reprinted in 1 vol., N.Y., Ktav Publishing House, 1970. - " ... a contribution to their political and communal history based chiefly on Geniza material. Oxford 1920-1922. Somewhat incoherent, but revealing new aspects of Jewish life under Islam." - Goitein.

MANN, VIVIAN, ET AL, Convivencia: Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Medieval Spain. George Braziller: 1992. - Vivan Mann et al., eds. Quoted by Adam Knott.

MANOURY, KARL: Reverend, lecture, 15.4.1955 on the Huguenots in the Mark Brandenburg (Prussia). (Notes in JZL) Among many other interesting details was the following: "The tradesmen were exempted from the guild restrictions and allowed freedom to work. This brought them immense advantages." - "With the farmers treaties were concluded, exempting them from serfdom and statute labour." - See also the book by Hugo Erbe. - HUGUENOTS

MAO & DESERTION: 58, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. Desertion is a special form of individual secessionism. Desertion from the forces of a dictatorial regime should never be considered as a crime. On the contrary. Democracies should encourage and reward it, at least with asylum. Without realizing it, at the time, the deserters from the Nationalist Chinese regime to Mao, were deserting to an even worse regime. But when even an as bad regime can attract so many deserters, then free societies could, obviously, attract many more, if they systematically tried to do so, instead of upholding immigration barriers against deserters and other refugees. They haven't realized as yet that man is "The Ultimate Resource", as a book title by Julian L. Simon says. - It seems that an anthology on the role of desertion in the past and its potential for the future has still to be compiled. The best article on this subject that I have found was written by Ulrich von Beckerath, as part of a letter and was reproduced by me in my two peace books. - J.Z., 17.9.04. – DESERTION, REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS, PRISONERS OF WAR, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, LIBERATION, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS, DEFENCE

MAPS: Map is not territory', but a map is an objective reality." - John W. Campbell, Jr., Letters, I/149. - We have so far mapped political options only via territorial maps and hardly know how to graphically represent panarchies. Should we try to do so via a multiple of individual colour dots of different colours and shades, here and there somewhat concentrated? All over, they would merely give the impression of a mixture of white and grey, I believe, i.e., they would not represent the real situation unless they are on a scale where individual colour dots, representing the affiliation of every individual, became clearly visible. - J.Z., 7.3.89, 31.3.89. - MAPPING OR ILLUSTRATING ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, ESPECIALLY EXTERRITORIAL ONES

MAPS: Maps that show only national territories, States and their borders and geographical features are rather deceptive and misleading. They do not show the real variety and diversity of man in such areas, his desires and aspirations and his possible and desired associations with others within and across such borders. Moreover, they help to maintain the spleens and false assumptions of national, ethnical, religious and ideological uniformity and with them help to maintain the targets for mass murder devices. To most people their free and voluntary associations with relatives, friends or like-minded people matter much more than territorial borders do. Territorial governments are impositions rather than free choices for their victims. If the majority loved high taxes and powerful politicians for itself, who could prevent it from imposing them upon itself? But dissenting minorities should also be free to select and practise their ideals for themselves. – To each his own! - J.Z., 10.7.86, 5.12.07, 4.6.12. – Flying over vast territories is rather enlightening. Borders are rarely noticed from the air. Often one does not even notice over which country one is flying, for the time being. They are not coloured differently as they are on the political maps. And before WW I one could, mostly, quite freely and without passport and also cheaply enough travel from one to the other and stay in other countries, as long as one wanted to, paying one’s way through work or savings. Now even tourism is restricted at least by passports, although it s already the world’s largest industry. But most immigrants are no longer welcomed or simply ignored. – J.Z., 24.12.07, 27.12.11. - MAPS OF STATES, NATIONS, COUNTRIES, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES FOR INDIVIDUALS:

MARITAIN, JACQUES, Man and the State, (1951) - Note: In this extract the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain is not critical of the state per se but of the fact that the state has made itself the absolute sovereign of the political body (society). In doing so, it has turned upside down the relationship between human beings and the state, making the former just tools at the service of the latter. - This happened, according to Maritain, during the French Revolution when power shifted from the King to the Nation and the Nation was seen as a superior person called the Nation State. - This short text is part of a book that systematizes six lectures given by Maritain in December 1949 in the USA under the auspices of the Charles R. Walgreen Foundation for the Study of American Institutions. - GPdB - - - THE PEOPLE AND THE STATE - The State is not the supreme incarnation of the Idea, as Hegel believed; the State is not a kind of collective superman; the State is but an agency entitled to use power and coercion, and made up of experts or specialists in public order and welfare, an instrument in the service of man. Putting man at the service of that instrument is political perversion. The human person as an individual is for the body politic and the body politic is for the human person as a person. But man is by no means for the State. The State is for man. - [Is it for or against man? - J.Z.] - - When we say that the State is the superior part in the body politic, this means that it is superior to the other organs or collective parts of this body, but it does not mean that it is superior to the body politic itself. The part as such is inferior to the whole. The State is inferior to the body politic as a whole, and is at the service of the body politic as a whole. Is the State even the head of the body politic? Hardly, for in the human being the head is an instrument of such spiritual powers as the intellect and the will, which the whole body has to serve; whereas the functions exercised by the State are for the body politic, and not the body politic for them. - - The theory which I have just summarized, and which regards the State as a part or an instrument of the body politic, subordinate to it and endowed with topmost authority not by its own right and for its own sake, but only by virtue and to the extent of the requirements of the common good, can be described as an "instrumentalist" theory, founding the genuinely political notion of the State. But we are confronted with quite another notion, the despotic notion of the State, based on a "substantialist” or “absolutist” theory. According to this theory the State is a subject of right, i.e., a moral person, and consequently a whole; as a result it is either superimposed on the body politic or made to absorb the body politic entirely, and it enjoys supreme power by virtue of its own natural, inalienable right and for its own final sake. - - Of course there is for everything great and powerful an instinctive tendency – and a special temptation – to grow beyond its own limits. Power tends to increase power, the power machine tends ceaselessly to extend itself; the supreme legal and administrative machine tends toward bureaucratic self-sufficiency; it would like to consider itself an end, not a means. Those who specialize in the affairs of the whole have a propensity to take-themselves for the whole; the general staffs to take themselves for the whole army, the Church authorities for the whole Church; the State for the whole body politic. By the same token, the State tends to ascribe to itself a peculiar common good – its own self-preservation and growth – distinct both from the public order and welfare, which are its immediate end, and from the common good which is its final end. All these misfortunes are but instances of “natural" excess or abuse - - But there has been something much more specific and serious in the development of the substantialist or absolutist theory of the State. This development can be understood only in the perspective of modern history and as a sequel to the structures and conceptions peculiar to the Mediaeval Empire, to the absolute monarchy of the French classical age, and the absolute government of the Stuart kings in England. Remarkably enough, the very word State only appeared in the course of modern history; the notion of the State was implicitly involved in the ancient concept of city (polis, civitas) which meant essentially body politic, and still more in the Roman concept of the Empire: it was never explicitly brought out in Antiquity. According to a historical pattern unfortunately most recurrent, both the normal development of the State – which was in itself a sound and genuine progress – and the development of the spurious-absolutist-juridical and philosophical conception of the State took place at the same time. - - An adequate explanation of that historical process would require a long and thorough analysis. Here I merely suggest that in the Middle Ages the authority of the Emperor, and in early modem times the authority of the absolute King, descended from above on the body politic, upon which it was superimposed. For centuries, political authority was the privilege of a superior "social race" which had a right – and believed it to be an innate or immediately God-given and inalienable right – to supreme power over, and leadership as well as moral guidance of, the body politic – made up, it was assumed, of people under age who were able to make requests, remonstrances, or riots, [but?] not to govern themselves. So, in the "baroque age," while the reality of the State and the sense of the State progressively took shape as great juridical achievements, the concept of the State emerged more or less confusedly as the concept of a whole – sometimes identified with the person of the king – which was superimposed on or which enveloped the body politic and enjoyed power from above by virtue of its own natural and inalienable right, – that is to say, which possessed sovereignty. For in the genuine sense of this word – which depends on the historical formation of the concept of sovereignty, prior to jurists' various definitions – sovereignty implies not only actual possession of and right to supreme power, but a right which is natural and inalienable, to a supreme power which is supreme separate from and above its subjects. - - At the time of the French Revolution that very concept of the State considered as a whole unto itself was preserved, but it shifted from the King to the Nation, mistakenly identified with the body politic; hence Nation, Body Politic and State were identified. And the very concept of sovereignty – as a natural or innate and inalienable right to supreme transcendent power – was preserved, but shifted from the King to the Nation. At the same time, by virtue of a voluntarist theory of law and political society, which had its acme in eighteenth century philosophy, the State was made into a person (a so-called moral person) and a subject of right, in such a way that the attribute of absolute sovereignty, ascribed to the Nation, was inevitably, as a matter of fact, to be claimed and exercised by the State. - - Thus it is that in modem times the despotic or absolutist notion of the State was largely accepted among democratic tenets by the theorists of democracy – pending the advent of Hegel, the prophet and theologian of the totalitarian, divinized State. In England, John Austin's theories only tended to tame and civilize somewhat the old Hobbesian Leviathan. This process of acceptance was favored by a symbolical property, which genuinely belongs to the State, namely, the fact that, just as we say twenty head of cattle meaning twenty animals, in the same way the topmost part in the body politic naturally represents the political whole. Nay more, the notion of the latter is raised to a higher degree of abstraction and symbolization, and the consciousness of the political society is raised to a more completely individualized idea of itself in the idea of the State. In the absolutist notion of the State, that symbol has been made a reality, it has been hypostasized. According to this notion the State is a metaphysical monad, a person; it is a whole unto itself, the very political whole in its supreme degree of unity and individuality. So it absorbs in itself the body politic from which it emanates, as well as all the individual or particular wills which, according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, have engendered the General Will in order mystically to die and resurge in its unity. And it enjoys absolute sovereignty as an essential property and right. - - That concept of the State, enforced in human history, has forced democracies into intolerable self-contradictions, in their domestic life and above all in international life. For this concept is no part of the authentic tenets of democracy, it does not belong to the real democratic inspiration and philosophy, it belongs to a spurious ideological heritage which has preyed upon democracy like a parasite. During the reign of individualist or "liberal" democracy the State, made into an absolute, displayed a tendency to substitute itself for the people, and so to leave the people estranged from political life to a certain extent; it also was able to launch the wars between nations which disturbed the XIXth Century. Nevertheless, after the Napoleonic era the worst implications of this process of State absolutization were restrained by the democratic philosophy and political practices, which then prevailed. It is with the advent of the totalitarian regimes and philosophies that those worst implications were released. The State made into an absolute revealed its true face. Our epoch has had the privilege of contemplating the State totalitarianism of Race with German Nazism, of Nation with Italian Fascism, of Economic Community with Russian Communism. - - The point which needs emphasis is this. For democracies today the most urgent endeavor is to develop social justice and improve world economic management, and to defend themselves against totalitarian threats from the outside and totalitarian expansion in the world; but the pursuit of these objectives will inevitably involve the risk of having too many functions of social life controlled by the State from above, and we shall be inevitably bound to accept this risk, as long as our notion of the State has not been restated on true and genuine democratic foundations, and as long as the body politic has not renewed its own structures and consciousness, so that the people become more effectively equipped for the exercise of freedom, and the State may be made an actual instrument for the common good of all. Then only will that very topmost agency, which is made by modern civilization more and more necessary to the human person in his political, social, moral, even intellectual and scientific progress, cease to be at the same time a threat to the freedoms of the human person as well as of intelligence and science. Then only will the highest functions of the State – to ensure the law and facilitate the free development of the body politic – be restored, and the sense of the State be regained by the citizens. Then only will the State achieve its true dignity, which comes not from power and prestige, but from the exercise of justice. - From: - TERRITORIALISM, NATION, STATISM, ABSOLUTISM, AUTHORITY, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, DEMOCRACY, TOTALITARIANISM

MARITAIN, JACQUES: Redeeming the Time, London, Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, 1943, 1946, JZL. - Some limited notions on panarchism, autonomy and pluralism can be found on e.g. pages 148-151, 158, 167-169. – However, e.g. instead of an employment program he has only charity to offer: 171. - PEOPLE, STATE, SOVEREIGNTY, MAN, HUMAN RIGHTS, POWER

MARITAIN, JACQUES: True Humanism, Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, London, 1938, JZL. - He offers some panarchistic or close to panarchistic notions, e.g. on pages 127, 128, 131, 156/57, 171, 297. But these are mere glimpses not a consistent point of view. Mostly, for him, too, its territorial politics as usual. Christian generalizations and myths prevent him from coming to clear conclusions. But he shows some interest in coop options, and defends property rights, as many Catholics do, but has otherwise no clear-cut liberation program. However, he concludes on a tolerant note: "The considerations set forth above make it clear that such temporal ends are normally diverse, indeed contrary. That Catholics should form different groups on the temporal plane, and even ones which are mutually opposed, is normal: what is demanded here is that they should keep among these diversities and oppositions those laws of truths, of loyalty, of justice and of charity to which they are bound to conform their actions, not only with regard to those who share their faith, but with regard to all men whatsoever." - J.Z.

MARKET ECONOMY: My argument stands like a tripod on the three legs of politics, economics and ethics. First, if we prefer individual freedom to coercion, we have no choice but to accept the competitive market economy as providing fullest scope for its political expression. Secondly, the market system also provides the most efficient solution to the economic problem of making the best use of scarce resources in the creation of wealth.” – Ralph Harris, The End of Government … ? - - Alas, he did not stand up for a free market for whole political, economic and social systems, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities, all freely chosen by individuals for themselves. Free enterprise, free exchange, free trade, free contracts, free choice, consumer sovereignty, freedom of action, free experimentation, tolerance and free competition even for them, even if individual rights and liberties are not their main concern for their internal affairs. – Just like they are not, so far, for most libertarians and anarchists. –. Did he at least stand up for full monetary freedom? - J.Z., 8.12.0731.12.10, 4.6.12. - See: PANARCHISM.

MARKET FOR LIBERTY, THE: by TANNEHILL, & PANARCHISM: The package deal options for free enterprise offers is not sufficiently discussed there. Those with the anti-capitalist mentality will still perceive this degree of freedom as a "bed of Procrustes". They are not satisfied e.g. with boycotting McDonalds of Free Trade but want to see it destroyed! A quite free market is suitable only for radical free marketeers. Thus let us have a free market which would embody even the restricted markets which all too many statists prefer for themselves - but this only as a matter of individual choice, limited by confinement to exterritorial autonomy and to individual secessionism. The right to be free includes even the right to choose various degrees of slavery and serfdom for oneself - as long as one can stand them. - J.Z. - By now this book is online. - J.Z., 2011.

MARKET-GUARD, by PHILIP E. JACOBSON: Where a business makes a new product or service available to the public, a new social institution is created. - Philip E. Jacobson, in "Marketguard", TC 100, 12 Nov. 1981. There should be the same freedom to set up new political, economic and social institutions, quite autonomous ones but applying only exterritorially, to their volunteers, i.e. the same freedom as does already exist, in many countries, for the setting up of religious movements, enterprises and various other voluntary associations. - J.Z., 10. 10. 89. – JACOBSON, BUSINESS, FREE ENTERPRISE, CAPITALISM, SOCIAL SERVICES.

MARKET: a free market in laws and courts.” – Eric Mack, REASON, 3/74. – And for whole free societies, communities and competing governments, offering whole package deals, of great variety and extent, all only to volunteers and under their own personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. -  J.Z., 16.12.07. – PANARCHISM

MARKET: a respect for the omni-competence of the free market place …” – W. F. Buckley, Up from Liberalism, p.193. – If the present and still all too limited or incomplete market were really so competent, then it would have sufficiently marketed all sound freedom peace and justice ideas. But, has it? – Are Buckley’s books sold in it as well and easily as e.g. new kinds of tooth brushes, tennis rackets or running shoes? – Or has he only got “Buckley’ Chance” with them? – Is he free to practise his ideas together with like-minded volunteers or still subjected to territorial laws not of his own choice or making? – I like all his books for the many good points he made in them. But many libertarians seem rather to dislike or even hate him, because of their points of disagreement and as if he were a conservative of the worst possible type. - J.Z., 15.12.07. – DIS., Q.

MARKET: A somewhat more satisfactory name for the extended economic order of collaboration is the term 'market economy', imported from the German. Yet it too suffers from serious disadvantages. In the first instance, the so-called market economy is not really an economy in the strict sense but a complex of large numbers of interacting individual economies with which it shares some but by no means all defining characteristics. If we give to the complex structures resulting from the interaction of individual economies a name that suggests that they are deliberate constructions, this yields the personification or animism to which, as we have seen so many misconceptions of the processes of human interaction are due, and which we are at pains to escape. It is necessary to be constantly reminded that the economy the market produces is not really like products of deliberate human design but is a structure which, while in some respects resembling an economy, in other regards, particularly in not serving a unitary hierarchy of ends, differs fundamentally from a true economy.” – F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.111. - - Panarchism represents a similar multiplicity of peacefully and tolerantly interacting diverse panarchies, all with voluntary members only, but does not itself represent any particular political system but, rather, is merely a basic working framework for all of them. Robert Nozick coined another term for it: “meta-utopia”. What will finally result from the decentralized competition of many different personal law communities nobody can predict in detail, because rights and freedoms and individual choices are involved. Only one thing can be said for sure: A free market for political systems and experiments is bound to produce some better systems than those which are presently generally and territorially imposed. Simply because it releases all creative energies in this sphere as well. - J.Z., 22.12.07, 11.3.09, 1.1.11. – What is called in economics “the free market” is also a misnomer as long as e.g. fully free trade and full monetary and financial freedom are still missing in it. – J.Z., 4.6.12. - MARKET ECONOMY, VARIOUS OTHER ECONOMIC SYSTEMS & PANARCHISM WITH ITS DIVERSE PANARCHIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

MARKET: adult men and women must be taken generally as the best judges of value for money in laying out their earnings and savings on the almost limitless range of goods, services and investments which capitalism offers for their choice. They will make mistakes but, so long as they suffer the consequences, they can be expected to learn from experience, seek advice from family and friends or read the small print more carefully. The effect of consumers voting each day with their shillings and pounds for rival products in the shops has led Lord Robbins to like the market to a continuous referendum, with the further advantage over five-yearly ballots that minority votes are not wasted and producers have to respond to the changing preferences of customers who can take their money elsewhere.” – Ralph Harris, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Right Turn, p.16. - The same consumer and producer sovereignty should exist for whole political, economic and social systems, now monopolistically imposed upon the populations of whole territories, rather than offered as competitively supplied services. - J.Z., 31.12.10, 4.6.12.

MARKET: all services, including defence, the police, and the courts, must become freely marketable.” – Rothbard, For a New Liberty. p.18. – Not only single public services but whole package deals of them, offered by whole communities, societies and governments, freely competing with each other, on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 15.12.07. – Alas, he would have excepted genuinely free banks and other potential issuers of notes, clearing house certificates etc., considering all of them to be fraudulent because they would not cover and redeem them 100 % with gold coins, but “merely” with wanted consumer goods and services, whose value is expressed e.g. in gold weight value units. – J.Z., 11.209. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MARKET: All societies use all three principles – commands, unenforced good behaviour and the market. The market has the advantage of providing both the information and the incentives for a system of non-coercive co-operation.” – Samuel Brittan, Participation Without Politics, p.15. - All kinds of panarchies would use their kinds of commands and enforced behaviour only among volunteers. These would also be free to secede individually and in whole groups upon any strong dissent. That would make a great change for these societies and all "competing governments" and "voluntary governments" under personal laws and with only full exterritorial autonomy. - Too many writers have still left them out of their considerations. - J.Z., 1.1.11. - SOCIETIES, COERCION & COOPERATION

MARKET: an unhampered market entails the total absence of government.” – Naomi Moldowski, in 1977 CIS Conference, p.16. – Or a free market that embraces even all governmental or non-governmental services, all only for volunteers and under their own personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. Then a fully free market would not be the general choice of all people, at least not immediately, but at least the radical freedom lovers could have it for themselves – and the restrictionists could have all the restrictions they want – upon themselves. – J.Z., 15.12.07. - The territorial statists would only lose their territorial monopoly and involuntary subjects but could go on abusing each other in their usual statists way. - Experimental freedom for all groups of volunteers! - J.Z., 31.12.10. GOVERNMENT, ANARCHISM, DIS., PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY.

MARKET: And the free market has a brain not unlike our own. As every nerve fiber sends messages to the brain, every transaction in the market sends messages of supply and demand through the social body, telling producers what to produce and what they can charge, telling workers where the jobs are, telling investors where to invest – all making it possible for us to move ahead by fulfilling needs in the most efficient ways, putting all energy to use with as little waste as possible.” – Joan Marie Leonard, in THE FREEMAN, 3/1977. – Alas, that kind of market service has not yet been arranged for all kinds of libertarian ideas, projects, plans, resources and talents. Almost all of them have a lonely and hard struggle on their hands, not sufficiently eased by suitable market services for them. – Not even the Internet has quite fundamentally changed that situation. - J.Z., 15.12.07. Nor has it been established as yet for the voluntary subscribers to whole political, economic and social systems. That kind of competition would be much more useful than e.g. the sports, arts and literature competitions. And yet it is still everywhere outlawed! - J.Z., 1.1.11.

MARKET: Any person who is a party to any infringement of the free and unfettered market is biting the hand that feeds. There are no exceptions. A few samples: …” - Leonard E. Read, Castles in the Air. – Territorial political measures are mostly quite useless or even harmful and self-defeating, achieving often even the opposite of what they aimed at. Nevertheless, they go on an on, because they are territorially enforced and supported by taxation and government budgets and some strong vested interests. – J.Z., 15.12.07.

MARKET: Apart from the markets for goods and capital, are there any other markets more important than free markets for ideas, private currencies or exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers – to assure the progress, prosperity, security and peace of man under freedom and justice to all, to the extent of free individual choices? – J.Z., 9.3.87, 5.12.07. - MARKETS FOR IDEAS, TALENTS, COMPETING CURRENCIES & PERSONAL LAW SYSTEMS FOR VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHIES OF POLYARCHIES? Q.

MARKET: decentralized decision-making, a necessary and inevitable feature of a market economy, reduces the power and the possibilities of political maniacs making irreversible mistakes. Mistakes there will be, of course, but the mistakes of a democratic, free-enterprise society are more like an itch or a fit of indigestion in the body politic than they are like a cancer or a heart arrest.” - H. S. Ferns: The Disease of Government, p.139. – The same difference exists between exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers and territorial States with many involuntary members, none of them free to secede. – J.Z., 15.12.07.

MARKET: Entry into the market place should be unrestricted.” – Earl Zarbin, THE FREEMAN, 6/73. – And also the exit. – J.Z., 11/73. - I would be in doubt about allowing any kind of statist into my kind of free market society or community. Or I would charge him extra for the lessons he would still have to learn and the troubles that he might cause in the process. One might call it and apprenticeship fee or training charge. – J.Z., 16.12.07. - Or a panarchy of free market practitioners might give them a trial or probationary period to demonstrate that they have finally understood their individual rights and liberties - and those of all others. - J.Z., 1.1.11, 4.6.12. - FREE ENTRY, OPEN DOOR VS. RESTRICTIONS

MARKET: even when the market doesn't do so well, the government tends to do worse.” - Daniel C. Burton, Libertarian Anarchism, LA POLITICAL NOTES, No. 168. - The "market" only does not do so well if it is not a quite free market, free especially of all territorialist impositions, including monetary and financial despotism. - J.Z., 31.12.10. - DIS. THE GOVERNMENT

MARKET: For the market, properly speaking, is nothing more than an exchange network, a switchboard, as it were, through which goods or services, like messages, are routed to their appropriate destinations. It is not inherently capitalist. Such a switchboard is just as essential to a socialist industrial society as it is to profit-motivated industrialism.” - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.53. - I for one favour free markets also for all kinds of political, economic and social systems, all of volunteers only, under full exterritorial autonomy, including all kinds of State- socialists intent on doing their things to themselves. As long as they do not molest any outsiders with their silly and costly games, they are tolerable and many of them might thereby still become rehabilitated. But as long as they can impose their system like slave masters or feudal lords did, on us, their involuntary territorial subjects, they are unlikely to learn the lessons they still need to learn. - J.Z., 1.1.11, 4.6.12. - FREE MARKET, A SWITCHBOARD

MARKET: Free competitive markets are markets which operate under the law of supply and demand, and not under a government-planned economy.” – Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. - There are numerous other wrongful and irrational interventions with free markets that do not as yet amount to a completely government-planned and controlled economy. Let individuals become free to choose for themselves how much external planning, control, supervision, regulation and legislation they want for themselves, if any at all, in their preferred communities or societies of volunteers. Only then would we sufficiently speed up the spread of truly free markets in all spheres. - J.Z., 1.1.11. - DIS.

MARKET: Full liberty requires free market arrangements in every sphere. – J.Z., 14.9.99. – Even in the three spheres of political, economic and social systems. – J.Z. 4.12.07. - MARKETS & LIBERTY IN EVERY SPHERE, PANARCHISM

MARKET: Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion – the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals – the technique of the marketplace.” – Milton Friedman - Let the statists volunteer to become their own victims - without victimizing any others! Let all the freedom, peace and justice lovers opt out from under them - to do their own things among themselves. - J.Z., 1.1.11. - DIS. MARKETS & VOLUNTARISM VS. CENTRALIZED DECISION-MAKING & COMPULSION

MARKET: Given a society of freely choosing individuals, the market is that which exists as a consequence – it is a mechanism that is otherwise non-definitive. It is the procession of economic (*) events that occur when authoritarianism – political or otherwise – is absent. - - While private enterprise is often practiced in a manner consonant with free market principles, the two terms are not synonymous. Piracy is an enterprise and also private. Many businesses when in league with unions, for instance – willingly or not – feature elements of coercion and thus are not examples of the free market at work.” - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.70. - (*) Also of political and social events! How could he overlook so much of the whole of the freedom options? However, at least he did advocate monetary freedom in very general terms. - J.Z., 1.1.11.

MARKET: Governments cannot efficiently establish, maintain and protect free markets. They cannot even cope with smugglers of drugs, with illegal gambling and crimes with involuntary victims. But they can disturb and diminish or outlaw certain free markets. The most important free markets that they have effectively outlawed is that for sound exchange media and value standards as alternatives to their own unsound ones and that for alternative political, economic and social systems, all for volunteers only. – J.Z., 20.4.93, 4.12.07. - MARKETS & GOVERNMENTS

MARKET: grasp control of the market place from the hands of the rulers!” – Wesley H. Hillendahl, THE FREEMAN, 7/74. – Let them have their wrongful, irrational, absurd and silly statist games among themselves and their voluntary followers. Only see to it that you and like-minded people can freely secede from them. Then do your own things for yourself and let them to their own things to themselves. That would be least provocative towards them, for they could retain rule over their remaining voluntary followers, as long as they can satisfy them. Since they believe to be in the right, considering themselves to be the “law and order” people or the ‘social justice” people etc., thereby a civil war or suppression can be avoided and public opinion could be gained for this kind of tolerant or live and let live system, especially seeing that even majorities have their minority factions. –– But do not grasp it for yourself. Just take it from those who possess it at present and grant it to no one, including yourself. – The “How? involves a detailed game plan, on which we have so far not agreed. – The simplest one is the realization of the right of individuals to secede. – But which is the best blueprint for realizing that right? I hold that its inclusion in a comprehensive new greatly expanded and optimally worded declaration of individual rights and liberties would be a very significant step. An ideal militia for the realization and protection of these rights and liberties would also be required. –But who is willing to help bring about these two changes? – Voluntary taxation is another important step. But so far there seems not even to have been enough of an interest in that proposal to produce an anthology of all suggestions towards voluntary taxation and their criticism. Some of the most important libertarian tasks simply remain undone for lack of interest in them! – In some respects the libertarian movement does not seem to move at all! - It might get moving again once we bothered to compile a libertarian common projects list online. - Or a libertarian Ideas Archive. And a libertarian directory indicating special libertarian interests. - J.Z., 15.12.07, 11.2.09. 31.12.10, 4.6.12. – PANARCHISM, START-UPS

MARKET: Hayek suggests that we call the market order a ‘catallaxy’, from the Greek verb meaning not only ‘to exchange’ but “to welcome into the community’ and ‘to change from enemy into friend’.” - David Boaz, ed., The Libertarian Reader, The Free Press, 1997, p.251. (Claiming copyrights even to the writings of Paine, Madison, Tocqueville, Mill, etc.! – J.Z.) - Panarchists and polyarchists say to dissenters and even to those, who were their enemies up to now: Welcome to your own communities of volunteers, as long as you leave our own communities of volunteers alone. – “To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams and choice.” – J.Z., 3.10.07. – They do not offer them their other cheek to be slapped - but they do offer them the full exterritorial autonomy option and on this basis they can even become friends and allies and if not that, then they can at least become neutrals toward each other, just leaving each other sufficiently alone or engaging only in peaceful trades and communications. – J.Z., 3.10.07. – That kind of offer could come to deactivate even most terrorists, once they are taught their lesson about “collective responsibility”, too. – J.Z., 11.2.09. – Should even amnesty be offered to former terrorists, once they do become tolerant to that extent. It was offered to Nelson Mandela (after a long prison sentence), although he merely became another territorial democrat. – J.Z., 4.6.12. - MARKET ORDER, CATALLAXY, AN OVER-ALL FREE SOCIETY MADE UP OF VARIOUS PEACEFULLY COMPETING SOCIETIES, EVEN OF OPPONENTS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

MARKET: I advocate the free market in everything except human rights. They should not be for sale in the general market for goods and services. Volunteers however should be free to renounce their practice as far as the internal affairs of their exterritorially autonomous communities are concerned. – J.Z., n.d. & 30.11.07. – HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

MARKET: I define the ideal freedom in a refined state as no man-concocted restraints against the release of creative energy. Here at FEE we refer to this ideal way of life as a freedom philosophy – its practice an aspiration. In the economic realm we call it the free market.” – Leonard E. Read, The Miracle of the Market, in Champions of Freedom, p.54. - Merely self-destructive energies also belong into the sphere of freedom. – And the political and social sphere should also have its free market, for all kinds of public services and public service package deals, offered by societies and communities of volunteers, freely competing with what remains of territorial governments after all dissenters were free to secede from them, reducing them also to mere associations of volunteers. – J.Z., 16.12.07.

MARKET: I know nothing about successful marketing except that it needs a general and fully free market as well as many special free markets and that so far neither of them have been completely established. Least of all are there good enough special markets a) for new ideas and talents, innovators, reformers and experimenters in the social sciences, b) for various experimental societies and communities of volunteers, c) for various public service package deals which they may offer to willing customers, d) for various alternative monetary and financial systems, all without any monopoly claims and coercive features. – J.Z., 27.6.94, 4.12.07, 4.6.12. - SUCCESSFUL MARKETING

MARKET: I prefer the market. – J.Z., 25.11.73. – I prefer the free market. – J.Z., 7.12.07. - I wish to experience it in every sphere, especially in the monetary and financial spheres and those of all kinds of political, economic and social systems, all for their sovereign and voluntary consumers, members, contributors or victims only. - J.Z., 1.1.11.

MARKET: In brief, the freedom philosophy or the free market is a way of life. But it differs from most philosophies in that it does not prescribe how any individual should live his life. It allows freedom for each to do as he pleases – life in accord with his own uniqueness as he sees it – so long as the rights of others are not infringed, which is to say, so long as no one does anything which, were everyone to do so, would bring all of us to grief or ruin. In short, this way of life commends no control external to the individual beyond those which a government limited to keeping the peace and invoking a common justice might impose.” - Leonard E. Read, The Miracle of the Market, in Champions of Freedom, p.55/56. - Alas, he did not yet envision exterritorially freely competing governments and free societies of volunteers as organizations to uphold justice, liberty and peace. – He did not recognize the right of statists to let their lives run by their self-chosen government, but only equipped with exterritorial autonomy “power”, which would not extend to a single peaceful dissenter who would rather secede than obey it. - J.Z., 16.12.07.

MARKET: in the long run, markets win and governments fail.” – Dr. William A. Dunn, THE FREE MARKET, Dec. 86. - - Especially once we also get free markets for all kinds of public services and public service package deals offered by competing governments and free societies without any territorial monopoly and confined to their voluntary members. – J.Z., 4.12.07. - MARKETS VS. GOVERNMENTS

MARKET: It also means individual sovereignty instead of territorial sovereignty, voluntary State membership instead of involuntary citizenship and subjugation, the practice of all individual rights and liberties instead of merely those recognized by territorial governments. Moreover, it means exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, under their own personal laws. It means free and peaceful competition between political, economic and social systems and their various experiments, all among volunteers only. It means freedom of contracts in all spheres not only those authorized by territorial governments. It means free consumer sovereignty towards all kinds of governmental or non-governmental services and institutions and free enterprise for their competitive provision. It means full freedom of contract and of association and disassociation in every sphere. – Without such extensions and consistent applications the “free” market is not complete and free. - J.Z., 15.12.07, 4.6.12.

MARKET: It is because the free market serves evil as well as good that many people think they can rid society of evil by slaying this faithful, amoral servant. This is comparable to destroying the sun because we don't like the shadows we cast or breaking the mirror so we don’t have to see the reflection of what we really are.” (*) - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.71. - Alas, Read still assumed that the fully freed market would not have its own protection, defence, policing, court and penal services, competing with each other and operating much more effectively and cheaply than the corresponding territorial governmental monopoly services. These market forces would drive out fraudulent, coercive and monopolistic disservices just like the monies of full monetary freedom would drive out those of monetary despotism. - J.Z., 22.12.07. – Usually, it is amoral only in the Christian sense. And when it comes to the production and supply of weapons to any government which, as a territorial government is inherently amoral. – (*) like? - J.Z., 11.2.09. – The serving of evil or the doing of wrongs to involuntary victims should in no way be ascribed to a free market. If any harm or wrong is done, then it should be as a result of the free choice of the victims. When anyone supplied guns to criminals or terrorists or criminal governments or even nuclear weapons to such potential mass murderers, then this is not a free market action, which would uphold the rights and liberties of all. – J.Z., 4.6.12. - AN AMORAL SERVANT, DIS.

MARKET: It is in the market place that society flourishes, because it is in the market place that the individual flourishes. Not only does he find here the satisfactions for which he craves, but he also learns of the desires of his fellow men so that he might the better serve him. More than that, he learns of and swaps ideas (*), hopes, and dreams, and comes away with values of greater worth to him than even those congealed in material things.” - Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.122. - Without individual and group secessionism, combined with voluntary associationism under personal laws, society and its various voluntary sub-societies, cannot flourish as well as they could and should. See Panarchism. - - (*) In the absence of a special market for ideas he comes across only relatively few ideas. – See: IDEAS ARCHIVE - J.Z., 22.12.07.

MARKET: It may not be within the capacity of most human beings to envision, appreciate and consciously promoted the market order in many spheres or even completely in one sphere. E.g., there are too many different jobs, special markets, goods, services and firms for that. I know nothing and probably will never know anything about the market in pork belly futures. Nobody fully understands the own society and State, far less all others. Even less could he come to fully know and understand all the diverse panarchies of the future or all the present ca.35,000 religions and sects in the world, all the registered patents or new mathematical theorems. (See e.g. under MATHEMATICS, VARIETIES OF MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE. See also my file “Pan Numbers”. An older version of it is online at ) However, once all the special markets are freely established and maintained and made sufficiently known, then everyone will at least be able to come to understand and to contribute somewhat, by his supply or demand, to one or a few of the special markets and thus promote progress as much as he could or even should. I consider e.g. full monetary and full financial freedom as two special markets not yet established. Another one is that for panarchies, or exterritorially autonomous communities. See also under IDEAS ARCHIVE, REFUTATIONS ENCYCLOPAEDIA & CONTACTS (a meeting calendar for cities ). – J.Z., October 1989, 28.7.92, 7.12.07. - MARKET ORDER

MARKET: It seems to me that Harry Browne is saying that the free market is not only the best suited for the economic needs of man’s existence, but that the free market is best suited for all of man’s needs.” – Jerry P. Starzinski, REASON, 9/74. - Here is a possible prospect for panarchism and full monetary freedom. Perhaps he is still alive and can be reached via Facebook? Directories to such people have still to be established as well! - J.Z., 1.1.11.

MARKET: Let all free marketeers use all free market services and products among themselves, in their own communities and societies – and let all other volunteers of governmental anti-market services, products and institutions go to hell or ruin in their own preferred ways. That would demonstrate best the rightfulness, morality and efficiency of free markets. The stronger the contrast, the more effective the demonstration. – J.Z., 16.12.07. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM.

MARKET: Let the market do it! – J.Z., 7.10.83 – Or communities of volunteers, under their own personal laws, thus harming at most themselves but not any non-members. – J.Z., 15.12.07.

MARKET: Let the market rule everywhere as much as possible and things will be O.K.” - Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, p.444, Harper Collins Publishers, ISBN 0 00 655139 4. - But he quotes this with disapproval, saying: “It is too brutal and therefore politically unsustainable.” The same objection was long raised against capitalism. Who is to decide? Volunteers! Let marketeers have their kind of capitalistic free markets and let opponents of free markets have as many “humane” restrictions among themselves as they like. – E.g., Free Trade for Free Traders and Protectionism only among Protectionists! Taxation only among tax lovers. Voluntary contribution systems among those, who do prefer them! To each his own system, as long as they like it or are willing to put up with it. Who could rightfully ask for more – or for less? – J.Z., 14.9.08. – PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IN ALL SPHERES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS. TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS & ASSOCIATIONS.

MARKET: Liberty and [the] free market provide the way out.” – D. M. Kulkarni, THE INDIAN LIBERTARIAN, May 75. – Let everyone become free to use, at his own expense and risk, whatever way out he sees or imagines! Panarchism! – J.Z., 11.2.09.

MARKET: Long ago I decided that I wished to be an activist. But I wished to demonstrate by peaceful ways, which do not violate the boundaries of others, that the correct arena for effective action is the market place rather than the political hustlings. Instead of girding up my loins to get everyone else to do as I would like, that I would un-gird my loins and try to manage my own affairs as they should be managed.” – Robert LeFevre, LE FEVRE’S JOURNAL, Fall 78. - Competing governments and competing societies vs. territorial, coercive and monopolistic governments, not only competing private enterprises. – J.Z., 11.2.09. - MARKET ACTION VS. POLITICAL ACTIVISM, PANARCHISM, SELF-HELP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT WITH OTHER VOLUNTEERS, UNDER PERSONAL LAWS OR FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, COERCION & MONOPOLISM

MARKET: 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, 22. – That individual choice should be extended to all government services, to the services of whole communities and societies, with their various package deals of public services. But Leonard Read envisioned only a single territorial government, limited according to his specifications, hopes or ideal. – J.Z., 15.12.07. – CHOICE, TOLERANCE, COMPETITION, FREE MARKETS IN EVERY SPHERE, SELF-MANAGEMENT, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION – UNDER FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

MARKET: market protection agencies could perform more efficiently the same service as is supposedly provided by ‘government’, …” – Roy A. Childs, Jr., Liberty Against Power, Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco, 1994, p.151. - MARKET PROTECTION AGENCIES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, VS. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES

MARKET: MARKET-GUARD, by PHILIP E. JACOBSON: “Where a business makes a new product or service available to the public, a new social institution is created.” - Philip E. Jacobson, in "Marketguard", THE CONNECTION 100, 12 Nov. 1981. There should be the same freedom to set up new political, economic and social institutions, quite autonomous ones but applying only exterritorially, to their volunteers, i.e. the same freedom as does already exist, in many countries, for the setting up of religious movements, enterprises and various other voluntary associations. - J.Z. 10 Oct. 89. – In this article he comes close not only to protective associations but also to PANARCHISM. – J.Z., 11.2.09.

MARKET: markets make it possible for us to retain our individuality.” - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free, Hoover Institute Press, 1982, p.63. - Therefore: free markets for the provision and purchase of all public services, even those presently monopolized by territorial governments. – J.Z., 6.7.07. - MARKETS & INDIVIDUALITY, PANARCHISM

MARKET: Milton Friedman … writes that the fundamental difference between the political market and the economic market is that in the former there is very little relation between what you vote for and what you get; whereas in the latter you get what you vote for.” – Henry Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 12/76. – That is true for territorial politics, but not for the exterritorial autonomy choice for volunteers introduced by a free market also for communities of volunteers. Even of political “services” these volunteers would then get only those they really want for themselves and are willing to pay for, with whatever financing system they have agreed upon among themselves. – J.Z., 15.12.07.

MARKET: On the Market no one believes in higher human beings.” – Nietzsche. (Auf dem Markt glaubt niemand an hoehere Menschen.) (*) – Ideology, race, religion etc. are largely irrelevant on a really free market. Only genuine goods and services really count there, provided they are already sufficiently known and appreciated. New or unknown goods, ideas, talents and services need special markets and quite independent communities of volunteers to support or appreciate them. However, on the political and territorial market for votes the popular errors, myths, prejudices, stupidity, lack of interest and knowledge do count most. - In the market for political territorial votes the imagined and pretending supermen can still gain the majority of the votes of ignorant and prejudiced human beings. – Politicians have no right to be proud when they are elected by fools, ignorant and prejudiced people, with their voting majority. – If they are proud of their election victory then they are fools themselves. - J.Z., 6.12.07. – (*) However, the market does very much appreciates popular human beings, e.g. famous actors, sportsmen, comics, writers, TV & radio broadcasting personalities, who are not necessarily superior human beings or have genuine talents, except for pleasing crowds. – J.Z., 11.2.09, 4.6.12. - VOTING ON THE FREE MARKET & IN TERRITORIAL POLITICS

MARKET: Politicians are impotent today’, Moore told me, beaming. He explained that the free market is running the world. ‘Libertarian. Self-organizing. Democratic. It votes every minute.’ Governments, he said, ‘get immediate rewards for good policy, immediate punishments for bad policy. This is new. Even the Europeans are getting their act together’.” - P. J. O’Rourke, The CEO of the Sofa, Atlantic Monthly Press, 841 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10003, 2001, p.32. - Quoting Stephen Moore, Cato Institute’s director of fiscal policy studies. - - We still have a very long way to go in this direction. Central Banking despotism, taxation, territorialism, immigration restrictions and numerous legalized monopolies and privileges are still with us. – Individuals and minorities are still not free to secede and do their own things under personal laws and politicians got and spent for their purposes most of the proceeds from whatever was privatized. – Only panarchies or polyarchies would fully realize his dreamed-of market paradise and confine the enemies of free markets to their own followers and means. - J.Z., 8.10.07. - MARKETS, GOVERNMENTS, POLITICIANS & VOTING, PANARCHISM

MARKET: powers are better matched in the market place and we don’t have to have this big State. …” - REASON interview, REASON 8/76, p. 18. – Powers, except for purchasing power and self-help and self-management options do not really exist in a quite free market. A free market for ideas and talents has still to be established, one going far beyond the beginnings that we so far have in this sphere. – J.Z., 11.2.09, 4.6.12. - We would have only as big or small States as volunteers want for themselves, but none with a territorial monopoly. – The purchasing power for individuals and societies becomes only maximized under full monetary and financial freedom, i.e., when monetary and financial despotism are finally ended. - J.Z., 31.12.10. – POWER, INFLUENCE, IDEAS ARCHIVE, TALENT CENTRE, TERRITORIALISM, COMPETITION

MARKET: Saying that economic problems are the result of the free market’s failure is like gaining twenty pounds and calling the bathroom scale a bum.” - P. J. O’Rourke, Eat the Rich, A Treatise on Economics, Picador, 1998, p.240. – This overlooks the many spheres in which the supposedly free market is still not fully realized: E.g. central banking vs. free banking, protectionism vs. free trade, immigration restrictions vs. free migration, taxation vs. voluntary contributions. Add to this the territorial monopolies that territorial States have for constitutions, legislation, jurisdiction, police, prison services and their powers to make war and to produce and stockpile anti-people mass-murder devices and impose their bureaucratic institutions, and regulations upon peaceful and productive citizens. What we do have is not a free market situation but a somewhat free economy coercively mixed with many statist monopolies and restrictions – which, inevitably produced many and large failures and crises. To blame these upon a fully free market is wrong and absurd. – J.Z., 24.9.07, 4.6.12. - MARKET FAILURES, JOKES

MARKET: Surely, the libertarian anarchist does not contend that there ought to be a market in force per se. What he is really saying is that there ought to be a market in defensive and retaliatory force.” – Jeffrey Paul, JLS, Fall 77, p.340. – He, too, ignored the possibilities of full exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. They would include communities of Statists, to the extent of voluntary slavery, voluntary State Socialism, voluntary Totalitarian Communism. For this we have many peaceful precedents, in monasteries, nunneries, intentional communities and utopian colonies. Unless religiously motivated they usually don’t last long because the members learn something from their experience with them. How long would communities of thieves, robbers and murderers last if they could victimize only each other? Genuine protective and defensive services should certainly be offered competitively rather than monopolistically and to a limited degree they already are, through various private security companies. – J.Z., 11.2.09. - MARKET IN FORCE? DIS.

MARKET: That is the beauty of the market system – it provides for individual preferences.” - Leon Louw, THE MERCURY, 11/78, p.43. – That is also why it should be extended to the provision of all “governmental” services – exterritorially, all to their volunteers only and at their risk and expense, finally ending the territorial monopoly for them. – J.Z., 15.12.07, 4.6.12. –POLYARCHY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, FREE COMPETITION, FREE ENTERPRISE & CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IN ALL SPHERES: PANARCHISM

MARKET: The best the government can do for the preservation of liberty is to stay out of religion, and the best the people can do is stay in it.” – Jackson Pemberton. THE FREEMAN, 8/76. – As if there were no other liberties than religious liberty! – Liberty cannot be simply preserved when it has to become fully established first! - My version of this J. P. remark would be: The best the government can do for the preservation of liberty is to renounce territorialism, especially in economics, politics and social system affairs and the best the people can do is to secede from all territorial governments and then make their individual choices to stay in the market or to establish their preferred community relationships among their own kind of volunteers, to whatever degree they would like, in every sphere, under their own personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. In this they should follow the examples set by the principle and practice of religious liberty or religious tolerance, i.e., without any territorial monopoly. However, the remaining statists should also still be free to do their own things in the usual government ways, but only exterritorially – to themselves, under the delusion that thereby they would benefit. – J.Z., 7.12.76, 1.8.82, 9.12.07, 11.2.09. – What has religion ever done for liberty except finally, and after all too much bloodshed, setting the example of religious liberty or religious tolerance? [Few exceptions comes to my mind: The temporary establishment of the “Peace of God”, in the Middle Ages, which outlawed feuds on several days per week. The resale services of some religious charity shops, which do also do some good. Some people managed to arrive, in spite of their religion, at least at limited government libertarianism (L. E. Read) or, like Tolstoi, at religiously motivated anarchism. According to Ralph Haulk there are now ca. 35 000 different religions, churches and sects around! – If they could and would do any or much good, the world would already be a much better place. But the best that they can do is that they do no longer coercively interfere with the actions of non-believers or those with different faiths. - J.Z., 11.2.09. - ECONOMICS, LIBERTY, PANARCHISM, RELIGION, DIS.

MARKET: the discipline of the market, combined with elimination of duplication and more utilization of contracting out of government services, could provide us with a service we need at a price we can afford.” – V. A. Forbes, Accountability. – Alas, in the preceding paragraph he still wanted governmental defence, law courts and police services. – Well, he and likeminded limited statists should be free to have them for themselves. But they should not be authorized to force them and their “limited and justified” “services” and costs upon others, who do not act aggressively or criminally towards them. – J.Z., 15.12.07. & CONTRACTING OUT, DIS.

MARKET: The effect of consumers voting each day with their shillings and pounds for rival products in the shops has led Lord Robbins to liken the market to a continuous referendum, with the further advantage over five-yearly ballots that minority votes are not wasted and producers have to respond to the changing preferences of consumers who can take their money elsewhere. …” - Ralph Harris, in Right Turn, ed. by Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Churchill Press Ltd., 1970, p. 18. - That is the same aim that panarchism has for the offer of whole political, economic and social systems. Each of their sovereign customers would subscribe to the kind of package deal that would suit him, at his stage of enlightenment. - J.Z., 1.1.11. - VOTING, DOLLAR VOTES, PANARCHISM

MARKET: The essential notion of a capitalist society … is voluntary cooperation, voluntary exchange. The essential notion of a socialist society is force.” – Milton Friedman: - However, both should be optional – for communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 2.1.08. - MARKETS & LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM VS. STATE SOCIALISM, PANARCHISM, DIS., VOLUNTARISM

MARKET: The free market is attuned to our limited knowledge. All other systems presuppose non-existing wise men. To prosper, at whatever one’s occupation, no more is required than how to read a price. Example: The price of tomatoes rises to five dollars a bushel. What to do? Raise tomatoes! If tomatoes drop to fifty cents a bushel, raise green peas or whatever. No one has to know it all. I repeat, the free market is attuned to how little we know. And the greatest wisdom is to know how little each of us know. If you be similarly blessed, then you are a devotee of the free market, the only societal arrangement that works miracles.” – Leonard E. Read, The Miracle of the Market, in Champions of Freedom, p.66/67. - - It would work miracles, too, if it were allowed to work in the sphere of political systems - all for volunteers only, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, giving them individual sovereignty and consumer sovereignty in that sphere as well, beginning with individual secessions from the present States, a freedom condition so far outlawed by all territorial monopoly States. – J.Z., 16.12.07. - & LIMITED KNOWLEDGE, PRICING, “MIRACLES” OF PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM ETC., FREE CHOICES, INDIVIDUALISM, COMPETITION

MARKET: The free market, including full monetary and financial freedom, also all kinds of self-management systems, offers the best organized, the most productive and even the cheapest mutual aid and voluntary cooperation system for the largest number of people. – J.Z., 6.1.94, 3.12.07. - It even works best for whole political, economic and social systems, under exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers. - FREE MARKET, MUTUAL AID, FREE ENTERPRISE, FREE TRADE, FREE EXCHANGE & COOPERATIVE PRODUCTION

MARKET: The free market, LeFevre proclaimed proudly, runs on unanimous consent.” – L. Neil Smith, FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS, No. 51. – Also in his: Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.77. - Each gets only what he wants and is willing to pay for and is free to ignore all the rest and their costs. – For political, economic and social systems, we have still to realize that free market choice or consumer sovereignty. – J.Z., 27.9.07. - - Yes, for each of millions of very diverse contracts, all regulating only their own affairs. - - We should not forget, however, that it runs also on tolerance for the dissenting opinions and decisions of other producers and consumers. Moreover: A market for communities of volunteers, which are exterritorially autonomous, remains still to be established. Within them we would see much more of genuine unanimous consent and tolerance towards the actions, laws and systems that others chose individually for themselves, just like they chose other fashions, sports, hobbies, crafts or entertainments for themselves. – Peace through freedom for diversity vs. Territorialism & its enforced uniformity. J.Z., 4.12.07, 11.9.09. - & UNANIMOUS CONSENT, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, A MARKET FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES & SYSTEMS, PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & COMPETING SOCIETIES, ALL SUBJECT TO CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY ONLY, DIVERSITY.

MARKET: The General Market is the only democratic government possible, for it permits each person to decide for himself how he’ll use his limited resources. And it allows people of different tastes, different resources, and different philosophies to live side by side. It doesn’t require everyone to conform to one way. – Fortunately, this wondrous government doesn’t have to be created; no constitution has to be written. The General Market already exists (*); it has always existed. It’s merely hidden from view by the interventions of man-made governments.” – Harry Browne, You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis, p.27. – Only when it has become so general and comprehensive that it has done away with any imposed territorial monopoly as well, for any political, economic or social system, so that consumer sovereignty and free enterprise can work in this sphere as well – well, as well as they can for the particular and individually chosen systems and institutions. For many such systems will then soon be revealed as flawed or almost complete failures – and so they should be. That they could all be freely practised among their volunteers and thus under optimum conditions, without internal dissent and resistance, will make their failures all the more convincing. Even the most successful societal or communal experiments of volunteers would then not be forced upon anyone but would simply be market services or market systems freely offered in competition to anyone, to choose them for himself or to hire them or purchase from them. - - (*) Alas, e.g. the full monetary and financial freedom, also required for a quite free market, does not yet exist and did never exist. It is not merely hidden but outlawed by territorial government legislation and actions. Nor has e.g. a fully free market for alternatives to the employer-employee-relationship been developed as yet, or one for all kinds of alternative protective services to those provided or not provided by governmental police and defence services. – J.Z., 15.12.07. – Several SPECIAL markets are still required, especially for libertarian ideas, texts and talents! – J.Z., 14.2.09, 4.6.12.

MARKET: The market allows free choice.” – Melvin D. Barger, THE FREEMAN, 4/76. – That is, for all peaceful, tolerant, non-violent, non-aggressive, non-victimizing actions, i.e., it allows all others also their kind of free choices, instead of interfering with them. – J.Z., 16.12.07. – Alas, it does not, as yet, offer the panarchistic, voluntary taxation and monetary freedom choices as well. Nor does it give individuals a genuine vote on war and peace, armament and disarmament and against xyz monopolies, laws and regulations, e.g. that of the Post Office. Territorial governments do not as yet allow us to practise all our individual rights and liberties. They do not even recognize many of them. – The choices offered even by the proposed “limited” but still territorial governments are still all too limited! – J.Z., 14.2.09. - PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM! DIS.

MARKET: The market allows minorities, as well as majorities, to express their views.” – Prof. Thos Wilson, quoted in THE INDIVIDUALIST, April 76, p.24. – But not yet through e.g. monetary freedom, voluntary taxation and voluntary State membership, i.e. individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy or panarchism or experimental freedom for volunteers under personal laws, without any territorial monopoly claim. – J.Z., 14.2.09. – Nor does it grant them the freedom of action, under exterritorial autonomy or personal law, to try to fully realize their ideals among themselves. – J.Z., 4.6.12.

MARKET: The market and individual rights rather than any territorial government. - J.Z., 3.5.02. - & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VS. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM

MARKET: The Market for Liberty.” – Morris and Linda Tannehill – book title. (Now online! – J.Z., 2012.) - The package deal options for very diverse enterprise offers in every sphere, including those presently monopolized by territorial governments, is not sufficiently discussed there. Those with the anti-capitalist mentality will still perceive this degree of freedom as a "bed of Prokrustes". They are not satisfied e.g. with boycotting McDonalds or Free Trade but want to see them destroyed! A quite free market is suitable only for radical free marketeers. Thus let us have an all-over free market but one which would embody even the restricted markets which all too many statists prefer for themselves - but this only as a matter of individual choice, further limited by confinement to exterritorial autonomy and to individual secessionism. The right to freedom includes even the right to choose various degrees of slavery and serfdom for oneself - as long as one can stand them. - J.Z., n.d., & 11.2.09, 4.6.12. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY: PANARCHISM:

MARKET: the market is a genuine alternative to bureaucratic economics, and not a road to capitalist tyranny.” - Michael Fry, in The Scotsman on Not From Benevolence by Ralph Harris & Arthur Seldon. – It can and should be more than that. It should also be applied as a genuine alternative to whole political, economic and social systems, which are now imposed by territorial governments. All presently governmental, societal and communal services, including constitutions, laws, juridical systems, police, penal and defence systems should also be supplied competitively, under exterritorial autonomy, by voluntary communities, societies, competing governments etc., and subject to consumer sovereignty, individual choices or boycotts, expressed initially by individual secessions from territorial States and then by voluntary membership in all kinds of societies, communities etc. – The continued outlawry of these alternatives could even lead to a nuclear holocaust. - J.Z., 15.12.07, 4.6.12.

MARKET: The market is pluralistic; you do your thing, I’ll do mine.” – Mick Marotta, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, 21.8.72. – So are e.g. panarchism and monetary freedom. Without them no market is as yet complete and free enough. – J.Z., 14.2.09.

MARKET: the market is simply what results from the free choices made by individuals without government interference.” – Donald J. Devine, Does Freedom Work? Caroline House Books, Green Hills Publishers, 1978, p.44. - Alas, the market IS not yet fully in existence! If only we had already free choices in all spheres now territorially, coercively and monopolistically interfered with by governments - for all those, who do want them for themselves. - J.Z., 31.12.10. - DIS. FREE FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, CHOICES, INDIVIDUALS, FREE EXCHANGE

MARKET: The market is so hard to understand for most, in its general effects, because it does not need to be comprehended and properly treated, like a sensitive machine, in order to function sturdily and lastingly. Thus it is quite thoughtlessly accepted and pragmatically used – or, ignorantly and out of prejudices interfered with. – J.Z., 20.5.81. – All the complaints, which could be rightly raised against all the markets of the past are confined to those aspects or spheres in which genuine free market relationships had not yet been established but were either outlawed or not customary or even remained unknown. How many are fully aware of e.g. the free market as represented by freedom of note issue and free choice of value standards? How many are aware of the many alternatives to the employer-employee relationship? How many are aware that a free market should exist for personal law associations and their political, economic and social institutions and systems? – J.Z., 15.12.07. - Any attempt to rule territorially is based on the false notion that any individual or any group would or could know enough to be able to rightfully, rationally and effectively control the affairs of the whole population. A Caesar- or Napoleon superiority complex is involved, or one onf divine inspiration, all too often asserted even by U.S.A. presidents, one that for private citizen would be sufficient to lead to their commitment to a mental asylum. Instead, the big nuts rule the other ignorant and prejudiced people, all pathological statists, involved in mutual and legalized robberies, and, unfortunately, the somewhat enlightened and wise people as well, not allowing them to opt out of the messes, which do, inevitably, result under this kind of territorialism or imperialism. It predominates even in the best kinds of democracies and republics, at least once they exceed a certain size. From then onwards they too are also Warfare States. - J.Z., 2.1.11, 4.6.12. – DIS., Q.

MARKET: The market offers, mostly, competence (in various degrees), while territorial government mostly offers only incompetence. Between private suppliers in the market one can pick and choose. Governments offer no such choice [apart from limited emigration and immigration options]. That’s why all present government departments ought to be transformed into non-monopolistic business enterprises, charging only voluntary members or customers for their services. – J.Z., 8.6.80. – There should be full consumer sovereignty even towards whole political, economic and social systems, all practised only by volunteers under personal laws. Territorial law impositions are a relatively new and rather anti-social invention and lead, inevitably, to many man-made disasters on a massive scale. – J.Z., 15.12.07, 2.1.11. - COMPETENCE, INCOMPETENCE, GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC SERVICES

MARKET: The market place is a true democracy. Every dollar is a ballot. The people, by their purchases or their refusal to purchase, decide what is to be produced and who is to produce it.” – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, 131. - We need, urgently, the same freedom or consumer sovereignty and free enterprise for all political, economic and social systems, if mankind is to survive much longer, the presents of "nuclear umbrellas". Under this freedom these "weapons" would be gladly disposed of, with almost unanimous consent. Then even more than today, almost everyone would see himself as wrongfully targeted by them. They are certainly not mere tyrannicide devices. - J.Z., .1.11. - DEMOCRACY, SURVIVAL OF MANKIND IS AT STAKE, NWT

MARKET: The market, as the late Ludwig von Mises was fond of pointing out, is democratic in tendency. It tends to provide the greatest number and variety of goods to the greatest number of people. It responds to the most widespread and urgent demands. (*) The market, as such, has no values, no standards, no morality, except such as are fed into it by buyers and sellers. (**) The market is, let us face it, a potential monster, catering to the most debased taste, the most depraved yearnings, and ready to provide the perverted with the means for practising their perversion. (***) - Clarence B. Carson, THE FREEMAN, 9/78, p.550. - - (*) Underlined by me, because it largely responds readily only to these and not to the lonely wishes of isolated innovators, discoverers, inventors or small groups of reformers. - - (**) A complete market would also offer all kinds of values, standards and ethical systems and declarations of rights and liberties, all liberation, defence and revolutions programs, which have so far been offered, the best refutations, the best definitions, the best wordings etc. - - (***) It could also provide the best warnings against all human monsters, and the best methods to resist them and to make them harmless. Leaving this job to territorial governments was, apparently, not effective enough. Possibly territorial governments create more monsters than they eliminate. – J.Z., 15.12.07. - DEMOCRACY, MAJORITY, GREATEST GOOD TO THE LARGEST NUMBER, ENLIGHTENMENT, EDUCATION

MARKET: The only forces determining the continually fluctuating state of the market are the value judgments of the various individuals and their actions as directed by these value judgments. They ultimate factor in the market is the striving of each man to satisfy his needs and wants in the best possible way.” – Ludwig von Mises, Inflation and Price Control, p.3. - The territorial State can, at best, satisfy only its rulers and voluntary victims. They should become reduced to societies, communities and voluntary or competing governments, all without a territorial monopoly, all subject to individual and group secessionism and stiff competition from numerous panarchies and polyarchies, multi-archies etc., all without a territorial monopoly, too. - Then we would, finally and fast, see some significant improvements being demonstrated and then widely and soon copied. - J.Z., 2.1.11.

MARKET: 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.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.236. - To become quite free it should not permit any territorial monopolies by States, societies, communities or corporations. – State membership and subordination should become quite voluntary for all but aggressors and criminals. – Political and social services should also be competitively supplied and freely chosen by members, subscribers, clients, customers or sovereign consumers, voting with their dollars in these spheres as well.- J.Z., n.d. & 2.10.07. - FREE MARKET, COMPETITION, LAISSEZ FAIRE, VOLUNTARISM, LIBERAL SOCIETY, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

MARKET: the voluntary market mechanism better serves the ends of society than the methods espoused by the devotees of coercive Big Brotherism.” – Ralph Bradford, THE FREEMAN, Aug. 74. – But a free market for all kinds of political systems would also serve the various statists very well, by demonstrating to them, through their own experience, that even when they are quite among themselves, all volunteers, and try to apply their beliefs or convictions, philosophy or ideology - among themselves, they are not and will not be very successful, not even under the most favourable circumstances for their system, in the absence of any internal opposition. – J.Z., 16.12.07.

MARKET: There is in the market economy no other means of acquiring and preserving wealth than by supplying the masses in the best and cheapest way with all the goods they ask for.” – Ludwig von Mises, quoted in THE FREEMAN, date? Section: Ideas on Liberty. - Alas, we are not yet free to try to offer and to use for ourselves the best and cheapest political, economic and social systems. How long would any existing government last, with many millions of their remaining voluntary members, if all these members and subjects had ALL the alternatives as their individual free choices for themselves? Is e.g. the burden of compulsory taxation popular anywhere? - Statism should be confined to statists, i.e., voluntary victims. There would soon be less and less of them. - J.Z., 2.1.11. – Q.

MARKET: This requires the abolition of the territorial monopolies of the present States and their replacement by exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, also called panarchism or polyarchism. – J.Z., n.d. & 5.12.07. - A FREE MARKET FOR WHOLE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS, WITH NONE OF THEM CONFINED TO ANY TERRITORY – BUT ALL OF THEM CONFINED TO VOLUNTEERS & PERSONAL LAWS ONLY! - PANARCHISM.

MARKET: Though it may seem a paradox, the economic market is a freer, more democratic market than the political market place.” – Milton Friedman, 1975. – A political market place for alternative political, economic and social systems, none of them requiring or demanding a territorial monopoly for their volunteers, still remains to be established and even to be widely enough seen as rightful, possible and desirable. – J.Z., 15.12.07. - How can such a large omission remain overlooked for so long? Well, most libertarians and anarchists know of some other rights or liberties or individual choices and preferences that have been overlooked or suppressed for all too long. If all of them were quite consistent, they would work for the declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and their realization and protection by a suitable private and voluntary organization for this purpose alone. – J.Z., n.d. - DIS., HUMAN RIGHTS, SELF-INTEREST, MILITIA, ENLIGHTENMENT

MARKET: To the extent that the free market prevails, to that extent is economic life featured by free entry and competition. (*) Reflect on what this means. In addition to the heritage of the ages – the over-all luminosity – these features enormously stimulate and bring to the fore the genius potentially existing among our contemporaries. Thus, it is possible for us to be graced not only by the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of the past but, also, by the considerably untapped ingenuity of the present. The best in everyone is brought forth when the best is required to succeed. The free market brings out the Edison in us!” – Leonard E. Read, The Miracle of the Market, in Champions of Freedom. - If only that were quite true. Firstly, without certain features, like monetary freedom and voluntary taxation, and various self-managements schemes, to replace the employer-employee relationships, the market is economically not free enough. Secondly, not all kinds of markets exist as yet that would greatly help to market new ideas and talents. Anarchists and libertarians should be fully aware of that – because of their prolonged and vain struggle to spread certain freedom ideas and institutions sufficiently. – Only about 4 % of the registered patents are utilized. And how many inventions do never become registered as patents and die with their inventors? - - (*) A free market for all kinds of political, economic and social systems would be even better. It would include and offer full economic freedom to those who appreciate it and all kinds of restrictions who do want them for themselves. – Underlining by me. IDEAS ARCHIVE, PEACE PLANS 20. - J.Z., 15.12.07

MARKET: Trust the market for optimal release and flow of energy.” – Leonard E. Read, Liberty, Legacy of Truth, ch.13. – As if the general market had already or ever and anywhere, done full justice to e.g. all the ideas of liberty, peace and justice. – These ideas and their talents and innovators and discoverers need a special market and most of the free marketeers still have to discover that fact. Freedom, peace and justice lovers should become fully aware of that absence, instead of going on to assert or to assume that a free market for their kind of ideas does already exist. They experience daily how hard to impossible it is to market their ideas in the present “markets”, which show an interest for almost anything else but such ideas and talents. – Freedom talents and energies would only be fully released, not only sufficiently publicized, if freedom loving people were free to secede and do their own things for themselves, under their own constitutions, laws and jurisdiction or various non-governmental societal arrangements. – Are they free to do that? If not, then it is nonsense to speak of an already existing free market situation for them. - J.Z., 15.12.07. - DIS.

MARKET: Under a competitive and open market system, the individual determines his own life style. One is free or not to buy any product.” Dennis H. Mahoney, THE FREEMAN, 4/73. - Are we free to refuse to buy, with our taxes, any of the services of the territorial government? Are we free to use for our purchases any other exchange medium and value standard that those wrongly prescribed by the government's monetary despotism? - J.Z., 2.1.11. – Are we free to refuse or discount the government’s legal tender monopoly money and to issue or accept our own free market currencies? – We cannot even, quite freely, compete with the postal monopoly. - J.Z., 4.6.12. - Q.

MARKET: Under the sentiments of justice, prudence, and beneficence, … man seeks solutions beyond the institution of the market. Consequently, although the law should not encourage the institution of voluntary associations, it should not discourage them either. (41)” - Donald J. Devine, Does Freedom Work? Caroline House Books, Green Hills Publishers, 1978, p.20. - (41) Smith, The Wealth of Nations, I, 10, 2, p.128. – - Why should not the voluntary associations themselves also be considered as parts of a free market, as a market for States, communities, societies and associations? – J.Z., 26.9.07. - VOLUNTARY INSTITUTIONS & LAW, Q.

MARKET: Wanted services and goods are supplied by the market and paid for by the consumers who want them. Unwanted goods and services on the market can be and are refused, one by one and to a large extent, thus not sufficiently paid for and not offered for long. In territorial politics many unwanted services are coercively continued and financed by taxation or inflation and widely distributed among citizens or even forced upon them. Governments, admittedly, do also provides some wanted services, wanted mainly by statists or by people not allowed to provide or hire them for themselves. But they are usually offered only on a monopoly basis, mostly of inferior quality and also “financed” by direct or indirect taxes and the inflation tax, rather than merely by the people who do want and receive them. These beneficiaries want others to pay their bills. - In spite of such differences, territorial governments are still more popular than free markets, free trade and free enterprise. Only free consumer choice for ordinary consumer goods and services and some basic liberties like e.g. freedom of information and expression, are widely appreciated and used – by the victims of largely governmentally controlled mis-education. – J.Z., 7.10.95, 4.12.07, 4.6.12. - VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICES, WELFARE STATE, TERRITORIALISM

MARKET: We are convinced that when it comes to things people want, the market place can do the job less expensively and better than government can do it. And this includes the job of protecting life and property, providing roads, schools, hospitals, cemeteries, airfields and scores of other things which governments presently provide. In short, as a substitute for government in doing things which are desirable and necessary, we recommend the market place.” – Robert LeFevre, April 7, 1961, quoted in Carl Watner, LeFevre, p.175, motto for Chapter 17. - VS. GOVERNMENT

MARKET: What has been called the democracy of the market manifests itself in the fact that profit-seeking business is unconditionally subject to the supremacy of the buying public. - - Non-profit organizations are sovereign unto themselves. They are, within the limits drawn by the amount of capital at their disposal, in a position to defy the wishes of the public.” - Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom, p.112. - - The worst non-profit organization is the territorial State. It can and does cause huge losses to everybody. – And it criminally deprives us of some of our most important rights and liberties. - J.Z., 15.12.07. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, TAXATION, WELFARE STATE

MARKET: When an individual finally glimpses the truth: that the market that is free can and will provide everything that is constructive and worthwhile and do it more efficiently, more morally, and with greater abundance than any other method, then he becomes capable of helping to convince others.” – Robert LeFevre, LEFEVRE’S JOURNAL, Winter 75. – A free market would also provide a voluntaristic framework for the practice of all kinds of political, economic and social systems among their voluntary supporters. Many of them are likely to be enemies of free markets. So the best thing is to let them quite freely do whatever they want to - to themselves, as long as they are willing to put up with this. Some of the most active anti-communists were those who had managed to escape a totalitarian communist system. Obviously, no unfree system should be imposed upon any freedom lover. Not so obvious but likewise true is that no free system should be imposed upon any statist, conditioned to much less freedom than it would provide him with. – J.Z., 15.12.07. - Refugees from totalitarian countries often took at least a few months to adjust themselves even merely to the still all too limited liberties and rights they have in the “Free” West. - J.Z., 2.1.11, 4.6.12.

MARKET: Where there is a free market there is hope for freedom in the future.” Robin Gillespie, Edmonton, Alberta, in OPTION, June 1977. – I rather rest my hopes on a fully free market for all kinds of goods and services being established at least somewhere in the world and thus serving as an attractive and widely reported example for all other countries, e.g. via diverse governments and societies in exile, which are already practising their ideals among their members in the host countries and proclaiming this variety and free choice as their aim for all the various factions and movements in their home countries. – J.Z., 15.12.07, 4.6.12. –  PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISTIC GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE.

MARKET: Where there is a market, there’s a way.” – Charles Curley, THE VOLUNTARYIST, 4/89. – Compare the old proverb: “Where there is a will, there is a way.” - Experimental freedom, free enterprise and free exchange in every sphere, as well as freedom of association and disassociation and freedom of contract. - J.Z., 2.1.11.

MARKET: While government claims a monopoly on the use of force in society (*), the market is nothing more than the nexus of exchanges. (**) Since no (FREE - J.Z.) exchange can occur unless all parties can mutually agree to the conditions, (***), voluntarism is the requisite of an exchange economy; the market, therefore, is characterized by the absence of power relationships.” (****) – David Osterfeld, in THE FREEMAN, 12/76. -  (*) That is, it claims a right to exclude market services in what it claims to be its rightful sphere, its exclusive turf, its protection racket, although it was never very good or good enough in protecting and defending or even in fully recognizing all individual rights and liberties! – - (**) It should also be a nexus of exchanges for the supply and demand for protective services! - - (***) None of the “exchanges” of my tribute-payment for a tax receipt got my consent, far less any indirect taxes or tributes imposed upon me! - - (****) What is left today of the free market is exactly characterized by the fact that it is subjected to power, to the territorial domination by the State, with its coercive monopoly and power, regarding the political, economic and social system, which it prescribes for the whole population of the territory, a power which it has claimed for itself and also for all its monopoly power in international relations, as the supposed “representative” of all its subjects. – Even if, in economics, it prescribed a laissez faire economy for all its territorial subjects (apart from its taxes and various monopoly services or disservices), it would commit an injustice towards all those dissenters, who would prefer some or the other collectivist or communist or socialist economic system or any other economic system for themselves. - J.Z., 8.12.07, 4.6.12. - MARKETS & TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, STATES, TERRITORIALISM, POWER, COERCION, MONOPOLIES, DIS.

MARKS, BENJAMIN: From: "Benjamin Marks", To: "John Zube" Subject: clarifications. 7 January 2007. - - My disagreement with panarchism is that it treats acquiescence, in some situations, as if it is consent. I do not believe, for example, that anyone can willingly live under government, for government cannot be consented to without losing its defining feature. So panarchism for me is basically saying that people should be free to work under or custom the services of organisations that might be structured differently, but still voluntarily: from sole-traders, to vast authoritative management systems. But for me these are not governments, they are businesses or other voluntary organisations. I do not think it is right to call them socialist, fascist or any other term that refers to governments. People can acquiesce to a government, without consenting to it. Does this mean they support the government? No. It means that they have not considered supporting it in any demonstrable way. It does not make sense to me to say that people should be free to acquiesce to whatever they want, for that means people should be free to threaten them and force them to submit. Those who acquiesce are always free enough to acquiesce, until they are not allowed to. And then they either can consent or dissent and no government can be based on dissent toward itself or consent. So it does not make sense to say that people should be free to acquiesce, any more than in saying they should be free to have free will. - - Do you see what I am trying to get at: (1) In distinguishing between acquiescence and consent? (2) In saying that no one can possibly validly consent to government, for their will is inalienable? And (3), by claiming that the distinguishing feature of government is that it is not consented to, but acquiesced to by a critical enough mass? - You are right in pointing out that I do not put forward exactly how things may be reformed, but I do not think that is as important as showing why government is criminal and destructive. And anyway, many people may disagree with my suggested reforms, and so they should and can, but then there is less reason to suggest a reform in the first place. I proposed random election with the same seriousness that I proposed that dead people should vote and be candidates, and other silly things. But I thought I made it clear enough that all these supposedly ridiculous suggestion, which show government to be even more ridiculous, can actually make sense and be catered to in a free market. - My work is heavily premised on Stirner and nominalism. Their chief benefit is in seeing through the philosophical idealism of Kant and others, including Mises. Stirner had everything to say on human rights, money, etc., but he didn't need to say it. What he did was dispose of the claims that there were synthetic a priori categories involved, and their truth. How did he do this? By not premising his philosophy on them! You occasionally make reference to unconscious intentions, and things like that. Nominalism teaches that the mind does not exist as a concrete noun, and so there are no unconscious intentions, mental illnesses, etc. If there is no mind, then the mind has no structure! Value is subjective for Stirner, so he could have valued money if he wanted to. - I hope these points above help to clarify my work. Perhaps if we settle these, everything else will fall into place. - - A kind of thick fog, made up of words, ideas, opinions, definitions, false assumptions and conclusions seems to hide the past, present and future reality of degrees to full development of panarchism from most statists, anarchists and libertarians. - J.Z., 23.9.11. - I did reply on the same day but do not have my reply readily on hand at present. - J.Z., 1.10.11 - B.M.  was dancing around the main point by playing word games with synonyms. Are people, individuals or minorities, free to secede and associate under their own personal law? If they are and do not make use of this right or liberty, then, by their acquiescence to their present status, they have, in fact, although not formally, given their "consent" to be treated as mere subjects, as sheeple by their great and loving or powerful and admired or feared shepherd, leader or Big Brother. Precisely because statism, slavishness, servility seems to be an inborn or habitual trait in all too many people, we do need the right to secede and to associate exterritorially, to open a free path to progress, liberation and enlightenment, also to peace and prosperity. - Whether the remainder remains with his formal consent or via acquiescence, who cares, when we do not have to remain associated with them? Stirner may have blocked more minds than opened them, with his word games. He did this for my father, who was well read, either with his consent or acquiescence. Stirner never fully discussed monetary freedom, the right to secede and the consequences of both. He lived under censorship. My friend Ulrich von Beckerath did also read Stirner and Tucker - but went much beyond them in exploring the practical freedom and rights options. We should rather follow him in all such efforts than the word games of Stirner. We at least are largely free of censorship by now. - J.Z., 20.10.11. - STATE, CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, ACQUIESCENCE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, ANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, OBJECTIONS, DIS., CLASSIFICATION, DEFINITIONS, CATEGORIES, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM, STATISM, SUBORDINATION OR SUBJUGATION? OBEDIENCE, GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES, FREE WILL, SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS, NOMINALISM, STIRNER, KANT, IDEALISM, SUBJECTIVITY.

MARRIAGE CONTRACTS, COMPETING& PANARCHISM: 23, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. - For members of different religious communities this is already, to a small degree, realized under the remaining personal laws. - J.Z., 1.9.04. - One marriage law for all, regardless of individual preferences, is also a form of oppression. - J.Z., 17.9.04.

MARRIAGE: Accordingly we have three forms of marriage, which in the main correspond to the three principal stages of human development. For the period of savagery, the group marriage; for barbarism, the pairing marriage; for civilization, monogamy supplemented by adultery and prostitution. Between the pairing marriage and monogamy there intervened, at the highest stage of barbarism, the right of men to female slaves, and polygamy.” - Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), The Origin of the Family (1894). - All forms of marriage are right, when freely contracted by adult and rational beings and when they may be freely ended by one of the participants for herself or for himself. - J.Z., 26.11.02. - To that extent free choice of marriage contracts is the smallest equivalent to fully developed panarchism or polyarchism. - J.Z., 1.1.11. - DIVORCE, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM

MARRIAGE: But the main purpose of marriage will compel us to revise the institution so that we shall not waste any useful woman, especially if she is a woman of notable ability. It is a significant fact that there are no 'unwanted women' in polygamous countries. These derelicts are to be found only in countries which are monogamous; and they represent, less today, perhaps, than formerly, sheer waste of mother-power. Even as things are, the 'unwanted woman' is still doomed to lead a solitary life, unless she has an illicit lover, and can contemplate old age and retirement only with dismay.” - St. John Ervine, Bernard Shaw His Life, Work and Friends, p. 424 (1956). In this comment on Shaw's play, "Getting Married”, Ervine summarizes one of the arguments in Shaw's lengthy Preface to the play. - In private marriages the right to separate oneself from them is as important as the right to engage in them. In affiliations with public bodies, communities and societies as well as with States or governments the same rule applies. The right to disassociate or withdraw from them is as important as the right to join them and remain in them. - J.Z., 26.11.02. - MARRIED LIFE, FAMILY, MONOGAMY, POLYGAMY, GROUP MARRIAGES, DIVORCE, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

MARRIAGE: Half the human race can change its name and sometimes its nation without suffering – at least half! All women!” – Jean Giraudoux, Siegfried, 1928, p.3, tr. Phyllis La Farge with Peter H. Judd. – Contractual changes should become possible for all individuals, in all spheres, especially those still territorially monopolized by governments. – J.Z., 13.12.07.

MARRIAGE: In diverse panarchies and polyarchies also diverse systems of marriages are likely to become practised under their personal laws. – J.Z., 1.11.07.

MARRIAGE: Is there enough sex and love after marriage or, all too often, only the usual routines? – J.Z., 27.5.88, 6.12.07. People only held together via some compulsion get either bored, fed up or merely habituated to this situation. – Would not marriages, like political associations, be much more attractive and lasting if any desired variety of them would be possible for their voluntary participants? A uniform and imposed marriage and family law does do a great wrong to all its victims. - J.Z., 6.12.07. - SEX & LOVE

MARRIAGE: It takes a loose rein to keep a marriage tight.” - John Stevenson. - Somebody said: Marriage should add people to each other, not subtract them from each other. (*)- - Marriages should be free exchange, too, organized or spontaneous teamwork not organized and emotional strife and antagonism. It should express forms of self-management, partnership and cooperation rather than the employer-employee or master and slave relationship. - It is essential that individual sovereignty remains preserved in it, ultimately via individual secessionism or divorce. - J.Z., 26.11.02. – (*) Most marriages don't add two people together. They subtract one from the other.” - Ian Fleming in "Diamonds Are Forever", 1956, p.162. – I believe that Marie von Ebner Eschenbach made a similar statement long before him. MARRIED LIFE

MARRIAGE: Marriage is a quite basic and mostly voluntary association, based on a largely prescribed form of contract and as such of some interest to libertarians. – J.Z., 15.11.85. - Naturally, most libertarians would wish to see full contractual freedom at least in this sphere, although not yet when it comes to all forms of political, economic and social associations, and systems or panarchism or polyarchism. There each group still tries to territorially impose the system it prefers upon all dissenters. – J.Z., 13.12.07.

MARRIAGE: Marriage, all too often and all too soon, tends to replace mutual excitement by mutual boredom. – J.Z., 20.3.03. – It should never be conceived and practised or legislatively enforced as being “forever” or a life-long commitment – The practice of time-limited marriages was a step in the right direction. But it still limited marriages to two partners in most countries, as if this would be the only rightful and voluntaristic option. – It should, as a rule, not be more than an automatically time-limited and voluntary mutual indenture with a renewal option by agreement. – Panarchists would mostly favour full panarchistic freedom for all kinds of marriages, even if they, for themselves, would prefer only the conventional monogamous and unlimited marriage form. - J.Z., 22.10.07. - PANARCHISM

MARRIAGE: Marriages are, usually, the smallest voluntary associations. Even though, under territorialism, they are not formally autonomous but officially subject to territorial laws, police forces and jurisdictions, as long as they do not expose or call attention to themselves, in some way or the other, to these outside forces, they can rule and regulate their internal affairs as they please, under their own personal rules and laws, so to speak, in all their own “black market” transactions, under cover or in privacy. (Not under waterbeds, as one Australian joke has it.) Thus they are also of some general interest to panarchists and polyarchists. – Ideally, all forms of marriage contracts should even be officially allowed. Excepting only those that put one party into an enslaved position, permanently, without a secession, divorce, separation or opting out opportunity. – Indemnity at least for physical abuses should always be claimable, preferable before a previously agreed-upon adjudicator. – Individual secessionism or divorce is especially important for these relationships as well. It should always be possible, as long as both sides keep their commitments to their minors. That might require that they do not remove themselves from their minor children for long periods or distances. – The children have a right to insist that both parents remain within their reach – unless they have been child abusers. – Parents should not be free to divorce themselves from such obligations. – However, at least by now telephone, email and computerized rapid and somewhat “live” contacts are possible, not only letter exchanges. - - Enough preaching for this morning! - J.Z., 1.11.07, 4.6.12. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, MARRIAGE LAWS & JURISDICTION, BLACK MARKET MARRIAGE CONTRACTS, LIVING TOGETHER, DE FACTO MARRIAGES

MARRIAGE: Marriages should be no exceptions from freedom of contract. – J.Z., 1.11.07. – Nor should State, nation and community membership. – J.Z., 26.12.11.

MARRIAGE: Marriages, among other things, are just an economy measure and as such they should be quite free. – Compare Bastiat’s remark: “Society is exchange!” – J.Z., 13.3.06, 1.11.07, 4.6.12.

MARRIAGE: Most marriages don't add two people together. They subtract one from the other.” - Ian Fleming in "Diamonds Are Forever", 1956, p.162. – I believe that Marie von Ebner Eschenbach made a similar statement long before him. – Well, in a fire even diamonds, a form of carbon, burn up, in spite of their hardness. - J.Z., 17.11.02. - In consistent pluralism or panarchism the diverse groups are no longer forced to fight to try to dominate each other, in the attempts to achieve their own ideal, as they are under territorialism (in election campaigns, party strife, faction struggles), but are exterritorialy autonomous, free to do their own things (each party wins rule over its supporters), and thus, like the different sports clubs and churches, tend to leave each other sufficiently alone, apart from freely trading with each other, so that, in spite of their differences, they do form a harmonious and peaceful whole society. Individual sovereignty, expressed by voluntary marriages, respect for the marriage partner and voluntary divorce, makes for optimal and peaceful relationships, even if these do not last forever, because people do change and over their life-span often engage in different relationships with different people. - J.Z., 17.11.02. – Majority or representative and also direct democracy, while still territorial rather than offering the exterritorial autonomy option to volunteers, does likewise not add up our rights and liberties but, rather subtracts from them. – J.Z., 26.12.11, 4.6.12.

MARRIAGE: No more forced marriages with any government, army, union or school. No more compulsory associations. Each individual to be free to divorce himself from any of them, by one-sided declarations, and to join or establish any alternatives that may take his fancy. Excommunication of disagreeable members is, naturally, also an option for the voluntary members of any autonomous minority group or protective association. Panarchism is nothing but the freedom to disassociate and to associate – consistently applied in the last spheres where it is so for not realized, namely in politics, economic and social relations. – J.Z., 1986, 2004.  FOR ALL, COMPULSORY ONES, WITH TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, WITH NO DIVORCE OPTION? SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL, DISASSOCIATION.

MARRIAGE: No particular form of marriage is any holier than any other form of marriage. But all forms of marriage, to the extent that they are based on coercion or compulsion are wrong. – J.Z., 12.3.95. – Almost all forms of it have already been tried during history, at least somewhere and all should be subject to freedom of contract rather than government laws, traditions or customs. – J.Z., 4.12.07, 4.6.12.

MARRIAGE: Should marriage vows, in the long run, be more relied upon than the promises of politicians? – J.Z., 16.3.06, 1.11.07. - VOWS & POLITICIAN’S PROMISES, Q.

MARRIAGE: Should marriages be considered to be just temporary political coalitions? - J.Z., 16.3.06. - If that is the will of those involved, so be it. – J.Z., 1.11.07. – In German colonial Africa temporary marriages of German soldiers with native women were officially sanctioned. – A somewhat panarchistic arrangement but limited to this sphere and by the time limit. – The German emperor was certainly not a panarchist. - J.Z., 27.12.11. - TEMPORARY COALITIONS

MARRIAGE: Since people change, not always for the better or in the same direction, marriages should be time-limited as a rule, like the limited office period of a politician, but there should be no limits on the number of renewals agreed-upon. – J.Z., 1.11.07.

MARRIAGE: State membership and State subordination or self-government should be as voluntary as it is in a good marriage and also subject to divorce, not only by consent but also one-sidedly, by individual secessionism. Individual sovereignty is still involved in marriages, not only in contracting them but also ending them. Legalized conscription is not right in this sphere, either, for any of the marriage partners. Nor are penalties on “desertion” rightful. However, economic and insurance promises that are involved in the marriage contract, freely concluded, must be kept, including care for their children and sick and crippled partners. In the latter case it would be wise to take out an insurance contract rather than attempt self-insurance only, unless one is really rich. – J.Z., 16.3.06, 1.11.07. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, SECESSION & DIVORCE

MARRIAGE: The degrees of communism practised in marriages would rarely if ever work in larger associations, least of all under territorial governments. - J.Z., 26.11.02, 4.6.12. - & FAMILY COMMUNISM

MARRIAGE: The more civilized people become the less capable they seem of lifelong happiness with one partner.” – Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, 1929, X. – Because then all the more diversified they become in their interests and activities, even during their marriage and in ever shorter periods. – J.Z., 10.7.86. – The divorce statistics seem to bear that out. Alas, in most countries a uniform marriage law is imposed and numerous popular prejudices still uphold that each marriage partner has a full monopoly claim and at least equal decision-making rights and power on the activities of the other partner, which leads inevitably to many unnecessary clashes. Under full contractual freedom and appreciation of individual differences and of the possibility of mutual tolerance, marriages would tend to last much longer than they do. – One might say that the wrongs and mistakes of territorialism are practised in marriages on the numerically smallest scale. But, as has been said, “a small object of injustice does not mean that the injustice there occurring cannot be very large.” There is a vast scope for mutual tolerance even in marriages, unless particular marriage contracts quite freely and consciously entered into and upheld, do exclude it. One humorous example of a German artist couple. They had separate bed rooms and red and green traffic lights installed above their doors, to indicate their mood or readiness to engage in sexual relations. - J.Z., 13.12.07. - JOKES

MARTENS K. VON et CUSSY, FERD. DE, Recueil manuel et Pratique de traites et conventions sur lesquels sont etablis les relations et les rapports existant aujourd'hui entre les diverse etats souverains du Globe, depuis l'annee 1760 jusqu'a l'epoque actuelle, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1885-88.

MARTENS, F., Das Consularwesen and Die Consularjurisdiction im Orient (trans. by H. Skerst), Berlin, 1874.

MARTENS, G. F. von, Nouveau Recueil de traites d'Alliance, de paix, de treve, 16 vols., Gottingue, 1871-41. - Like myself, he was not very inventive with his titles. - J.Z., 5.11.11.

MARTENS, G. F. von, Nouveau Recueil de traites, conventions el autres transactions remarquables, servant a la connaissance des relations etrangeres des puissances et etats dans leurs rapports mutuels, (by Frederic Murhard), 20 vols.,Gottingue, 1843-75.

MARTENS, G. F. von, Nouveau Recueil General de traites el autres actes relatifs anx rapports de droit international, 3. ser., by Heinrich Tripel, 10 vols., Leipzig, 1909-22.

MARTENS, G. F. von, Nouveau Recueil General de traites et autres actes relatifs aux rapports de droit international, 2. ser., by Charles Samwer and Jules Hopf, 35 vols., Gottingue, 1876-1908.

MARTENS, G. F. von, Nouveau Supplement au Recueil de traites (by Frederic Murhard), 3 vols., Gottingue, 1839-42.

MARTENS, G. F. von, Recueil de traites d'alliance, de paix, de treve, 2d. ed., 8 vols,, Gottingue, 1817-35.

MARTENS, G. F. von, Recueil des Principaux Traites d'Alliance, de Paix, de treve conclus par les puissances de l'Europe depuis 1761 Jusqu'a present, 7 vols., Gottingue, 1791-1801. – TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL, CAPITULATIONS

MARTENS, G. F. von, Supplement au Recueil des Principaux traites d'alliance, de paix, de treve, 10 vols, Gottingue, 1902-28. - Territorial governments seem to multiply their treaties just as much as they do their laws, regulations, taxes and bureaucrats. They should, certainly, not have a monopoly on international treaty making. Fully free competition in this sphere would, probably, soon provide some standardized and relatively short and clear treaties. - J.Z., 20.10.11.

MARTYRDOM: Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity, never of the correctness of a belief.” – Arthur Schnitzler. - Compare: “A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.” – Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900. – But each true believer should have the right to try to live in accordance with his beliefs, at his own expense and risk, without being prosecuted for it and turned into a martyr. Panarchism and Polyarchism demand no more – and no less. In this way untrue beliefs will best be disproved and true ones proved. – J.Z., 8.12.07. - Under exterritorial autonomy for all volunteers there would be hardly any scope for martyrs left. At most they could whip or otherwise plague themselves or do so mutually. – J.Z., 3.1.08, 2.2.11. - PANARCHISM, MARTYRS, SELF-SACRIFICE, TRUTH, IDEOLOGIES, FANATICS, TRUE BELIEVERS

MARX & PROUDHON ON PANARCHISTIC TOLERANCE: Marx, unfortunately, choose to interpret Proudhon's attempt to achieve intellectual moderation and a broad toleration of all social groups as political apostasy, and it was not long after this that the two parted the worst of friends to soon become each other's greatest enemy. But was Proudhon's mutualism actually an abandonment of the basic principles of socialism, as Marx thought it was, or was it the brilliant scheme for the erection of a genuinely libertarian society, a social order that would enable the human beings who make up the work force of society to realize their full potential for human solidarity without losing their cherished claim to individuality?" - W. O. Reichert, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 143.

MARX, KARL & FREE SOCIETIES: Alas, for “their” realization, he proposed the opposite: nationalization, monetary despotism and dictatorship of the proletariat, “realized” via a communist one-party and territorial monopoly State. I assert that he never seriously considered all prerequisites for genuinely free, just, peaceful, prosperous and progressive societies. – J.Z, 27.12.04, 27.12.11. - See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON:  On Panarchy.

MARXISM: 1.) Labor theory of value vs. subjective theory of value. 2.) The process of production is economically most important vs.: The process of exchange is most important for economic development. 3.) The employer-employee relationship is taken for granted and millions of employers are to be replaced by just one monopolistic employer, the State vs. various free enterprises and capitalistic self-employment options in partnerships, cooperatives, cooperative group work and independent subcontracting. (Whilst almost all enterprises could be profitably bought, on terms, by their employees.). 4.) Trusting the territorial State vs. individual and group secessions and voluntary re-associations under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. 5.) Command economy, central planning and direction vs. free enterprise for firms of all kinds and free choice for consumers, through free markets, free contracts and free pricing. 6.) Reliance on force, dictatorship over the proletarians and all others by a single party, in the name of the proletariat, class warfare vs. reliance on the market (e.g. by acquiring capital through saving and combined purchasing power and combined credit; free exchange rather than expropriation or nationalization). 7.) Upholding the State as the greatest monopolist and only proprietor and capitalist owner of the means of production: i.e., State capitalism vs. abolition of all monopolies, private and cooperative property and free competition in all spheres. 8.) Compulsory re-distribution via taxation vs. voluntary contributions, and subscriptions, vs. free contracts, free pricing, free market relationships. 9.) Nationalization of natural resources vs. private or open cooperative ownership of them. 10.) Need considered as a right vs. abilities, merit and service earning their rewards. - Needs still editing and completion. Please, go ahead! J.Z, n.d. & 19.12.07. 12.2.09, 2.1.11. – 11.) Wrongful notions on exploitation. 12.) Flawed notions on automatic historical development. 13.) Mythology on the nature of the proletariat and its liberation. 14.) However, he recognized, to some extent, the progress promoting tendency of the Bourgeoisy. 15.) Although a Jew himself, he was, at least in his early writings, also anti-Semitic. – Perhaps a book should be compiled on 100 of the major errors of Marx and the Marxists, together with their best refutations so far found? For their notions, just like Christian and Islamic ones are still spread like a pest through all too much of mankind. - J.Z., 27.12.11. - ERRORS & ALTERNATIVES TO THEM, DIS., COMMUNISM, STATE SOCIALISM

MARXISM: Hayek met Russians in London and asked them what has surprised them most in the West. They answered: That you are still Marxists! – Alas, even now, territorial statism and governmentalism is still rampant in the former USSR, under Putin. The old Marxist system was not thoroughly enough abolished by a truly liberating revolution. Monetary despotism and militarist nationalism are still in the saddle. Mass extermination devices still exist there – directed against whom? Other Russian complained about too many liberties in the West, at least at first, before they became accustomed to the relatively few and limited private liberties there, while libertarians and anarchists see too few liberties and rights in the West as well. – J.Z., 4.12.07. - - “I think it was last May, that in my London club I happened to sit on the same table as a Russian scientist, who had come to Western Europe for the first time to attend a scientific conference. He spoke quite good English, so I could ask him what surprised him most on visiting Western Europe. His answer was: ‘You still have so many Marxists. We haven’t any!’” – Hayek, Knowledge, Evolution and Society, 57. – Alas, there are obviously still all too many statists left in the former USSR. Marxism is just one form of statism and of territorialism. Getting rid of it is by far not enough. –– For instance: The newly “liberated” States behind the former Iron curtain have not yet rejected such a Marxist practice as e.g. central banking. - We should allow the opening of zoos for our remaining Marxists, i.e. panarchies for their remaining volunteers, to do their things among themselves and only to themselves. – May be that will teach them, after a while. – We still need many more deterrent examples. But also examples of the radical realization of freedom options among at least some volunteers. - J.Z., 27.7.92, 8.12.07m 27.12.11. – COMMUNISM, STATISM, CENTRAL BANKING, MONETARY DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM

MARXISM: The manner in which Marxism was transformed into an elitist movement that shared many of the characteristics of fascism – a single party, an official ideology, a charismatic leader, total social control, paramilitary social organizations and the erosion of private life – has been described in A. J. Gregor’s The Fascist Persuasion in Radical Politics (Princeton, 1974).” - Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.148. – Totalitarian regimes become only possible and even likely, now and then, because they share the essentially totalitarian feature of territorialism with those democracies from which they arise in crisis times. – J.Z., 2.10.07. A general crisis, for a whole country and its population and even for the whole world becomes only possible under territorialism, i.e. when free experimentation by dissenters with alternative systems are legally or despotically suppressed. – J.Z., 12.2.09. - FASCISM & NAZISM, TERRITORIALISM & TOTALITARIANISM

MARXISM: The Marxists have merely differently interpreted Marx. It is decisive to change Marxism.“ – Author unknown. (Die Marxisten haben Marx nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, ihn zu veraendern. – Unbekannt.) – Marx and Marxism are long dead and cannot be changed post-humously. The best thing to do about Marx and Marxism and all Marxist interpretations is to ignore them totally or, at most, to confine this prophet and his teachings and interpretations of them to their remaining few believers. Their tolerated practice, at their own expense and risk only, may, after some time, enlighten those among them, which can be enlightened. Then they will drop out. And the others will be the “smiths of their own fate”. – They deserve all the failures and losses they will experience. These are well-deserved punishments for them, since they are self-chosen and these people, fanatics or true believers had for all too long inflicted them, territorially, upon all dissenters. – J.Z., 4.7.92, 6.12.07. – DIS.

MARXISM: with glaring inconsistency, Marx proposes, as the ruling principle his non-hierarchical dream society (*), ‘From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.’ This suggests the creation of twin hierarchies of ability and neediness.” - Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hall, The Peter Principle, 1969ff, p.68. – Can the able still be considered as self-governing and hierarchic, when they are, by a central authority, forced to support the needy? – (*) E.g.: taxation, central banking. - J.Z., 21.9.07. – Are the needy self-governing when they do depend on the handouts – enforced or voluntarily given, by the able? – J.Z., 27.12.11. -  HIERARCHIES, CLASSLESS SOCIETY? DEPENDENCY FOR BOTH, INSTEAD OF INDEPENDENCE FOR BOTH GROUPS, NEEDS, ABILITIES.

MARXISTS: Let the fanciers of Marxism have their proletarian dictatorship, supposedly by and over themselves, instead of by party functionaries, over proletarians and others. Let them favor their dysfunctional and counter-productive systems among themselves, but not repressive and murderous ones over dissenters. Let them have their self-criticism and “cleansing” actions and their show trials and concentration camps even – but always only over those unwilling to reject their faith and membership in their "church". - J.Z., Dec. 04, revised 29.9.11. - STATE SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISTS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

MASLOW, ABRAHAM H., Toward a Psychology of Being. (1955 - 1957) An extract from it was put online on by Gian Piero de Bellis, who noted: Abraham Maslow has been one of the most renown psychologists focusing on the healthy personality. These extracts from texts written in the middle of the 20th century have not lost any of their insight and freshness. - That the beliefs and attitudes of most territorial statists are flawed, and rather sick in many ways and show defects in their personalities, does not require, for me, any confirmation by any professional psychologist, however famous. - Thesebelievers are all too ready to let "George", God, the State, the political "leader" or "Big Brother" be a good man. Our times require something very different, if mankind is to survive. - I am somewhat deaf and blind to the notions of most psychologists, who are split into xyz factions, schools, parties or dogmatists and I do not see their relevance, in my ignorance of most of them. However, GPdB, obviously, does. So, by all means, look up this essay, too. - J.Z., 1.10.11.

MASS MEDIA: The idea of freedom of press is the most deadly danger for every State.” - Hitler, conversations in his headquarter, 1941-42, DER MONAT, 36/615. -  Indeed, if it were reasonably used, it would, in the long run, lead to the abolition of every coercive territorial State. J.Z. – However, most mass media get along only all too well with almost any territorial government. – J.Z., 12.2.09. - MEDIA, NEWSPAPERS, PRESS, BROADCASTING, TV, ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, BROADCASTING MONOPOLIES, PUBLICITY, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION & INFORMATION, RADIO, TV, INTERNET

MASS MOVEMENTS: Emigration offers some of the things the frustrated hope to find when they join a mass movement, namely, change and a chance for a new beginning. The same types who swell the ranks of a rising mass movement are also likely to avail themselves of a chance to emigrate. Thus migration can serve as a substitute for a mass movement. It is plausible, for instance, that had the United States and the British Empire welcomed mass migration from Europe after the First World War, there might have been neither a Fascist or a Nazi revolution. In this country, free and easy migration over a vast continent contributed to our social stability.” – Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 28. – Even greater would have been the influence of full monetary and financial freedom, at least from 1918 onwards in Europe itself and in the rest of the world. – J.Z., 17.12.07. – So would that of diverse panarchies, if they had been established then or would be established now, first in one of the already somewhat free countries. – J.Z., 12.2.09. - EMIGRATION, FREE IMMIGRATION, PANARCHISM, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM

MASS MOVEMENTS: Since the natural liberty of the individual is not possible where we combine into mass organizations in which the interests and responsibilities of one person become merged with those of another, “we are hereby taught not to form them”. – Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, quoting Josiah Warren. –At least we should not uphold any territorial monopolies for them. If their activities are confined to volunteers, they will be remain much smaller and harmless to outsiders and will not grow to the massive proportions, which they can reach under territorialism Instead, they will rather shrink as a result of early disappointments with their doctrines, ideas, and principles and experiments, once they can be freely applied already among the first volunteers. Then they would not need to acquire power over dissenters to be realized for their believers. – J.Z., 17.12.07, 4.6.12. - COMMUNISM, NAZISM, FASCISM, UNIONS

MASS MURDERS: The mass murders of the 20th century and those of all other centuries can be, largely, ascribed to quite wrongful territorialism and quite wrongful collective responsibility notions. – J.Z., n.d. – With the qualification that they are also the result of the conditions following monetary and financial despotism. – J.Z., 12.2.09, 4.6.12. – Even racism is just an aspect of territorialism. It asserts that a certain area and all its population belongs to or ought to be dominated by a certain race. – The formerly extensive religious intolerance has been largely replaced by ideological intolerance. However, different as ideologies are, most of them subscribe to territorialism and collective responsibility. – To that extent they do all tend even towards despotism and totalitarianism. – Instance, the concentration camps now maintained by the Australian government for “illegal” immigrants” and asylum seekers. – If the government knew or bothered to learn how to achieve full employment, they would welcome all of them with open arms and so would most Australian voters. - J.Z., 26. & 27.12.11. 11. - GENOCIDE, HOLOCAUST, ANTISEMITISM, RACISM, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, INTOLERANCE, HOLOCAUST, ANTISEMITISM, UNEMPLOYMENT, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, LACK OF INTEREST IN THE OWN AFFAIRS.

MASS MURDERS: The nineteenth century planted the words, which the twentieth century ripened into the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler. There is hardly an atrocity committed in the twentieth century that was not foreshadowed or even advocated by some noble man of words in the nineteenth.” - Eric Hoffer – Territorialist and collective responsibility notions and practices are much older than the 19th century. But territorial nationalism reached the heights of wrongs and irrationalities in the 19th and 20th centuries. – J.Z., 23.1.08. -ATROCITIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

MASSES: A multitude can (*) be moved only by their passions.” – Richard Carlyle, The Earth Belongs to the Living, p.55. - They can also be moved by clearly demonstrated advantages. See the spread e.g. of cheap ball point pens and digital watches. If all individuals of the “masses” were quite free to choose for themselves the kind of social system that they trust most, then they would soon learn to make good enough choices for themselves, just like they mostly do for ordinary consumer goods and services. – (*) often only be … - J.Z., 8.12.07. & PASSIONS, MAJORITIES, MULTITUDES, MOB, THE COMMON HERD & PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICES IN EVERY SPHERE FOR ALL, RATHER THAN MERELY CHOICES FOR TERRITORIAL COLLECTIVES, DIS.

MASSES: Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." – 1928 U.S. Army Training Manual. - Are the defence and police forces democratically organized and motivated or statist monopoly organizations and as such, inevitably, leading to many abuses? Is territorial democracy a rightful war and peace aim for countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran? Self-government in any form for any kind of minority or majority, but only on the exterritorial autonomy model for volunteers. Even if that is still quite new or all too forgotten among masses of fanatics and fundamentalists. They, too, have to be reminded of their tolerant traditions and future tolerant options. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. - MOBS, DEMOCRACY, PROPERTY MILITARY MONOPOLIES TO DEFEND & SPREAD DEMOCRACY? Q.

MASSES: It’s nice to have faith in the spontaneity of the masses (*), but I find that waiting for the masses to respond only means a repetition of past failures.” – Arlene Meyers, Summer 74. – Up with the one-person or one-man revolution! - (*) Without panarchistic or experimental freedom for it or for the many minorities in the masses, i.e., without freedom of action under personal laws? – J.Z., 24.11.96. – Territorial rule systematically suppresses spontaneous free and rightful actions for individuals, minorities and even the majority. – J.Z., 4.12.07. – But on the market for consumer goods and services the “masses” do express already an endless variety of choices and tastes. – J.Z., 25.4.07. - SPONTANEITY, INITIATIVE, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

MASSES: Leave this hypocritical prating about the masses. Masses are rude, lame, unmade, pernicious in their demands and influence, and need not to be flattered but to be schooled. I wish not to concede anything to them, but to tame, drill, divide, and break them up, and draw individuals out of them.” … “The mass are animals, in pupillage, and near chimpanzee. But the units, whereof the mass is composed, are neuters, every one of which may be grown to a queen-bee.”– R. W. Emerson, The Conduct of Life, Considerations by the Way, 1860. – Individuals need not be drawn out if they are free to secede and to associate with like-minded people under full exterritorial autonomy under their own kind of personal laws. The mass man or the mass society is an artificial product of territorial States. – J.Z., 3.11.85, 5.12.07. - PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, MAN, MEN, MAJORITY, PROLETARIANS, WORKERS, DIS., TERRITORIALISM – ANOTHER VERSION: MASSES: the masses are crude, lame, pernicious in their demands and influence, and need not to be flattered, but to be schooled. I wish not to concede anything to them, but to drill, divide, and break them up, and draw individuals out of them. Masses! The calamity are the masses. I do not with any mass at all, but honest men only, lovely, sweet, accomplished women only.” – Emerson, quoted in: Emma Goldman, “Minorities versus Majorities”, in: Alix Kates Shulman, ed. of Red Emma Speaks, p.85/86. – Panarchism may be the most suitable way to break up all too powerful and misleading territorial masses. For even the largest masses are merely agglomerations of minorities. – J.Z., 10.9.08. – PANARCHISM, MAJORITIES, INDIVIDUALISM

MASSES: Mob we call a crowd of people when they have a different opinion than ours. If however, this crowd shares our views, then we say: Behind us stands the enlightened part of public opinion.” – Bartoszewicz. - (Poebel nennen wir eine Ansammlung von Menschen – wenn sie anderer Meinung sind als wir. Teilt dieser Poebel jedoch unsere Anschauungen, dann sagen wir: hinter uns steht der aufgeklaerte Teil der oeffentlichen Meinung.) - Whether various peoples, groups, majorities or minorities, are sufficiently enlightened or not, they should all be free to practise their own views among themselves, always only at their own risk and expense. Offences against that group autonomy should be adjudicated via a pre-arranged adjudication system or arbitration systems rather than by mob rule or lynch-“justice”. – J.Z., 6.12.07. - MOB, PUBLIC OPINION, PANARCHISM

MASSES: The masses will never listen or too late. - Thus let the few willing and able to learn, or who have already learnt their lesson, go ahead, quite independent of mass prejudices and laws passed under their “guidance”. – J.Z., 6.12.76, 7.12.07.

MASSES: The relations between the mass and the conscious minority form a problem whose solution has not yet been fully found, even by the anarchists, and on which the last word seems not to have been said.” – Daniel Guerin, quoted by Kenneth Maddox, THE ANARCHIST, No. 1, Nov. 70. – Both don’t appear to have heard of or understood the idea of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, although in general terms it is expressed by most of the famous collectivist anarchist communist writers also and even in the beginning of this article by Maddock. – J.Z., n.d. , MAJORITY, MINORITIES, PANARCHISM, ANARACHISM, TERRITORIALISM INSTEAD OF VOLUNTARISM

MASSES: The sad truth of history has always been that the unreasoning masses follow the powerful and not the wise.” – George R.R. Martin, Second Helping, ANALOG 11/85, p.99. – Allow individuals and minorities to opt out and set much better examples, if they can. At least they should be quite free to try, even if any of the “great” leaders or “experts” disagrees. – J.Z., 7.12.07. - UNREASON, POWER, WISDOM, FOLLOWERS & LEADERSHIP, SECESSIONISM

MASSES: we conclude that the solution of problems relating to a free society depends upon the emergence of an informed leadership devoted to freedom. (*) - In short, this is a leadership problem (**), not a mass reformation problem. If we had no way of remedying our situation except as the millions come to master the complexities of economic, social, political, and moral philosophy, we would not be warranted in spending a moment of our lives in this undertaking – it would be like expecting a majority of adult Americans to compose symphonies. – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, 89. - (*) Freedom for the minorities already converted to some or the other degrees of freedom, to freely apply them among themselves, in their own communities of volunteers, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, would be all the “leadership” or good examples that are needed, in the medium to long run. - (**) He still thought in terms of territorial communities, under the assumption: One good shoe fits all sizes of feet. – J.Z. 17.12.07. - LEADERSHIP & ENLIGHTENMENT, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TERRITORIALISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, LIBERTARIAN AUTHORITARIAN AND TERRITORIALIST EGALITARIANISM VS. PANARCHISM

MASSES: we haven’t yet learned how to stay human when assembled in masses.” – Lewis Thomas, The Lives of a Cell, p.129. – Let’s start allowing individuals and minority groups to opt out and to associate voluntarily to do their own things to or for themselves. Then there will be many fewer mass men, all forced to engaged in the same wrongs and mistakes – and many better examples could be set for all the rest by relatively small communities of volunteers, operating under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 17.12.07. - GROUPS, COLLECTIVES, REASON, HUMAN NATURE

MASSES: Where are those who will come to serve the masses not to utilize them for their own ambitions?” – Peter Kropotkin. – Do the masses really need leaders rather than rights and liberties for self-help efforts? Every retailer of ordinary consumer goods serves the masses by trading with them to mutual advantage and this without requiring political leadership. So do the importers of free trade who bring them goods from all over the world and so do the exporters, who create more jobs for them. Anarchists at least should allow the masses and each individual among them, to serve themselves, as consumers and producers as well as small to large traders, on a fully free internal and external market, free from all government regulations, restrictions, prohibitions, quotas delays and foreign exchange laws. On such a free market and under full exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities (i.e. a free market also for such organizations), the various anarchists can also attempt to realize their secondary aims among themselves and this only at their own risk and expense. Max Nettlau and Gustav Landauer were aware of this – but most other anarchists still are not. – J.Z., 29.6.92, 6.12.07. - THEIR SELF-SERVING LEADERSHIP, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, PRESIDENTS ETC., INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, FREE MARKET, FREE TRADE, FREE ENTERPRISE, INCLUDING ALL FORMS OF SELF-MANAGEMENT & OWNERSHIP, &, MOST IMPORTANTLY, FULL MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM! DIS.

MASTER: A critically necessary lesson any true officer must learn is the crushing burden it is to be master of a slave.” - Eric Frank Russell, Minor Ingredient, p.52 of ASTOUNDING SF, Aug. 56, Brit. Ed. – All territorial governments find it too hard to tax their subjects enough to fulfil all their statist wishes. But they do try, all too much – and do not allow dissenters to opt out from under them. – J.Z., 12.2.09. - SLAVES, SLAVERY, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM VS. SECESSIONISM, TAXATION, WELFARE STATE, PATERNALISM

MASTER: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.” – Abraham Lincoln. – Should a president have more say in a democracy than a single voter? – Should the voter not be free to secede from him and to defy him, alone or in an exterritorial communities of like-minded volunteers, all determined to do their own things for or to themselves only? - J.Z., 17.12.07. – MASTER-SLAVE-RELATIONSHIP, EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, HIERARCHIES, DEPENDENCIES, SUBJECTS, PRESIDENTS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

MASTER: He that is a master must serve.” – George Herbert, Jacula Prudentum. – Yes, and he primarily serves himself – while pretending to serve all his subjects. He does not grant them full consumer sovereignty towards his rule. – J.Z., 12.2.09. - POLITICIANS, REPRESENTATIVES, DEPUTIES, MPs, RULERS, TERRITORIALISM, WELFARE STATE

MASTER: Let us determine that we shall not allow the state to be our master, but that we shall be masters of the state.” – Russell J. Clinchy. – in THE FREE MAN’S ALMANAC, Febr. 16. – To achieve that we have merely to reduce the territorial State to exterritorial autonomy only, over its own volunteers. This would begin with individual and group secessionism and the establishment of the first panarchies or polyarchies for and by them. – J.Z., 17.12.07. - STATE, SUBORDINATION, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM & SECESSIONISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

MASTER: The measure of a master is his success in bringing all men round to his opinion twenty years later.” – R. W. Emerson, 1803-1882. – Why should he and his first followers not be free to immediately practise his ideals among themselves, thereby setting a shiny or a deterrent example to all others, to be followed only by volunteers, if any? – Why persist in the perpetuation of territorial rule – even if only for another 20 years? Why assume that thus we could ever achieve unanimous approval on anything? Some enemies of motor transport want to do away with the left-hand or right-hand rule on driving – just to slow down what they hate. – J.Z., 17.12.07. - LEADERSHIP, EXPERTS, PIONEERS, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

MASTER: the only good master is a dead master.” – Pyrrho, THE CONNECTION 106, p.65. – If he lets you secede and compete he is good enough and does not have to be executed. – J.Z., 17.12.07. – Which private employer does not let his employees give notice? I do not know of any. – Except Mafia employees, who know too much! – Also soldiers, officers and secret agents of governments are, mostly, not free to resign. - J.Z., 12.2.09.

MASTER: whereby the great majority of the people had to obey the command of a small minority. And he urged that this mastery Rule should be done away with and a Fraternity Rule be established in its stead.” – Notion of Sir Samuel Griffith, according to GOOD GOVERNMENT, Oct. 1978, p. 13. – Quite voluntary and autonomous as well as competitive associationism would be even better and not confined to the doctrines of fraternity, in which egalitarianism might prevail. – J.Z., 17.12.07. – MASTERY, RULERS, GOVERNMENT, DOMINATION, TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS: CONTROL, EMPIRES, FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, OBEDIENCE

MAUDE, AYLMER, A Peculiar People, The Doukhobors, 1904, N.Y., AMS Edition 1970, indexed, 388pp, J.Z.L.

MAXIMUM LIBERTY & CIVILIZATION: It is quite possible that we have already attained the maximum liberty compatible with civilization." - Ezra Pound, Freedom de Facto. - How far off the mark can one be? Most people so far do not know or reject most of the freedom options and seem more bent upon minimizing rather than maximizing freedom options. - J.Z., 8.4.89. – DIS.

MAYER, HENRY: Sing a song of Anarchy, A Nation Full of Fear." THE AUSTRALIAN, 17.4.1969, reported on the mood among young people to simply ignore authority, the unkindest cut of all: "They have never before seen people who question their right to authority, ignore their sanctions, and, much worse, ask for a convincing justification of why they are there at all ..." – AUTHORITARIANISM & YOUTH, LEGALISM

MAZARD, JEAN ALBERT: Le regime des Capitulations en Turquie pendant la guerre de 1914, Alger, 1923, 258pp. (Ann Arbor)

MCELROY, WENDY: Self-Ownership. Wendy McElroy on Facdbook: My weekly column has just been posted on the Future of Freedom site: Oppression as Theft: A Salute to Self-Ownership Click here to access.
 - It is a good and short article, also on one of the foundations of panarchism: individual sovereignty. But the FFF published article is copyrighted. I deny that one can rightfully monopolize a language, an idea, on opinion or a way of expressing an idea or an argument. – She herself points out in the article that the idea of self-ownership is far from original to her. She puts it well, that is all. - – In the same location, , The Future of Freedom Foundation, she also got recently published, on 8.12.12: In Praise of Parallel Institutions. It is not as explicit as I would like it to be, e.g. on exterritorial autonomy even for the various statists, doing their own things to themselves, but certainly a step the right direction. One does not have to pre-chew and pre-digest every idea and then offer it as a food to others. They should also try do some-self-thinking on any idea that is new to them. Anyhow, they could go online and would find many other related articles already, although not yet a handbook, whose beginnings are offered in this rough and personal presentation by just one strongly opinionated individual like myself, quoting many others, whom I found interesting in this respect. – Next year, this compilation, edited by Gian Piero de Bellis, will appear on his large panarchist website - She also wrote, long ago, on THE VOLUNTARYISTS, 112, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PEACE PLANS 869. – I rather leave it to her or others to list all of her writings that are relevant to panarchism or polyarchism. - J.Z., 29.12.11. - SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS, PANARCHISM.

MCKENZIE, RICHARD B.: Bound to Be Free, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, Stanford, Cal., 1982, copyrighted. This is a book by a limited government advocate. But it contains many excellent libertarian remarks, some hints towards monetary freedom and even some panarchistic sounding statements: Page 53: Quoting Ortega y Gasset: “Order is not a pressure imposed upon society from without, but an equilibrium which is set up from within”, he adds: “To achieve order, we must look for very general principles of organization that, by their nature, can elicit meaningful consent.” – Page 54: “The free market (or free enterprise) system has, as I have attempted to show, a strong philosophical foundation; it protects freedom by elevating the dignity of the individual to social prominence. The system, however, also has a firm pragmatic foundation: it works. It is really the only system that effectively and efficiently serves the desires and preferences of a diverse humanity.” – How much dignity and freedom can one have in a society or State from which one may not withdraw and in which one is either subjected to the votes of others or outvotes them in their own affairs? – Page 63: “Competition is the social hallmark of freedom, but it is a social serendipity arising from the fundamental position that individuals, although often misguided, are the best judges of what they should do with their lives and that power should be dispersed among many individuals. Where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, there is little or no freedom (except for those who have the power), no competition, and none of the benefits that can accrue from competition.” … “In short, markets make it possible for us to retain our individuality.” – Page 67: “The free market allows people to make mistakes, as they surely will, and to adjust, as they see fit, when they learn that they have erred. It allows them to find themselves. Without freedom it is doubtful that people can really know their wants or themselves. The claim that many people do not know what is good for them is often heard. Of course, that is true; but it does not follow that others are better judges of what they should want.” – Even if they were, they have no right to impose their judgment upon the affairs of others. Let them learn from their own mistakes. – Page 82: “Freedom is a very broad social value that garners considerable acceptance among people not only because of its intrinsic value but also because it leaves undefined what people can actually do with their lives.” – Page 149: “… free markets limit the power of people to coerce one another; they allow for competition and, therefore, voluntary actions. Free, unregulated markets are a means of delimiting the monopoly power of government to determine what goods and services we each will have.” – Mind that he does not advocate a free market for all kinds of government services but merely free markets under a limited government. – He comes close to panarchist ideas in many other passages, too. Even where radical libertarians and panarchists do not agree with him they will find his statements stimulating. – I marked quite a few of his passages for inclusion in my “SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY” file. It is a well-kept book that I bought second-hand. It was withdrawn from the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library. I wonder why? Did if favor freedom too much in the opinion of a public librarian? – JZL, J.Z., 2.11.04

MCKIMMIE, JACKIE, ZUBE, JOHN: Sept. 1972, page 38, in ON PANARCHY IV, in PP 510.

MEANS & ENDS: A man in earnest finds means, or, if he cannot find, creates them.” - William Ellery Channing. - As systematic, scientific, encyclopaedic and team-work or international collaboration approach is required for the rapid solution to many of the remaining problems that have plagued us for centuries to thousands of years. Freedom of expression is not enough to find the best of them, if not combined with sufficient and affordable, powerful and lasting opportunities for freedom of expression and information. Experimental freedom is required in the political, economic and social sphere as well, to settle problems as fast and efficiently as they can be settled in natural sciences and technology. - J.Z., 26.11.02. – Much could already be achieved via a world-side ideas archive and talent centre and by an online libertarian projects list, and a directory to all libertarians, who do want to be listed with their contact address and indicating their special libertarian interests - to maximize collaboration and division of labour between libertarians. – J.Z., 27.12.11, 4.6.12. - WAYS & MEANS, IDEAS, SOLUTIONS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, LIBERTARIAN PROJECTS LIST ONLINE.

MEANS & ENDS: First, there is no way to know whether one socialistic scheme is better than another. Professed socialists do not know how to make socialism work; certainly we do not. The explanation is simple: No creative end can possibly be born of a coercive, that is, of a destructive means, for the end pre-exists in the means; a truth is never composed of fallacies.” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.30. - - The “way to know” is revealed by voluntarism, by tolerant experiments among volunteers, all undertaken only at their cost and risk. Territorial imposition of any socialist experiment upon whole populations, those in favour and those against, is only likely to lead to vast and costly failures. Did Read never hear or read anything about “voluntary socialism” or “cooperative socialism? With his limited statism he remained stuck in territorialism. – J.Z., 18.12.07.

MEANS & ENDS: For the inseparability of means and ends makes compromise a sin; …” Benjamin R. Barber, Superman and Common Men, p.14. – Those believing in different ends and different means should all be free to opt out and work with their means towards their ends, but only among themselves, at their own risk and expense. To that extent should there be free competition and full tolerance for all kinds of ends and means towards them. Otherwise this issue might be vainly discussed for another 2000 or more years. – J.Z., 18.12.07.

MEANS & ENDS: It has taken me a while to grasp just how futile, how self-defeating, resorting to political means actually is.” – Michael Stadelmaier, LEFEVRE’S JOURNAL, Fall 75. – For me “political means” means “territorialist means”, i.e. coercion of whole populations, not only of the own followers but also of all dissenters. – J.Z., 18.12.07. - In the case of territorialism both the means and the end are, usually, wrong. - J.Z., 2.1.11. - POLITICAL MEANS, TERRITORIALISM, COERCION, DESPOTISM, FORCE, VIOLENCE, COMPULSION, LAWS

MEANS & ENDS: It makes a lot of difference whether one can act as a free, rational and moral being with rightful means towards rightful objectives or only as a victimized, unfree, persecuted being, acting under all kinds of coercion and threats towards a rightful or wrongful aim. – Then emergency situations may require emergency counter-measures in defence of one’s rights and liberties and to gain freedom of action again. – The solution, unless one is willing to submit to whatever fate is handed out to oneself, one’s family and friends, by others, ordinary criminals or those in power, will not always be bloodless and non-violent. - J.Z., 18.12.07. – TERRITORIALISM, MILITIA, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

MEANS & ENDS: Look after the means, and the end will take care of itself.” – Nehru. – Alas, territorialism is still all too widely perceived to be a rightful means towards a rightful end. – J.Z., 12.2.69. – TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

MEANS & ENDS: One may not do evil that good may come of it.” (Non faciat malum, ut in de veniat bonum.) – Legal maxim. - - But one should be free to make mistakes and commit errors at the own expense and risk, never at the expense and risk of others than volunteers. – J.Z., 5.12.07. - PANARCHISM

MEANS & ENDS: What is inherently and radically bad in itself, cannot become good because something else is good.” – O’Brien, The Natural Right To Freedom, p.188. – Many people consider e.g. the establishment of an anarchist society or of a truly limited government so worthy that they resort to the wrongful means of claiming a territorial monopoly for it. What they could rightfully claim would be only full exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers, and the right to secede from any regime that tries to impose its kind of territorial rule and compulsory membership upon them. – J.Z., 6.5.84, 17.12.07.

MEANS & METHODS OF PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM: 1.) Individual secessions, wide-spread and recognized rather than suppressed. Starting with the proclamation of that right and liberty. - - 2.) Minority group secessions, many of them, with the independence and an-territorial autonomy of the seceded minorities being respected. Starting with publicity for this right and liberty. - - 3.) Personal laws to replace territorial laws. After sufficient enlightenment on this subject. - - 4.) An international federation of minority groups favoring such liberties for all of them. It could come to represent the majority of the world's population because most majorities are temporary and themselves made up of minorities. - - 5.) These liberties and rights to be introduced as aspects of full freedom of action and experimentation, of freedom of contract and freedom of association and disassociation. - - 6.) Various libertarian and anarchist movements would get their best chance within such a framework and could form alliances, upon this program, even with statists who just want to practise their form of statism among themselves. - - 7.) In this way freedom options could become practically demonstrated, showing that freedom works, is quite practical, instead of being merely thought about, verbally advocated or pictured. From mere blueprints to buildings. - - 8.) While at the same time the greatest degree of freedom could be practised among volunteers, any degree of stagnation, conservatism or even reaction could become practised among volunteers, realizing free enterprise and free marketing and free consumer sovereignty for any systems, which in the main oppose free enterprise and free markets, as long as they do finds voluntary supporters. No matter how stagnant or reactionary it may actually be. On that basis they might even become aware of this contradiction between their free actions and associations and their “principles”, beliefs or ideology. Then even present enemies could be turned into allies or at least neutrals. No system would be forced upon any dissenters. Thus animosity against disliked systems would become minimized. They would simply be avoided by those who do not like them. No such system would thus be feared and fought. - - 9.) Towards the realization of this ideal, via the spread and speeding up of enlightenment, all alternative, powerful and affordable media options should be utilized as well. Panarchism or polyarchism should be utilized in this sphere as well. - - 10.) Among the freedom experiments would be monetary and financial freedom experiments. Among the monetary ones there would be monetary freedom experiments that could almost immediately abolish inflations, deflations, stagflations and unemployment among their practitioners. Other or the same libertarian panarchies would practise successful methods of voluntary taxation or subscriptions for their common expenses, which would do away with compulsory taxation. Both kinds of successes would tend to spread very widely and fast - for most people are harmed by monetary and financial despotism and their consequences. In other words, panarchism in the monetary and financial spheres would promote panarchism generally. - -  11.) The non-violent means used: merely secessionism and associationism, neither constituting an attack upon and attempt to completely destroy or abolish existing institutions [or merely their territorialism, their monopolism, privileges and coercion], but leaving them alone, to be continued or even expanded upon their own merits, or disappear only upon their own insights in their flaws, would tend to minimize opposition against this development. Most people prefer it when their enemies segregate themselves away from them and try to practise their hated or disliked ideas only among themselves, rather than continuing to obstruct the ideals that its remaining volunteers only want to practise among themselves. This approach is thus not only freedom- but also peace-promoting. - - 12.) By practising the old maxim of justice: To each his own, justice and security and independence would even be realized for advocates of different political, economic and social systems, thus establishing peaceful competition and coexistence and even harmony between them, as opposed to the territorial systems of domination over dissenters, which continuously produce friction if not violent clashes (terrorism, insurrections, revolutions, civil wars and international wars). Each can then complacently look back upon his life, saying: I had it my way! - J.Z., 15.10.04. – START-UPS, PRINCIPLES, METHODS, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, EXPERIMENTS, VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION & DISASSOCIATION, SECESSIONISM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, JUSTICE, INDEPENDENCE, SECURITY, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, NON-VIOLENCE, ANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM

MEASURES: Everybody has the right to take measures at the own cost and risk which others consider as impractical - even those who are regarded as experts. - J.Z., free after U. v. Beckerath, 1882-1969, in pamphlet TOLERANCE. - POLICIES, PROHIBITIONS & TOLERANCE, OBJECTIONS, IMPRACTICAL? FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, EXPERTS, DIS., RIGHTS, SELF-HELP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

MEDDLING: amongst men, there are very many that think themselves wiser, and abler than the rest and these strive to reform and innovate, one this way, another that way; and thereby bring it into Distraction and Civil War.” – Hobbes, Leviathan. – Why adhere to territorialism, which makes such abuses possible and likely, instead of just letting each community of volunteers do its own things for or to itself, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws? We do need deterrent examples as well as shining successes to be freely imitated once one is convinced of them. – J.Z., 18.12.07, 4.6.12. - MEDDLING & LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS VS. EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS EXPERIMENTS AMONG VOLUNTEERS

MEDDLING: It has been shown repeatedly how rapidly frozen situations thaw under freedom of intercourse when self-interested rulers cease to meddle, …” - S. Hutchinson Harris, The Doctrine of Personal Right, p.449. – Let all people be free to pick what they believe to be solutions to their problems, comparable to free choice of doctors or plumbers, including whole package deals of services, whole societies and communities of volunteers, all doing their own things only among their members, all volunteers, just like they are free to pick their meals, their clothing, their hobbies and their entertainment. No territorially enforced “public service” can be as good as those finally arrived at under free competition, free enterprise and full consumer sovereignty in the last spheres which are still monopolized now by territorial States, with their organized ignorance and prejudices, corresponding to the lowest common denominators, in which the worst types tend to get to the top. – And if some of the freely chosen alternatives should be even worse than the former territorially imposed ones, then these volunteers would have only themselves to blame. J.Z., 6.12.07. – FURTHER MEDDLING RATHER THAN FREEDOM IN A CRISIS?

MEDDLING: Meddling is even worse when done professionally, with official authority and against involuntary victims. – J.Z., 30.6.92, 6.12.07. - TERRITORIALISM

MEDDLING: Meddling simply widens and intensifies conflicts.”(*) - Sheldon Richman,, quoted in FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS, No. 57. -  There is a difference between aggressive and provocative and defusing or even protection and liberating "meddling". E.g.: Rightful war and peace aims published well in advance, with programs for rightful revolutions. Ready acceptance of refugees and deserters. Recognition of exterritorially autonomous governments in exile, all for volunteers only. Advice on monetary freedom. Publicity for tyrannicide, as opposed to assassinations. Freedom of broadcasting etc. into areas under censorship. There can be rightful and even dutiful interventions. - J.Z., 2.5.00, 27.2.02, 4.6.12. – (*) Usually after starting them off in the first place! – J.Z., 12.2.09. – NON-INTERVENTION, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEUTRALITY, ISOLATIONISM, FOREIGN POLICY

MEDDLING: Peace through defensive war against the meddlers. – J.Z., n.d. - - The most effective weapons against them might be individual secessions, tax strikes, ideal militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties and full monetary freedom. – J.Z., 18.12.07. - PEACE

MEDDLING: The answer was laissez faire. “It is not by the intermeddling of Mr. Southey’s idol, the omniscient and omnipotent State”, Macaulay concludes, “but by the prudence and energy of the people, that England has hitherto been carried forward in civilization; and it is to the same prudence and the same energy that we now look with comfort and good hope. Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and observing strict economy in every department of the state. (*) Let the Government do this: the People will assuredly do the rest.” – Bruce Bartlett, in THE FREEMAN, May 75, p.276. - - Let the meddlers interfere – but only with their own affairs. And let the laissez-faire advocates do their own things, - for themselves. It is wrong to force these or other opposites to remain subject to the same territorially enforced “community” instead of letting them go their own ways, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, freely chosen by individuals for themselves. Then neither side in this controversy, or others, will have any good reason to complain about the other. Each community would get or achieve only what its members would deserve, for their choices. – (*) Alas, territorial States can, apparently and largely, do only the opposite. - J.Z., 18.12.07. - OR LAISSEZ FAIRE? NON-INTERVENTION, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM

MEDDLING: Tolerance means a mutual agreement to refrain from meddling. - J.Z., in pamphlet on TOLERANCE ????

MEDDLING: Too many politicians do too much meddling with too many affairs of others. – J.Z., 1/75. And for that they expect to be voted into office – and too many voters are foolish enough to continue to do them this favour. – Territorial voting is already a general act of meddling, whether directly or indirectly, with the affairs of others, rather than being confined to and fully autonomous on the own affairs. - We should be sovereign consumers not only for ordinary consumer goods and services but also for all kinds of “public” services and systems, competitively offered to us by free entrepreneurs or cooperatives operating in these spheres as well. – In this way each party and movement would win full exterritorial autonomy for its platform or system. - J.Z., 7.12.07. - POLITICIANS

MEDDLING: When we get it into our heads that other people’s problems are our responsibility to solve, we “rise” to the level of utter incompetence. However good out intention, our meddling makes matters worse rather than better.” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.54. – However, some matters, like dictatorships, monetary despotism with its consequences inflation, involuntary mass unemployment, frequent crises, the employer-employee-relationship, monopolies, war and peace decision, taxation, individual human rights declarations, territorial governments, nuclear weapons stocks, etc. are also our concern or should be. – J.Z., 18.12.07. - We should stop those powers which cause these problems by their laws and institutions and impose them upon involuntary victims. They must become confined to their voluntary victims. All others must become free to secede from these powers to do their own things among themselves. Panarchism and polyarchism do not demand any more but also not any less. - J.Z., 3.1.11.

MEDDLING: When will we finally get rid of them: all these loathsome people, who continuously are occupied to force their own opinions upon others, to school-master them, to patronize them, to reform them, to protect them, to regulate them …” - John Henry Mackay, Abrechnung, S.151. – When we are finally free to secede from them and live under self-chosen and self-managed institutions and laws. – But they are still needed for all the remaining statists, who have not yet learnt their lessons. - J.Z., 18.12.07.

MEDDLINIG: A Paradox: Many persons are so reluctant to become involved in other people’s affairs that they will stand by and see a fellow man beaten or even killed without intervening. (*) Yet those very same non-Samaritans readily join in great numbers (**) to make other people’s decisions for them, meddle in their business, force them to act “for their own good”. (***) – James C. Patrick, Decatur, Illinois, quoted in THE FREEMAN, March 67. - (*) That would mean risking their own skin and all too many people are adverse to that, even in a good cause. - - People would often behave quite differently if they were not victimized by meddling victim disarmament laws. - J.Z., 3.1.11. - - (**) That is without risk to themselves! - - (***) Then no more than a “free” but meddling vote is required of them for such “reforms”. – This kind of meddling would be diminished once all people are free to secede and to run their own shows independently, for and among themselves only. - J.Z., 6.12.07. - NON-INTERVENTION, MUTUAL AID, SOCIAL CONTRACT


MEDICINE & MEDICS ANALOGY: Free choice of doctors or medicines. The worst medical advice – but only for those who still believe in it. Also the best medical advice – but only for those wanting it or already enlightened by it. The same for any kind of reform advice and practice. -  J.Z., 25.1.05, 4.6.12.

MEESSEN, K., Extraterritorial jurisdiction in theory and practice. (London: Kluwer Law International 1996) - Abstracts are wanted and review hints, as well as links to the full texts, if they are relevant to this collection. - Titles can be deceptive. - J.Z., 13.10.11.


MELTING POT: Even after hundreds of years the USA is still not enough of a melting pot or a quite tolerant community. – The same applies to most other territorial States, e.g. Australia, Germany, France, England, Switzerland, Italy, Spain etc. - J.Z., 25.11.95, 27.12.11. – However, those, who do not want to be melted or integrated, should be quite free to become exterritorially autonomous and voluntarily segregated. No peaceful ethnic or other group should be against its will under the command or the votes of any other group or collection of groups, movements or parties etc. – J.Z., 4.12.07, 4.6.12. - NORTH AMERICA, DIS., PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION, VOLUNTARY SEGREGATION, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIAL IMPOSITIONS, MULTICULTURALISM, RACISM

MELTING POT: Society is more of a mosaic than a melting pot. Each individual and culture must be free to continually create their own valuable identity. One of our basic problems is that we have forced the melting pot concept rather than allowing a mosaic to naturally develop. Those with different skin color, individualists and native Indians, for example.” – Stormy Mon, A Liberty Book, p.47. - A mosaic has still geographical features, however small. Personal law options should come down to individuals, families and their properties. But their voluntary associations can be nation-wide or even world-wide for their volunteers. - J.Z., 3.1.11.

MELTING POT: States ought to cease trying to be coercive and vast melting pots, leaving political, economic and social affiliations as much to individuals as religious and marital relationships, making them as pure of intermixed, diverse and radical free or unfree as sovereign consumer and associates want them to be. – J.Z., 10,12.07. - TERRITORIAL STATES, FREE CHOICE FOR PERSONAL LAWS & COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS OR SOCIETIES TO INDIVIDUALS, UNDER FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM

MEMBERSHIP, VOLUNTARY VS. COMPULSORY: We still life in an age of imposed territorial statism with its territorial monopoly claims, centralized powers and compulsory membership or compulsory subordination of people living in a territory exclusively claimed by one or the other group. This means, among other things, imposed laws, tribute gathering, suppression of dissenting actions and experiments, centralization of power, and collective responsibility measures for the actions of the centralized territorial power against all subjected to that power (Worst instance the MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear policies of territorial governments.) or, for all members of a somewhat recognizable dissenting group - for the real or imagined actions of a few members of that group, always under the wrongful assumption that one group of people has the right to rule over and restrict or condemn another group of people, territorially, collectively, rather than judging individual aggressors of that group individually. All wrongful actions of territorial monopolies are rationalized by “national security”, claims to “territorial unity” or “territorial integrity” and the supposed need for equal laws for all living in a territory and similar or related popular errors and prejudices. As long as such notions predominate panarchism cannot prosper. However, once all opposition forces unite, sufficiently, under the panarchist banner, striving for exterritorial and voluntary autonomy for all of their communities of volunteers only, even for those of their opponents and for the presently ruling territorial regime, and so apply this aim consistently in all their actions, then they could come to win freedom for themselves – and more freedom for all others as well – in a relatively short time and with relatively little effort.  Fanatic resistance against panarchism would then be avoided and allies for it could be found in the ranks of all groups, movements and parties. – J.Z., 27.1.05, 4.6.12. – VOLUNTARISM, STATE MEMBERSHIP, COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

MEMBERSHIP: D. E. Sattler, Thesen zur Staatenlosigkeit. State citizenship got its distinct value only by becoming subject to a voluntary decision. Just like the State for any reason or motive may refuse membership to foreigners, so does any citizen have the right to refuse citizenship for himself, if a State mis-pleases him.  - Theses on Statelessness, 2nd. Thesis. – Statelessness under a territorial State is not an attractive position, as long as the territorial State forces e.g. its tax laws and other territorial laws also upon resident foreigners and dissenters. They must also gain the freedom of full exterritorial autonomy und their own personal law, constitutions and jurisdiction. – J.Z., 18.12.07. – VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, STATELESSNESS, SECESSIONISM, TERRITORIALISM, LAWS, LEGISLATION

MEMBERSHIP: How can man be both free and at the same time subject to a political commonwealth?” – Maurice Cranston, Political Dialogues, p.175, describing Rousseau’s & Morley’s positions. - By making all commonwealths dependent upon voluntary membership, i.e., turning them into individualistic commonwealths under personal laws and confined to exterritorial autonomy! – J.Z., 23.8.81, 18.12.07. – VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

MEMBERSHIP: Membership in society is voluntary; membership in government is compulsory. That is the radical distinction.” – John Beverley Robinson, The Economics of Liberty, p.15. – Even the free voters are hardly members of a government but, rather, subjects of ten thousands of laws and thousands of bureaucratic institutions, most of them not wanted by them. – And they are not free to opt out from under a territorial government and to refuse to pay taxes to it and to live in their own free societies. Even if they want to merely visit other countries they need a passport and visa. - J.Z., 18.12.07. – One should distinguish between membership in a government and membership, i.e. subordination in a State, i.e., under its territorial government. – J.Z., 27.12.11. – Most of the elected representatives are also under party discipline. – J.Z., 4.6.12. - COMPULSORY VS. VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP

MEMBERSHIP: The rights and liberties of nations can only be preserved by institutions.” – Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881, The Spirit of Whiggism. – The rights and liberties of nations can only be destroyed by involuntary national institutions, i.e., territorial ones, which suppress the exterritorial autonomy of minorities. All dissenters should be free to form their own communities of volunteers under personal laws and institutions. – A political science, which does not take that freedom and right into consideration, does not deserve to be called a science. - J.Z., 18.12.07. - COMPULSORY VS. VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP

MEMBERSHIP: We still life in an age of imposed territorial statism with its territorial monopoly claims, centralized powers and compulsory membership or compulsory subordination of people living in a territory exclusively claimed by one or the other group. This means, among other things, imposed laws, tribute gathering, suppression of dissenting actions and experiments, centralization of power, and collective responsibility measures for the actions of the centralized territorial power against all subjected to that power (Worst instance the MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear policies of territorial governments.) or, for all members of a somewhat recognizable dissenting group for the real or imagined actions of a few members of that group, always under the wrongful assumption that one group of people has the right to rule over and restrict or condemn another group of people, territorially, collectively, rather than judging individual aggressors of that group individually. All wrongful actions of territorial monopolies are rationalized by “national security”, claims to “territorial unity” or “territorial integrity” and the supposed need for equal laws for all living in a territory and similar or related popular errors and prejudices. As long as such notions predominate - panarchism cannot prosper. However, once all opposition forces unite, sufficiently, under the panarchist banner, striving for exterritorial and voluntary autonomy for all of their voluntary communities, even for those of their opponents and for the presently ruling territorial regime, and do apply this aim consistently in all their enlightenment efforts and practical actions, then they could come to win freedom for themselves – and more freedom for all others as well – in a relatively short time and with relatively little effort. Fanatic resistance against panarchism would then be avoided and allies for it could be found in the ranks of all groups, movements and parties. – J.Z., 27.1.05,  4.6.12. - VOLUNTARY VS. COMPULSORY, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

MEMBERSHIP: Whenever and wherever you are a compulsory member, e.g. as a school boy, as a recruit, as a tax payer, as a State subject, your chances to reason at all or successfully with the authorities are close to zero. – J.Z., 15.7.96. - VOLUNTARY VS. INVOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP?

MENTAL REVOLUTION, IDEAS CHANGE, CHANGE OF MEMES REQUIRED FOR PANARCHISM: No great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible, until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought. - John Stuart Mill, in his Autobiography. - Alas, he himself did not get away, sufficiently, from territorialist-statist thinking. - J.Z., 8.4.89, 27.12.11. – ENLIGHTENMENT, EDUCATION, PUBLICITY, PUBLISHING, IDEAS ARCHIVE, LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY.

MERCANTILISM: These three “modern” tendencies – distrust of individual initiative, exacerbated nationalism (called chauvinism after the ultranationalist French Bonapartist Chauvin), at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, in neomercantilism. This began in the Germany of Bismarck and in the United States, spread by reaction to England, France, and other countries, produced the two world wars, and destroyed the international division of labor. Christened in Germany in 1920 the “planned economy” (Planwirtschaft) and later everywhere called the “controlled economy”, under the pretext of defending national interest against foreign competition and the humble classes against domestic oppression, it has enthroned the omnipotent state wherever it has gained a foothold …” Balvé, Economics, p.7. - - The supposedly omnipotent territorial State cannot assure freedom, peace and justice. It cannot even stop inflation, deflation and mass unemployment but rather causes them, mainly with its monetary despotism, and it also causes wars with its powers, especially its territorialist monopoly claims. It can increase but hardly ever reduce taxes. It can increase but hardly ever reduce bureaucracy. Its supposed omnipotence is another delusion of the territorial statists. – J.Z., 18.12.07. - NEO-MERCANTILISM, CHAUVINISM, NATIONALISM, PLANNED ECONOMY, CONTROLLED ECONOMY, MACROECONOMICS, STATE SOCIALISM, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

MERCANTILISM: While the mercantilists thought that to become better off one would have to accumulate more money, having in mind merely a scarce and exclusive silver or and gold currency, the monetary freedom advocates hold that one would have to produce more sound money, based upon wanted goods and services, already produced and sold, at least to wholesalers, or already offered in retail shops, and that, thereby, one would facilitate sales, employment, production to their optimum potential levels. The additional sales would increase orders and with them more production and trade and, thereby, increase general prosperity or the standard of living, as much as one could, with the existing technology and sciences, skills and training, resources and productively invested savings. Under monetary freedom, with it sound exchange media and currencies, as well as free clearing, savings would also accumulate fast and under financial freedom they could and would be more fully and readily available for productive investments. - I would like to see a model experiment undertaken, e.g., in a Red Indian reservation or in some poor village in Haiti or under similar underdeveloped conditions, e.g. among Negroes in Harlem. It could begin with a single general store, issuing its own token currency, based especially upon local products for local consumption and would make a few wage payment loans with its token currency to local producers, too. (A fringe benefit for the store would be, it would not be held up for this kind of private and competitive cash - for its holders and spenders could be very easily traced. – Forgeries would also become rare: Two of the main benefits of a limited and local money issue and circulation. - J.Z., 12.9.02, 4.6.12.) - How fast could such a system expand, e.g. to include the local shopping centre, increasing local productivity and local sales and local employment as well as local savings, assuming only that there exist no mental, legal, customary, traditional, juridical and administrative blocks against such a self-help development and against making and accepting one's own money and using it optimally for one's own productive and exchange purposes? How long would it take before there might be two shops and the number of those paid wages for productive local work in this local currency, would be doubled? How long before there would be small local surpluses, that could be invested in mini-loans for local mini-enterprises? How long would it be before such a local economy and local currency issue would help the local economy to so to speak pull itself up by its bootstraps? - Naturally, that would require local autonomy towards the central monetary despotism, probably also exemptions from all taxes imposed by outsiders. - But with the sympathies that ethnic minorities can now often count upon, they might have it easier than others to thus break the stranglehold of monetary despotism and become self-supporting, economically independent citizens of their self-chosen communities. - Judging from what I have read about the innovative genius, skills and readiness to learn new things, especially e.g. among Eskimos, according to some reporters or observers, their remaining communities, to the extent that they got away from subsistence economics, or dependency on welfare handouts, addiction to alcohol and other drugs, might be most suitable for starting such experiments, if only their environment and climate and distance from existing trading centres would not prevent them from engaging e.g. in any industrial production. - Mere food gathering, hunting, fishing and handicraft economies are, probably, not sufficient to develop sound local currencies and to develop the local economy beyond that foundation, embodying the local economy sufficiently in the general division of labour scheme, beyond local subsistence efforts. - Assume that tribal rights would now be more widely recognized, even those of Eskimos, desert tribes or Firelanders (if any survived to today), who were formerly driven into icy or hot deserts, by warlike tribes. Assume further that they would not be bound to merely continue with their old ways of life but at least the dissenters among them would be free to adopt new and free ways of making a living and that their autonomy would be recognized to the extent that they would be granted exterritorial autonomy and freedom to settle and work anywhere. Then, perhaps, the Eskimos might come to shine and provide "economic wonders" far beyond those provided by West Germany or Japan after WW II, and by the "tiger economies" from an otherwise much wider base or knowledge, skills and resources. - However, by now generations of welfare statism may have largely changed the character, mentality and natural drives of the remaining reservation Eskimos, just as they seem to have those of many Red Indians and Aborigines, all more or less confined to almost wasteland reservations. But if just a few are free to do their own things and to succeed or fail, upon their own merits, unhindered by laws, bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers and popular prejudices or customs (not confined to their old customs and traditions, either, or confined to tourist entertainments, gambling facilities etc.), then how long would it take before some would take up e.g. their monetary and financial freedom options and then how long would it take for many others would follow their successful examples? - To speed the process up, one could assume that the reservation communities would also have the right to take up loans on a stable value basis and to grant tax exemptions to enterprises set up in their areas and to introduce unilateral free trade for them. [By now facilitated through the Internet. – J.Z., 4.6.12.] Then they might be swamped with development offers. Assume that supermarkets and department stores in their reservations would also be free to issue their own currencies. How much time would then pass before enough of them would be established - to be able to provide short term credits for wage payments for many local productive jobs? I am not thinking merely in terms of casinos and arts and craft or tourist activities, but of full autonomy for minority groups, initially only within their reservations and later outside, too, on the basis of personal laws, and, especially, in terms of full monetary and financial freedom. - People who do remain bound by traditions, customs or habits or have developed the welfare- dependent mentality, or who excuse all their inactivity and failures merely with reference to national and racial or religious prosecutions in the past, would not make optimal use of such opportunities. But there might be enough among them, who would gladly grab and utilize such self-help opportunities and use them not only to impress the traditionalists in their own communities but also those in the rest of the world. Indeed, some reservation communities might have to split, based upon individual choices, into the traditionalists and progressives - and, perhaps, into the local socialists and the local capitalists, too. - Is there any place or reservation in the world where this approach could be tried? Even those, who look down upon minorities or even hate them, should have less objections against such self-help steps than against riots, demonstrations, protests, gun battles, occupations, endless court cases and continued hand-out anti-economics. - Current inhabitants of reservations seem to think, like mercantilists thought formerly, that they could get rich only via the money produced by and imported from others and then kept in the own country, as far as possible. They did not consider producing sound money themselves, sufficient for all their exchange and production requirements and encouraging them to produce ever more, to the extent that more of their goods and services are wanted by themselves - or by outsiders. - J.Z., 11.1.80, 28.6.89, 15.5.97. – Imagine that they and their customers would be exempted also e.g. from all building restrictions and build, by contract, Igloos out of foamed plastic blocks, properly anchored, anywhere, where land-owners wanted them built, or Bini-shells or other housing innovations. Red Indian construction workers once played a large rule in erecting skyscrapers. In all of their former countries they should at least become free to engage in any kind of productive trade or profession, in any kind of production and exchange activity, one not sponsored or subsidized by involuntary taxpayers still living under territorialism and unhindered by trade unions and governmental licensing requirements. Their mottos could be Frederic Bastiat’s “Society Is Exchange!” and Leonard E. Read’s “Release all creative energies!” -  J.Z., 4.6.12. - MONETARY DESPOTISM VS. MONETARY FREEDOM. SHOULD OR COULD A MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM REVOLUTION BE STARTED IN A RESERVATION FOR NATIVES?

MERCHANT LAW: In 1447, the Hanseatic cities instituted a tribunal of commerce sitting at Lübeck, of which the President was known as the Alderman, his functions being similar to those of the judge-consul in the other countries. (Miltitz, ibid, vol. 1, pages 162-175.) – LIU, Extraterritoriality, page 33. –  The merchants of the Italian cities who traded in France were subject to the jurisdiction of special judges of their own nationality, called Captains of the University of Lombard and Tuscan Merchants, who decided all cases between them.3 In 1277, a treaty concluded with the French established the Genoese at Nimes and granted to them the right to be judged by their recteur according to their own laws.4 - - - 3 Miltitz, op. cit., vol. ii, pt. i, p. 77. - 4 Vincens. Histoire de la République de Génes (Paris, 1842), vol. i, p. 389.) - See also Depping, Histoire du Commerce entre le Levant et l’Europe (Paris, 1830), vol. ii, p. 52, where the author says: "It is from a remote antiquity that there were, in all the States on the shores of the Mediterranean, courts of commerce, where nearly the same rules were followed. The consulates were nothing but courts of this nature transported to foreign countries." - LIU: Extraterritoriality, page 33.


MESSING UP LIVES: People are usually very successful in messing up their lives. – J.Z., 5.12.76. – Would these failures become much rarer - if we had many more choices in our lives, especially the panarchistic and monetary freedom ones? – J.Z., 18.12.07. – At present we suffer not only under the messes we cause ourselves in the remaining private spheres of our lives but also those, which territorial politicians and bureaucrats, more or less constitutionally, legally, juridically and administratively cause and maintain, largely only at our own risk and expense. – J.Z., 27.12.11, 4.6.12. - THE OWN & THAT OF OTHERS, Q., POLITICIANS, LAWS, Q., BUREAUCRATS

META-UTOPIA: Ray Nelson", The Beggars Could Ride, Toronto, Laser Books, 1975, 190pp, copy wanted by LMP) "very aptly pictures the kind of meta-utopia that Robert Nozick writes of in ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA (New York, Basic Books, 1974, 367 pp), which contains 'a wide and diverse range of communities which people can enter if they are admitted, leave if they wish to, shape according to their wishes; a society in which utopian experimentation can be tried, different styles of life can be lived, and alternative visions of the good can be individually or jointly pursued.' (P.307) Wherein the '... people may contract into [and out of? – J.Z.] various restrictions, which the government may not legitimately impose upon them. Though the framework is libertarian and laissez-faire, INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN IT NEED NOT BE, and perhaps no community within it will choose to be so.' (P.320) 'Ray is a student of the Pre-Raphaelites and the Utopian Socialists in California (particularly in the San Francisco area) and makes use of the ideas in their paradigm." - K. Gregg in "NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY", No.63, 27. Feb. 1977. - By his description of meta-utopias, Nozick seems to have had decentralized geographical utopian communities in mind rather than exterritorial and personal law associations, but his model would not exclude them, either. Such important aspects should be clearly stated rather than, possibly, being merely implied in other general statements. - J.Z. 3.7.89, 27.12.11. – Compare: 8, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. - See: NOZICK, ROBERT.

METHODOLOGY OF PANARCHISM: The methodology of panarchists would be clearly different from the presently prevailing ones. Voluntarism would replace compulsion, an-territorialism [a-territorialism, exterritorialism) would replace territorialism, individual decision-making (as far as involvement with various political, economic and social systems is concerned) would replace collective and centralized decision-making, individual sovereignty would replace national and territorial sovereignty. The voluntary and non-territorial communities could, naturally, make any kind of collective and centralized decisions they like, for themselves, for their own affairs.) Consumer sovereignty would be expanded into the spheres where it was so far outlawed to preserve territorial "public service" monopolies. [And so would be free enterprise competition. – J.Z., 4.6.12.] Neither conquests and occupations, dictatorships, civil wars, revolutions, military insurrections, subversion, sabotage, resistance or terror acts nor prolonged opposition periods with prolonged educational campaigns and finally successful election campaigns gaining a majority votes would be required to establish or maintain, at least temporary, any system for its volunteers. It would not place them into a territorially domineering position, in any territory, where they can unilaterally realize it only among themselves and for other volunteers. They could not territorially impose, by law or votes, their system, organization and methods upon any of those, who disagree with them. It would be, on the contrary, a kind of free enterprise, freedom of contract, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom to experiment, freedom of trade and peaceful coexistence for all of them, even those who are ideologically opposed to these principles and practices for their internal affairs. (They would have to respect them only in their external affairs.) Among themselves they would be free to exclude others them as much as they liked, i.e., free to accept any form of authoritarianism and despotism - among their supporters and at their risk and expense only. Centralization would not be limited, as far as volunteers are concerned. And decentralization would be maximized, down to individuals and their choices, for all those who prefer such freedom of choice and contracts. Constitutions, legal systems, jurisdictions, would not have a territorial monopoly power but would be subject to free enterprise, free competition and consumer sovereignty. Likewise, the bureaucracies they may lead to. In their voluntary and exterritorial communities their members could establish and combine as many or as few public services as they like for themselves. They would always be subject to competition for members by communities that offer better, fewer or more and cheaper services. Each member and each voluntary community would have to suffer only the results of its own bad choices. And it alone would directly and mainly benefit from the results of its good choices. Each would benefit from the deterrent examples of failed experiments in other communities - without having to contribute to the debt payments of these failures. Each would be free to adopt the successful experiments of other voluntary communities. Each could advance at its own speed or stagnate or relapse, as preferred by their members. Since membership would be quite voluntary, each individual could also advance at his own speed - by becoming a member in more advanced communities, if they will have him, on his merits, or he could establish a new and competing one, based upon the same advanced principles. - This peaceful coexistence of all non-criminal, non-aggressive communities would lead to powerful alliances against a few remaining criminal "societies", gangs or bands or aggressors, fanatics, zealots and terrorists, whose number would be greatly reduced. Why? For each rightful aspiration could then be freely practised. All potential members would want to see, under freedom to experiment, more than mere promises of a paradise in the far future. Nor could they, then, blame others for the losses resulting from their own mistakes. With mutual interference largely done away with, less motives for revenge and for terrorism on the "principle" of collective responsibility would remain. (That principle would then, usually, be only applied against members of those societies which remained aggressive and interventionist and there quite rightfully. For individuals should either resist and stop criminal actions of their members or secede from such criminal gangs.) They would no longer operate by territorially imposed constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and administrations but would attempt to achieve thorough reforms a) merely through educational efforts and b) through their demonstrations in free experiments among volunteers. In this way the same rapid progress could be achieved as was achieved e.g. in science and technology and in the arts. As effective problem solvers the successful panarchies and their experts would become appreciated consultants and advisors to the remaining rump governments (all reduced to volunteer communities and exterritorial autonomy) for all the problems they were so far unable to solve with their old means, ways and methods.  Anarchists, or libertarian mini-archists, who do not want to destroy or otherwise abolish existing territorial governments but merely their monopolistic and coercive territorial powers, while leaving them to continue to exist on whatever merits they either have or are believed to retain, for their voluntary followers, would then be much more likely to listen to successful foreigners, aliens, even to anarchists and libertarians, whenever these have solved, within their voluntary communities, any problems which the continued but now also exterritorial governments were so far unable to solve among their volunteers. These governments, limited to exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers, would appreciate to have got rid of all their oppositional forces (which would have seceded from it, quite willingly and peacefully)  and would have gained the chance to try to gain additional members not only from all-over the country but from all over the world, by no longer being confined within their former territorial borders. "May the best man win!" - As long as they can do so without obstructing or killing their competitors. Supposedly enlightened and capably politicians, with the aid of "modern" political science, might then come to believe that they could build up an empire, all based on individual consent, i.e., a genuine mandate. Let them try! I would expect several world federations to arise, all competing peacefully with each other, just like many churches do now, in most countries. Thus, in several ways, panarchism would serve to strengthen rather than weaken the better governments among the existing ones, at least in the short run - and to the extent that they have or can gain voluntary support. Who could rightfully complain that the worst kinds of governments would rapidly lose supporters and strength? Certainly not their remaining voluntary victims or those, who escaped from these regimes by individual or group secessions. Nor could the rulers of these remaining regimes rightly and publicly blame anyone else than themselves for the results of their own remaining follies and crimes. This kind of "factionalism" and "fragmentation" or "atomization" or radical decentralization would tend to weaken the worst and strengthen the best and would tend to spread the best systems, methods and practices fast and widely - but always only among those volunteering for them, thus reducing animosities to them to a minimum and never provoking desperate resistance. Bad regimes would gradually be dissolved rather than destroyed - and to their last moments they would retain the chance to sufficiently reform themselves to retain members and gain new ones, making a full come-back, perhaps even becoming recognized leaders in one or the other sphere, upon their own merits. It is well known that politicians have often changed direction - when it was to their advantage. But territorial elections do not force them sufficiently into better behavior. Often quite the contrary happens, for voters often let themselves be bribed with their own money. (For this the Australian federal election of 13. 10. 04 was a typical example.) – J.Z., n.d. & 4.6.12.

 MEULEN, HENRY, on Panarchism: At the end of his correspondence with Ulrich von Beckerath. Here he does not show himself as much of an individualist nor as familiar with the history of exterritorial autonomy. See: - MEULEN, HENRY: An extract from his correspondence with Ulrich von Beckerath, alas, still incomplete but whatever I had of it I microfiched and later digitized. This response by Meulen, to a letter of B., did, possibly, turn B. off from continuing this correspondence. Anyhow, I do not possess any later correspondence of them, nor do I have B.'s letter, which led to this very negative response from England's long-term individualist anarchist and editor of THE INDIVIDUALS, which I also microfiched to the extent of my limited collection of its issues. - The letter exchange, to the extent that I have it, is on It comes to either over 6 Mbs or even over 8 Mbs. in RTF according to the different counts of my system. - I gave it the title: Instead of a Magazine. It does deal with many freedom subjects, alas, insufficiently with full monetary freedom (on Meulen’s side) and with panarchism. - Even a life-time's correspondence between these two individualist anarchists did not manage to settle some of their very important differences, which rather speaks against any attempts to do so merely by correspondence between two very well read and very intelligent people. - J.Z., 23.8.11. - - [Henry Meulen] - 1 May, 1959. - - My dear von Beckerath, - Thank you for your letter of Ap. 20 with the copy of de Puydt's article, which I have read with much interest. [Alas, I do not posses a copy of this letter. Can anyone among the heirs of Meulen's papers supply one to me? - J.Z., 23.8.11.] - - The fundamental problem which faces Anarchists is not the ideal - most men would like to live without outside coercion - but the method to attain this ideal. The method which proposes simply to abolish the coercive power of the State seems to me an impossibilist one. - Firstly because of the ever-present danger of war. In face of such a danger, nations will hardly permit important sections of their people to escape liability to fight. - Secondly, the problem of Socialism. The Socialists believe that the State should take over all industry. They are not likely to admit the right of sections of the people to disobey the central decision. (J.Z.: Firstly, M. overlooked how much panarchism could strengthen the defensive position of the side which realized it first, while weakening the military strength of any despotic regime. - Secondly, he overlooked that the Socialists would get their chance to do their things to themselves, at their own expense and risk, for as long as they can stand it. They would not have to engage in any election struggles and power struggles once they had gained an election but could simply go ahead with their socialist experiments, supported, initially, by about half the population. - Moreover, he mixed up the abolitionist position of anarchists with the panarchistic position. The panarchists would not abolish the State but merely leave it, secede it, be no longer any trouble to it. Then the State could be continued, with the support of the numerous statists, although only on the exterritorial model, no longer on the territorial model. The Catholic Church managed very well its continuance based upon exterritorial power only, even in predominantly Protestant countries. The anarchist abolitionist approach maximizes resistance, the panarchistic one minimizes it. - J.Z., 21.5.03.) - - The more hopeful way is, I think, Tucker's. Abolish the money monopoly, and the resultant prosperity will remove unmerited poverty. Socialism will then lose its central argument, and it may be hoped that the contest between Russian Communism and Capitalism will then decay. That would mean the disappearance of one of the great threats of war today. Then the hope for the abolition of the coercive powers of the State will improve. - (J.Z.: A peaceful monetary freedom revolution would mean a part-realisation of panarchism - in the monetary sphere. Other panarchistic and part-realizations of panarchism might occur e.g. in the sphere of transport, social insurance, health services, postal services, power supply, etc. People might come to drop out not from all State services and burdens and laws at the same time but out of certain segments of them only, particularly those which the territorial governments obviously manage very badly. Many politicians would be only too happy to get rid of problems they cannot solve and that hang like heavy stones around their necks. - J.Z., 21.5.03.) - Your letter sent me back to "Social Statics." I am luckier than you, in that I still possess the first edition, with chapter XIX. Why did Spencer suppress this chapter in later editions? In the "Autobiography" he states the reasons why he afterwards came to the conclusion that nationalisation of the land was bad; but he does not say why he omitted "The right to ignore the State." I admire him so much that I am unwilling to believe that he had an unworthy motive. But Chapter XIX is excellent, and it is possible that de Puydt had read it before he wrote his article. - All in all, however, the de Puydt article does not seem to me worth the labour of translation into English. For fifty years I have tried to persuade people to take the relatively small step to freedom involved in granting freedom of note issue and the abolition of the gold standard of value; yet there has been little response. How much less likely are people to respond to an appeal to grant the right to ignore the State! - Sincerely yours - Henry Meulen. - - - J.Z.: If he had, clearly enough, supported that last-mentioned appeal, for 50 years, he might have drawn not only a few money reformers on his side but all other kinds of idealists as well, who, under the democratic system have almost no chance at all to get their ideas realized but who, under individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy, or experimental freedom in the economic, political and social sphere, could have realized their ideals fast, either proving or disproving them and thereby greatly promoting progress in these spheres, perhaps as fast as it occurred in the sphere of science and technology, under similar tolerance, exterritorial autonomy and experimental freedom. Alas, here, too, M. did not go sufficiently into the details and that may have been the reason why B. discontinued this correspondence, if he did and it seems that he did but I am not sure about this. - I am glad that this chore with this long correspondence is mostly over now. Only a combination of 20 files, pagination and zipping with Win-Zip, remains to be done and some more introductory remarks and appeals. Zipping, hopefully, will reduce this correspondence to a size that would still fit onto a floppy disk and onto a single large e-mail. - More than ever before I understand now why so few people bothered to scan in and proof-read long texts, whole books etc. It's so laborious and time-consuming still! Microfiching such material is so much easier and faster, as a rule. - J.Z., 21. 5.03. - Google, for its book project, uses expensive automatic scanning machines that can turn a whole book into digitized text within ca. 8 minutes. Between tens of thousands of libertarians, they should be able to afford and to organize the acquisition and use of at least one such machine, for almost 24 hours a day, for the huge backlog of libertarian texts still to be digitized. Unfortunately, I expect them to remain chaoists - in this respect - rather than well-organized, productive and innovative people, ready to back up their convictions. Please, do prove me wrong in this! By now it would, probably, be possible to combine ALL libertarian texts on a large and portable HD drive, of, say, 2 TBs, which is here priced down to A $ 98. Alas, all whom I approached with such a proposal, tended to remain deaf and dumb towards it. Large ideas, all too often, do not seem to fit into minds which are "too small" for them. They do, rather, remain addicted to online publishing, however incompletely it still represents libertarian literature even after decades, just like they remained uninterested in their microfilming options for decades, also in the use of floppies to reproduce very cheaply up to 6 libertarian books in zipped form and have, all too generally, remained addicted, largely exclusively, to print on paper publishing and reading for all too many centuries. Not even cheap photocopying machines and scanning machines have been sufficiently used by them for the kind of literature, which they are supposed to love. - No wonder then, that the liberty struggle is still severely under-informed and thus remains a difficult and costly struggle, wasting all too much time and energy. - J.Z., 23.8.11.

MEYERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON: 3rd. ed., 1874, article “Association”, p. 59-61. On associations, especially in the Middle Ages, which had taken over most "State functions".

MEYERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON: 3rd. ed., article "Juden", (Jews), described how Jewish communities, from the time of the Caesars, lived under their own laws and were exempted from military services. (pages 601 ff & 605/6.) - Such pearls of information can be found, more or less "buried" in common reference works, because there are not enough minds to dig them up and utilize them. - J.Z.

MEYERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON: 3rd. Ed., Leipzig 1877, article Paris, p.599, on autonomy of the nobility, clergy and students, in Paris, from about 1,000 AD.

MEYERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON: 3rd. edition, article Johanniterorden, brings 3 pages of details on the order of the Maltesers, and its autonomy.

MEYERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON: Article Persia, page 738: The Persians left to the subjected people their religion, language, customs and own local administration. - To that extent they were wiser than most present politicians, journalists and political "scientists" are. - J.Z., 17.1.99. - PERSIA

MICHEL, CHRISTIAN, Restitution: Justice in a Stateless Society. - Christian Michel - Restitution: Justice in a Stateless Society (pdf) - Libertarian Alliance, Legal Notes, 33, 2000.

MICHIE, A., The Englishman in China during the Victorian Age, Edinburgh and London, 1900.


MICROFICHE PUBLISHING & READING & PANARCHIST WRITINGS: See: PEACE PLANS, especially the sub-series: ON PANARCHY, of which 24 volumes appeared so far, on 24 microfiche. Their contents list has been included here. - I also offer these 24 issues digitized. - J.Z., 5.11.11.

MICROGRAPHIC OPTIONS: 13, 15, 28-30, 47, 51, 64, 67, 68, 73, 79, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505.

MICRONATIONS & RELATED TERMS, SOMEWHAT RELEVANT TO PANARCHIES: The number of references to them, offered by Google searches, is so large that a lone individual cannot cope with the job of a comprehensive survey of them. But I do think that such a survey should be provided by a collective of volunteers, collaborating via email and working together in a systematic division of labor effort, with their exploration, abstracting, reviewing, criticizing and writing efforts finally published by them online on a disc. - Yesterday I did some such searches and sent the result to Gian Piero de Bellis: Dear Gian, even some mini-states, not only utopias and intentional communities (I did not make a search on them, perhaps next time), do resemble proprietary communities, instance Monaco, and would thus also exist once panarchism or polyarchism is realized. - For that reason and for including some hints towards them, in my upcoming Pan A to Z, I did a search this morning, in which I discovered at least one exterritorialism advocate that was still new to me and, perhaps, also to you. Alas only an abstract is online. See the attachment. [See under Coakley, John.] The whole article must be purchased in print, unless one has some university connection to this journal. - - I looked up the following and found, once again, an individual cannot explore as many hints as are offered: On the side, as a rule, and ever changing, more search options were offered, of which I looked up at least some. - For many of these search results one question is, for us, naturally: How many of those, showing some interest in them, do also have an interest in the personal law and exterritorial autonomy options? - As in many other such searches, many of the results are totally irrelevant for us. - If there are any or many relevant among them, how could one reach them most easily? - Through some common blogs or newsletters of them, or by us, or through one of their federations? - Obviously, the IN has not yet sufficiently linked us with them and them with us. 1. micronations, 14,300 results. 2. micro-nations, 2,020,000. - 3. volunteer communities, 1,300. - 4. non-territorial communities - 48. - 5. exterritorial communities - 2. - 6. "virtual societies" - 1,990. - 7. virtual societies - 2,990,000. - 8. virtual communities - 5,450,000 (I did not yet look for virtual cantons.) - 9. virtual nations - 1,920,000. - 10. virtual States - 37,400,000. - 11. Define stateless societies - 33,400. - 12. Utopian societies - 108,000. - 13. Characteristics of community 40,200,000. - 14. Are there any utopian communities today? - 1,640,000. - 15. Things about utopian communities - 1,090,000. - 16. Utopian community research - 134,000. - 17. 19th c. American utopian communities - 59,000. - 18. Utopia World - 5,090,000 - [Judging by page 1 mostly hotel advertisements!] - 19. Perfect World - 158,000,000. - 20. Perfect World Theories. - 18,000,000. - 21. Ideas of a perfect world. - 58,000,000. - 22. What makes a perfect world. - 197,000,000. - 23. Describe a perfect world. - 3,940,000. - 24. Perfect world essay. - 2,450,000. - 25. What is your idea of a perfect world. = 57,500,000. - 26. Perfect world online. - 96,600,000. - 27. What makes a perfect society. - 10,600,000. - 28. Ideal society utopia. - 84,000. - 29. Ideas of perfect society. - 6,310,000. - 30. Define a perfect society. - 2,580,000. - 31. What is your idea of a perfect world. - 57,500,000. - 32. Define a perfect society. - 258,000. - 33. Describe an - 3,260,000. - 34. Essays on an ideal society. 2,100,000. - 35. Perfect society. - 24,200,000. - 36. Africa stateless societies. - 33,600. - 37. Utopia ideas. - 982,000. - [I wonder: In how many or how few of them do genuine individual rights and liberties stand foremost?. - J.Z., 9.9.11.] - 38. Utopia Project. - 1,250,000. - 39. Free Utopia Essay. - 76,500. - 40. Examples of utopias. - 18,700. - [If nothing else, then such figures do indicate, at least to   me, a great interest in alternative societies and in political ones. - J.Z., 9.9.11.] - - Within the limits of searches under a few general words, often misunderstood or misinterpreted, we do have here one beginnings for an IDEAS ARCHIVE. - Also a potential source for people who would be interested in their panarchistic or polyarchic etc. options. - However, how many collaborators would be needed to explore all these hints? - [I read today in THE TELEGRAPH, 22.8.11: Earth's oldest fossils have been discovered, providing proof of life on the planet an amazing 3.4 billion years ago. - The microscopic bacteria are believed to have lived at a time when the planet was a hot and hostile place with very little oxygen. The discovery strengthens the case for life on Mars." - I also read today, in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 24.8.11, p.3 of a new and more accurate estimate: there are 8.7 million different species. … The new calculation improves on 'wildly different' previous estimates of between 3 and 100 million species." - The vast majority of them remain to be discovered or at least described, e.g. of animals: 7.77 million, only 953,434 are reported as described. Of fungi, 611,000, only 43,271 are described. But of 298,000 plants at least already 215,644 are described. - I consider this to be a hint towards the worthwhile ideas still to be discovered by most people, even anarchists and libertarians, even if they were already somewhat "published", in print on paper or online. - J.Z., 9.9.11.] - - Occasionally, you might wish to browse among these search results or others, somewhat related ones that you can think of. - For now I overlooked even as common ones as "virtual cantons", "intentional communities", personal law communities and exterritorially autonomous communities, proprietary communities, gated communities and a few other terms, which we do often use. On some of them I did some prior searches, which I will not dig up now. - By all means, supplement my list and send me the results. - I remember with pleasure one libertarian dinner club meeting in Los Angeles, in which the Swiss canton system was advocated for South Africa by the main speaker. One of the questions to him was [something like]: Are you in favor of one person cantons? His answer: Yes! - brought loud cheers from most of this audience. So at least most of them were for individual sovereignty, possibly also for individual secessionism, but not necessarily also for exterritorially autonomous associationism. No wonder, for even Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Herbert Spencer did not advocate the latter quite explicitly. - PIOT, John, J.Z., 8.9.11. - In short, we still may have to "dig up" many of our kinds of "treasures". - J.Z., 9.9.11.

MICROPATROLOGICAL SOCIETY: A society under that name existed in 1978 and seems now defunct. It attempted to organize mini-states and mini-secession attempts of which at that time ca. 150 were supposed to exist. Its vice president was then a Christopher Martin, 31 Dalmeney Rd., London N 7. He is no longer known at this address. I would like to get in touch with him and obtain a list of former members and his mailing list and would like to see such an organization revived, under this or a similar name. Secessionists should "unite" or at least collaborate towards the common aim. You have many chains to lose. - J.Z., 1.4.89. - By now quite a number of virtual nations, micro-nations etc. have accumulated and do have their websites. -  Only few of them are explicitly libertarian and even less are panarchistically tolerant. - J.Z., 12.12.03.


MIDDLE AGES, DECENTRALIZATION, MULTIPLE SOURCES OF  LAW & ORDER, COMPETING JURISDICTIONS: Extract from: Garvey Essay, The Independent Institute: Cobden on Freedom, Peace and Trade, September 15, 2003, by Thomas E. Woods Jr. -  - - “Following the dissolution of the Roman Empire, no continent-wide empire took its place. (The relatively short-lived empire of Charlemagne was far less expansive in scope than the Roman Empire had been.) “Instead of experiencing the hegemony of a universal empire,” writes historian Ralph Raico, “Europe evolved into a mosaic of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, ecclesiastical domains, and other entities.”Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.  Jean Baechler has argued that it was the decentralized nature of European political life, beginning in the Middle Ages, that contributed to the development of liberty. The multiplicity of jurisdictions meant that the prince risked losing population (and his tax base) if he engaged in excessive taxation or interference in his people’s economic lives. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.  - [11. Jean Baechler, The Origins of Capitalism (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1976), ch.7.] - - “The constant expansion of the market,” Baechler writes, “both in extensiveness and in intensity, was the result of an absence of a political order extending over the whole of Western Europe.” The expansion of capitalism “owes its origin and raison d’etre to political anarchy.”Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. [12. Ibid., pp. 73, 77.] - - Moreover, the very idea of sovereignty, according to which there must exist a single, sovereign voice, competent and forceful enough to make its will felt throughout society, was essentially alien to medieval political thought and practice. In his classic study of Cardinal Wolsey, Alfred Pollard described the decentralization of power that characterized medieval England - and, by extension, western Europe at large: There were the liberties of the church, based on law superior to that of the King; there was the law of nature, graven in the hearts of men and not to be erased by royal writs; and there was the prescription of immemorial local and feudal custom stereotyping a variety of jurisdictions and impeding the operation of a single will. There was no sovereignty capable of eradicating bondage by royal edict or act of parliament, regulating borough franchises, reducing to uniformity the various uses of the church, or enacting a principle of succession to the throne. The laws which ruled men’s lives were the customs of their trade, locality, or estate and not the positive law of a legislator; and the whole sum of English parliamentary legislation for the whole Middle Ages is less in bulk than that of the single reign of Henry VIII. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. - - [13. Alfred F. Pollard, Wolsey: Church and State in Sixteenth-Century England (New York: Harper & Row, 1966 [1929]), p. 218.] - - The great sociologist Robert Nisbet described medieval society as “one of the most loosely organized societies in history.” Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. - - [14. Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1990 [1953]), p. 99.] - - Political leaders who desired centralization found themselves up against the historic liberties of towns, guilds, universities, the Church, and similar corporate bodies, all of whom guarded their (often hard-fought) liberties with great vigilance, and all of whom would have been baffled at the modern idea that a single sovereign voice, whether of a king or of “the people,” could on its own authority have redefined or overturned those rights. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. - - [15. Bertrand de Jouvenel, Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good, trans. Daniel J. Mahoney and David DesRosiers (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1997 [1957]), p. 208.]- - In such a society, where competing legal jurisdictions abounded and no single sovereign voice could be found, the king did not make the law but was himself bound by it. Law was something to be discovered, not made, as with the absolute monarchs and parliaments of the modern age. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. - - [16. On the many legal jurisdictions that existed during the Middle Ages, the classic study is Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983); on the pre-modern notion of law as discovered rather than made, see de Jouvenel, Sovereignty, passim; Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1991 [1961]), esp. pp. 83ff.] - - Today, however, we have reached the point at which an institution called the state essentially defines its own powers. This is a far cry from the medieval model, in which the king possessed certain customary rights, but could not define his own powers at will, or overturn the customary rights of the people or of the various subsidiary bodies of society. “ …………… The development of Western liberty, therefore, owes a great deal to the decentralized nature of political life in medieval Europe and to the multiplicity of jurisdictions in which people lived and worked. Indeed the development of Western liberty occurred within a context in which the very idea of sovereignty had not yet fully developed. In the absence of a single sovereign voice whose ever-changing word was law, a great civilization was able to develop.”


MIDDLE GROUND: Many young people despise compromise, but without it the world would come to a standstill. If I cannot have my way and you cannot have yours, perhaps there is a middle ground we can both accept. It is as simple as that, and every day of our lives we are compromising in every possible way, adjusting and adapting to what needs to be done.” – Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, p.189. – Each can have his own way – but for himself and like-minded people only, i.e., their own insurance contracts or games, plays, systems, personal law or utopian experiments. – J.Z. 31.3.04, 27.12.11. – In this sphere, too, we do not have to fill our “shopping baskets” with the same kinds of consumer goods or public services, as sovereign consumers. - Check your premises: Each can have his own way in his own affairs, at his own risk and expense. The same is true for communities of volunteers. Thus individuals could and should be sovereign in their own affairs and in their choice of a community that would suit them and all communities of volunteers could and should be as sovereign as they want to be in their own affairs, which means, leaving all others sufficiently alone. That is the only basic compromise that all of us could or should agree upon in public affairs as well as we do already largely agree upon this regarding private affairs. Only when interests overlap is there room for negotiations, contracts and treaties and even there the politicians and diplomats should not have a monopoly, either, seeing for how long and how extensively they have messed up international relations by their treaties, based on their prejudices, powers and ambitions and their territorialist wrongful premises. The resources of the world do not have to be owned by any nation. They can and are freely offered to the members of all nations and races, at market prices, if not “regulated” and controlled by national territorial governments. – Free competition on a quite free market is the best kind of compromise. On it finally the individual votes of sovereign consumers are decisive – for their own affairs and as votes of confidence for those who supplied them with what they wanted. – However, those, who do want to restrict their own transactions in any way should also be free to do so. - J.Z., 13.9.07, 13.2.09, 27.12.11. - MIDDLE WAY, COMPROMISES, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, FREE MARKET, COMPETITION, CHOICE, VOTING WITH ONE’S DOLLARS, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY COMBINED WITH FREE ENTERPRISE & FREE TRADE.

MIDDLE GROUND: there are some alternatives that have no happy middle ground between them – polygamy and monogamy, for example. Nor is there a middle-of-the-road between collectivism and individualism.” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.80. – (*) The rightful and liberating and enlightening alternative is: Polygamy for communities of polygamists and monogamy for communities of monogamists. Likewise, collectivism for its volunteers and individualism for individualist. Capitalism for consenting adults and even Communism for consenting adults. - Why assume that all people in a whole country or continent ought to live under the same set of laws, rather than personal laws? Leonard E. Read, unfortunately, still believed in a territorial monopoly for his kind of supposedly sufficiently limited government. – J.Z., 18.12.07. – Monogamy is not even clearly and unmistakably based upon original statements recorded in the Bible but, rather, the result of later interpretations. – Like so much else in most religions with a ‘holy” book (a book which is only selectively known to and appreciated by its believers, who would be horrified if some of its reported and there sanctioned actions were demanded of them today). – (*) Divorce statistics and multiple marriages (serial polygamy) as well as numerous known or unknown (to the marriage partner) acts of faithlessness indicate that many to most people do compromise in this sphere. Periods of de-facto marriages are also increasing. Prostitutes are visited not only by single men. And all over mankind there have been a great variety of arrangements and compromises in this sphere, very different from the conventional Christian monogamous marriage. – Rulers have also usually followed their own rule book in this sphere. – J.Z., 13.2.09. - COMPROMISES

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such as “the middle of the road”. Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the same road, with a safe rut for you in the middle. They are two roads going in opposite directions. One leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other – to slavery, horror and destruction. The choice is yours to make.” - Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism, in: “The Ayn Rand Column”, revised edition, 1998, p 92, Second Renaissance Books, New Milford, Connecticut, – - Alas, this individual choice among various free, unfree or moderately free societies is not yet free to individuals on the basis of personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. Ayn Rand even tried, but in vain, to ridicule this notion of “competing governments” in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness”. This remained one of the weakest point in her political philosophy. – By the way: Whoever tries to stay in the middle of the road may get hit from both sides. – J.Z., 17.9.07. - INDIVIDUALISM VS. COLLECTIVISM, DIS.

MIGHT: being unable to cause might to obey justice, men have made it just to obey might. Unable to strengthen justice, they have justified might, so that the just and the strong should unite, and there would be peace, which is the sovereign good.” – Pascal. – Let the unarmed victims of injustice enlighten themselves on their rights and liberties, and then arm, train, and organize themselves for the protection of these rights and liberties and they will be the strong and mighty ones against those who were formerly strong, powerful and abusive. Instead of federating with powers, they ought to secede from them. One does not defeat criminals or other aggressors or victimizers by joining them. – Pascal started this paragraph with an even worse statement: Namely: “No doubt equality of goods is just; but,…” – J.Z., 18.12.07. Not every wise person is wise in every respect. That is an impossibility for everybody. – J.Z., 13.2.09. - JUSTICE, DIS., OBEDIENCE, MIGHT, PEACE, ENLIGHTENMENT, MILITIA, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, SECESSIONISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, POWER, STATISM TERRITORIALISM

MIGRATION: Migration is the only option, which territorialism leaves to dissenters and both, emigration and immigration are greatly restricted by most territorial States. - Even among libertarians the advocacy of quite free migration is the exception rather than the rule, so far. At least that is my impression for articles on this are still relatively rare, compared e.g. with articles favouring freedom in education. - Territorial and self-chosen exile is, naturally, not a good substitute for self-chosen internal "exile" from the "protection" or "oppression" or "services" of a territorial State. - J.Z., 17.9.04. – The abolition of territorialism would automatically remove all artificial immigration barriers. Naturally, the immigrants would have to make their contracts with the existing owners and their choices between all the panarchies offered to them. Under free choices for governments and societies, the need for emigration in order to live a more free life, in accordance with one’s beliefs or convictions, would be greatly reduced. Then one could practise any tolerant ideology anywhere. Only e.g. climate differences might than the main motivating factors for further emigration and immigration. – J.Z., 13.2.09. - FREE MIGRATION, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS & PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM


MILITARISM, BUREAUCRACY, AUTHORITARIANISM, WARS, CIVIL WARS, REVOLUTIONS, MASS UNEMPLOYMENT, POVERTY, INFLATION & TERRITORIALISM: Most of the current and man-made evils are largely only consequences of territorial statism, nationalism, tribalism of remaining state religions. – J.Z., 12.4.05. – TERRITORIALISM, UNEMPLOYMENT, CRISES

MILITARISM: Militarism in every age has destroyed itself.” – Arnold Toynbee. – But no matter how many millions of soldiers and officers or even more of non-combatants or civilians were murdered by it, territorial States have always managed to revive it again and again. It will end only with territorial statism, once all States are replaced by communities or societies of volunteers, under personal laws, all of them confined to exterritorial autonomy only, thus making further warfare States impossible. – J.Z., 18.12.07. – Under territorialism it will arise again and again, like a Phoenix out of ashes. – J.Z., 13.2.09. – At least beyond a minimum size all territorial States tend to be or to become Warfare States. – Compare the figures, which were recently on Facebook, how often and for how long even the USA has been involved in wars. – Were even France and Germany involved in as many wars during the last 300 years? - J.Z., 27.12.11.

MILITARISM: Most of the current and man-made evils are largely only consequences of territorial statism, nationalism, tribalism and of remaining statist religions. – J.Z., 12.4.05. – WARFARE STATES,. TERRITORIALISM, BUREAUCRACY, AUTHORITARIANISM, WARS, CIVIL WARS, REVOLUTIONS, MASS UNEMPLOYMENT, POVERTY, INFLATION & TERRITORIALISM


MILITARY FORCES: Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved and oppressed subjects.” - Leo Tolstoy. – And to protect themselves against territorial ambitions backed by the enslaved soldiers and taxpayers of other such governments. – J.Z., 13.2.09. - DEFENCE FORCES, GOVERNMENTS, WAR, PEACE, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM OR EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR VOLUNTARISM

MILITARY FORCES: The conventional military forces of territorial States, recruited, trained, armed, disciplined and conditioned to obey even wrongful orders unconditionally and without hesitation, to act as sacrificial pawns for however irrational policies of their governments, to fight, become wounded, crippled or die for undeclared or irrational war aims like “unconditional surrender” or to “fight” using mass murder devices against civilians, giving up their own rights and liberties in the process, - must become almost totally transformed and retrained and rearmed and re-motivated. They must relearn new and rightful tactics and strategies and warfare methods that would turn even most of the enemy’s soldiers into either neutrals or allies, who desert to them or who rise against their dictators. They must welcome them, when they flee, defect or desert or let themselves be easily taken prisoner, not treating them as prisoners of war but rather as liberated people, or, for the time being, as welcome guests or neutrals or even as allies, if that is their choice. Non-combatants, almost all civilians, except the leaders of the enemy regime, should never be treated as enemies. Their properties should remain untouched. They should be liberated rather than treated as conquered and dominated people. Total or national conventional wars should, as far as is humanly possible, be turned into mere police actions against the real enemies only, the war mongers in government, i.e. a handful of war criminals. For that purpose practical and safe enough methods leading to more deserters and to mass fraternization between the soldiers should be taught and practised. Propaganda and opinion exchanges and appeals as well as proclamations of quite rightful defence, liberation and revolutionary policies, quite rightful war and peace aims, truthful and trustworthily made, should be more important in this kind of warfare than the exchange of bullets, shells and bombs. - E.g. full recognition of governments in exile, of various groups of volunteers, with diverse ideals and personal laws, would constitute some of the proofs for the seriousness and trustworthiness of our liberation program. Sharp and deep hitting good arguments would be more important in it that are the bullets of sharp-shooters, unless these sharp-shooters concentrated on intractable fanatical leading officers and defenders of a dictatorship. Suitable commando raids would be more important than all-out frontal attacks or mechanized automatic defences. Loudspeakers and leaflets and appeals, proclamations and radio and TV broadcasts would, possibly, be the most important “weapons”. But most of the required information should be sufficiently publicized long before it would come even to such a limited war. A whole new military science would have to be developed and practised in advance, as much as possible. The genuine national interests, rights and liberties desired on the side of a dictators regime would have to be obviously taken care of much better by the defending or liberating militia forces than by the dictatorial regime. Thus any motive to uphold a dictatorial regime should become reduced as close as possible to zero. – The enemy regime’s military forces should be largely turned against it, in their own national interest. And all this should be done in a way that it cannot be misinterpreted as an aggressive act. – This may all sound impracticable and utopian at first but there are numerous historical precedents for such procedures. – The best method to defeat an enemy, as an old proverb says, is still to make a friend out of him. – For all but the top leaders of an enemy regime this is quite possible and really the only rightful and rational way. - J.Z., 1.5.89, 5.11.07. – NECESSARY: TRANSFORMATION INTO IDEAL VOLUNTARY MILITIAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES – FOR THOSE, WHO DO CLAIM THEM FOR THEMSELVES: PANARCHISM

MILITARY FORCES: The existing governmental military forces have acquired much from the natural sciences and technology, know their weapons, tactics and strategy, but they have no better sense of values and of just war and peace aims than territorial politics has to offer. Thus both these powers, the political and military ones, provide us with great losses rather than profits. They also endanger rather than protect or basic individual rights and liberties. Nor are they sufficiently prepared for genuine policing actions, for liberation wars and revolutionary warfare, which would be allied to the military and other victims of all dictatorships. A fleet of bombers or swarms of missiles can’t engage in mass fraternization – unless they drop toys, food and medicines and correct information. But they sure can make more enemies by indiscriminate killing and destruction. – J.Z., 24.5.95, 4.12.07. – STANDING ARMIES, DEFENCE FORCES, MILITARY FORCES OF GOVERNMENTS, STATIZED & POLITICIZED MILITARY FORCES, TERRITORIAL POLITICS, MORALITY, ETHICS, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS:

MILITARY INSURRECTIONS & PANARCHISM: 17, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. See under DESERTION, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION. Compare also my two peace books on, section: The Exterritorial Imperative. - J.Z.

MILITARY LAW, JURISDICTION & PANARCHISM: The old saying, that "military music is to music just like military justice is to justice", does already indicate, that military justice is different - for citizens even of the same State. - J.Z., 1.9.04.

MILITARY MIND: Nor were the remaining all of that arrested mental development at the level of the twelve-year-old boy which manifests itself as the military mind.” – Mark Clifton, When They Came From Space, 31. – The kind of mentality that still considers ABC mass murder devices to be powerful and efficient as well as justified “weapons”, does not think about quite rightful war and peace aims, a liberation program, including panarchistic governments in exile as allies, or causing revolutions or military uprisings against a dictatorship on the other side or about inviting and welcoming deserters from its armed forces, not treating them as POW’s but, rather, as friends or allies or at least as neutral guests - J.Z., 18.12.07. - DEFENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, DESERTION, SECRET ALLIES, CAPTIVE PEOPLES, LIBERATION

MILITARY STRENGTH: How many despotic regimes would collapse soon, if their soldiers were not automatically targeted, like e.g. in the Gulf War, but also considered, primarily, as subjects to be liberated as well? What if they were welcomed with open arms, if they surrendered or deserted, and not treated at all like POWs? (Unless they are among the few fanatic followers of a despotic regime.) What if they could immediately form or join any of the governments in exile they want to have - for their own communities of volunteers only? What if nothing but rightful war, liberation and peace aims were advanced, publicized and already partly realized, somewhere, by the opponents of dictatorial regimes? E.g. streams of refugees, instead of being herded like animals into detention camps, could almost immediately be supplied with well-paid jobs in every free country that practised monetary, financial and other liberties. How many military forces of a despotic regime would remain loyal to it - once sound programs for a military insurrection - and for a free and peaceful future for their country - would be made fully known to them, including new and well paid other jobs for all of the former soldiers and officers? To what extent are soldiers of a regime merely its military slaves, just as its taxpayers are tax slaves, and would prefer any rightful and attractive alternative, if it were offered to them? One does not turn them into friends and allies or at least neutrals, by threatening them with ABC mass murder devices, and by threatening to destroy as well their country and its population in the process. ABC devices are not really powerful and efficient but self-defeating and incapacitating in several ways. They make more enemies than existed before them and make people on the other side suspect all of one’s motives and intentions. In WW II and in the recent strike, intended against military Iraq, the wrong assumption was that air raids would induce civilians and military people to rise against their oppressors. In fact, they increased the anger against the raiders, as a result of rockets, bombs, shells and bullets that went astray and killed all too many civilians. Thus, nationalistic feelings were increased and even loyalty to this wrongful and evil regime, as any good psychologist could have predicted or anyone, who knows human nature. The question should also be raised, once again, whether “smart bombs” and “smart rockets”, even when confined to conventional explosives in large packets, are good substitutes for local saboteurs and executioners practising tyrannicide. How short and relatively bloodless could WW II have been - if the Hitler regime had been fought by rightful and rational alternative methods rather than holding all its subjects and victims, whether in and out of uniforms, collectively responsible? His “strength” was resting largely on the errors, wrong assumptions and practices and remaining authoritarianism on the side of the Allies. Rightful governments in exile and rightful war and peace aims for Germany, combined with the full employment and anti-inflation program of monetary freedom, offering good jobs to millions of deserters and refugees, would have helped much to bring his regime down, fast. But, unfortunately, then, there and in other wars of “liberation” or “defence”, almost all the authoritarian crimes and mistakes were committed and few if any truly liberating steps were undertaken and publicized in time. If the West Germans would have known how they would be treated, shortly afterwards, by the Western Allies, would they have been willing to fight at all for the Hitler regime? (One of my sources asserts that even the Western Allies mistreated and thus killed hundreds of thousands of German soldiers, who were taken prisoners or surrendered, near the end of the war and even afterwards. True or false? - J.Z., 3.1.11.) A few fanatics might still have caused troubles but they could not have caused and maintained a world war for all too many years, but might have led merely to a minor international police action, facilitated by the vast majority of German civilians and soldiers. – However, their flattened cities and developed “plans” like the Morgenthau Plan, to turn Germany into a paddock, which gave German solciers a motive to fight on. - J.Z., 11.1.99, 13.2.09. - OF DESPOTISMS, DESERTION, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS & THE TREATMENT OF POWs, AIR RAIDS AGAINST CIVILIANS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, AIR RAIDS, LIBERATION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, MONETARY FREEDOM

MILITARY STRENGTH: Well, it’s just the fact that the military in the two societies are symbiotic. And also that each creates the fear which creates the other – they create each other.” – Kenneth Boulding, SOCIAL ALTERNATIVES, Oct. 82, p.17. – They need each other, each to justify themselves before their countrymen. – Even a unilateral nuclear disarmament could have a very good effect upon the remaining nuclear powers. Their justification for such mass murder devices would tend to disappear in whatever of public opinion among civilians and military men they do have on their side. Other and rightful deterrents would have to come into operation. E.g., tyrannicide, a good revolution program, a good program for a military insurrection, and the sufficient publication of quite rightful war and peace aims, already practically demonstrated, one-sidedly, as far as this is possible, via freely competing and nevertheless peacefully coexisting governments and societies in exile, all doing their own things only for their own volunteers and proposing them only for their future volunteers within their home countries. Societies made up of voluntary communities, none of them tied to any territory and also including ideological communities representing the ideology of a dictatorship, freely maintained, among their volunteers, would also tend to dissolve targets for nuclear mass murder devices and motives for other wars as well. – Anyhow, most arms races have ended in wars rather than in long peace period. – J.Z., 6.12.07, 3.1.11. - DETERRENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, TERRITORIALISM, RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS & GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, PANARCHISM, TYRANNICIDE

MILITARY STRENGTHS OF DESPOTISMS, DESERTION, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS & THE TREATMENT OF POWs:  How many despotic regimes would collapse soon, if their soldiers were not automatically targeted, like e.g. in the Gulf War, but considered as subjects to be liberated as well? What if they were welcomed with open arms, if they surrendered or deserted, and not treated like POWs? What if they could immediately form all the governments in exile for their own volunteer communities? What if nothing but rightful war, liberation and peace aims were advanced, publicized and already partly realized by their opponents? E.g. streams of refugees, instead of being herded like animals into detention camps, could almost immediately be supplied with well-paid jobs in every free country that practised monetary, financial and other liberties. How many military forces of a despotic regime would remain loyal to it - once sound programs for a military insurrection and for a free and peaceful future for their country would be made fully known to them, including new and well paid other jobs for all of the former soldiers and officers? To what extent are soldiers of a regime its military slaves, just as its taxpayers are tax slaves, and would prefer any rightful and attractive alternative, if it were offered to them? One does not turn them into friends and allies or at least neutrals, by threatening them with ABC mass murder devices, and by threatening to destroy as well their country and its population in the process. ABC devices are not really powerful and efficient but self-defeating and incapacitating in several ways. They make more enemies than existed before them and make people on the other side suspect all of ones motives and intentions. In WWII and in the recent strike against military centers in Iraq, the wrong assumption was that air raids would induce civilians and military people to rise against their oppressors. In fact, they increased the anger against the raiders, via rockets, bombs, shells and bullets that went astray, and the loyalty to wrongful and evil regimes, as any good psychologist could have predicted or anyone who knows human nature. The question should also be raised, once again, whether “smart bombs” and “smart rockets”, even when confined to conventional explosives in large packets, are good substitutes for local saboteurs and executioners practising tyrannicide. How short and relatively bloodless could WWII have been - if the Hitler regime had been fought by rightful and rational alternative methods rather than holding all its subjects and victims, in and out of uniforms, collectively responsible? His strength was resting largely on the errors, wrong assumptions and practices and remaining authoritarianism on the side of the Allies.  Rightful governments in exile and rightful war and peace aims for Germany, combined with the full employment and anti-inflation program of monetary freedom, offering good jobs to millions of deserters and refugees, would have helped much to bring his regime down, fast. But, unfortunately, then, there and in other wars of “liberation” or “defence”, almost all the authoritarian crimes and mistakes were committed and few if any truly liberating steps were undertaken and publicized in time. If the West Germans would have known how they would be treated, shortly afterwards, would they have been willing to fight at all for a Hitler? A few might have, but they could not have caused a world war but might have led merely to a minor international police action, facilitated by the vast majority of German civilians and soldiers. – J.Z., 11.1.99.

MILITARY: Conscription drafts people and uses them as if they were draft horses, serfs or slaves or, anyhow, the property of those in power. It does not recognize the basic right and liberty of self-ownership, of individual sovereignty, but imposes its kind of collectivist and territorial sovereignty of a few over their many victims, all under the pretence of the common good, the general interest, the needs of national security etc. and similar pretences. – J.Z., 23.12.05, 30.10.07. - MILITARY SERVITUDE, CONSCRIPTION, DRAFT, SELECTIVE SERVICE OR SELECTED SERVITUDE & HUMAN SACRIFICES

MILITARY: Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." – 1928 U.S. Army Training Manual. - Are the defence and police forces democratically organized and motivated or statist monopoly organizations and as such, inevitably, leading to many abuses? Is territorial democracy a rightful war and peace aim for countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran? Self-government in any form for any kind of minority or majority, but only on the exterritorial autonomy model for volunteers. Even it that is still quite new or all too forgotten among masses of fanatics and fundamentalists. They, too, have to be reminded of their tolerant traditions and future tolerant options. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. - MONOPOLIES TO DEFEND & SPREAD DEMOCRACY

MILITIA & PANARCHY DISCUSSION: Jim Stumm vs. John Zube, 37 & 39, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755. - 1987/88, p.47-83, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833. -- See: Stumm, Jim & Zube, John.

MILITIA, IDEAL & PANARCHISM: 27, 32, 42, 78, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. See also my two peace books on this. - J.Z. - See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VONOn Panarchy.  – See especially my first peace book, under . - The State’s various armed forces are no rightful, rational and efficient substitutes for voluntary militia forces upholding individual rights and liberties. Not even the State’s judges and teachers are. Often they are more the enemies than upholders of individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 27.5.05.

MILITIA, IDEAL, FOR THE REALIZATION & PROTECTION OF GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES: Old discussion between Jim Stumm & John Zube, modified (my part of it) 18.1.88 & 10.9.11. - S: "I don't decline arms. I'm not a pacifist. I am an opponent of gun controls & prohibitions. But the minimum chance of misuse of private weapons comes when a person uses a weapon in self-defence. It's not the owning of arms that I oppose, but the formation of private armies that are outside the control of a democratic government." - - Z: I submit that you do not so much oppose the FORMATION of private armies as the ACTIONS of private armies that are destructive of whatever limited liberties democracies have to offer. At present, you would oppose e.g. terrorist groups, and communist, national socialist or other religious fanatic guerrilla groups etc. that fight democratically elected and proceeding governments. To that extent I do, too and my kind of militia would be on your side and on the side of democratic governments and of their armed forces. But this kind of prohibition does not cover the field and should not be extended to all other possible and some of the desirable armed groups of private citizens - I assert. A military action against an aggressor is justified but the same action becomes unjustifiable if committed against a defender. - In the Weimar Republic the totalitarian armed organizations of the right and left remained uncontrolled by the Weimar Republic, even while they extensively and for a long time violated the rights of peaceful citizens, e.g. to assemble, while, at the same time, those who would have stood, under arms, by the Weimar Republic and its armed forces, for its defence, were kept disarmed, and discouraged from arming themselves or were readily disarming themselves by obeying the formal disarmament laws of the republic, which the totalitarians ignored with impunity. We are still paying now for this mistake. All people in the world do, in one way or the other. - I assert that there are no large quantum jumps in social relationships, either. If, as you admit, individual self-defence efforts are justified (or lead to least misuse) and if, on the other end of the national scale, governmental defence efforts are justified, then, with certain qualifications, that also apply to self-defence and governmental defence efforts, privately organized defence efforts can also be justified or lead to minimal abuses, when they are on the scale between individual and governmental defence - or go beyond the latter, on an international level. - Consistency would demand of you to admit the possibility of such a continuum of rightful defence efforts on an ascending scale of size. This would in no way force you to deny the experience with many wrongful and harmful efforts to militarily organize along that scale. Nor would it deny the dangers of excessive scale, which often require internal decentralization, which occurs even in the government's military forces to some extent. - In my opinion, the most extensive misuse of weapons and military organization has come in the past and in our times from their governmental use and supervision or lack of it and from the absence of a volunteer militia for the protection of human rights of the kind that I have described. One robber band is usually not a good means to keep others in check. - Do I have to remind you of the military wrongs, mistakes, blunders, deceptions, repressions and atrocities and war-prolonging actions committed EVEN BY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS in our century? I feel certain that you can think of many instances yourself. - Moreover, you argue as if democracies were always and in all respects democratic, before, during and after wars. That is also contrary to experience. Admittedly, certain forms and names are preserved - as they were even under the Roman emperors, but their nature changes and the ordinary citizen becomes more and more deprived of real decision-making power and even to a large extent of the power to protest and demonstrate or argue his case. Particularly in the military sphere and regarding the most important military decisions, democracies have all too much in common with dictatorships, in practice and in the eyes of their critics, not in the eyes of the apologists for democracies. - I assume that you are somewhat familiar with the extensive criticism of democracies, nicely summed up by the saying that it is the worst kind of government - bar for all other forms of government. - What is rarely questioned, by minds searching for alternatives, are their undemocratic features that are part and parcel of the present democratic package deals: a) The individual is not permitted to secede and form exterritorial and autonomous alternatives within the same territory, to live rather under his own personal laws, as long as he remains peaceful towards others. - b) The disallowance of most minority rights via majority vote, in execution of the worst form of democracy, in which only the majority is sovereign and only the rights it or its representatives respect are somewhat secure. (I hold with the definition popular among Scandinavian political scientists, after WW II, which states that democracies are forms of organizations in which individual and minority rights are secured and otherwise the majority gets its way. Unfortunately, these political scientists were not, sufficiently, politically influential in their own countries, either.) - c) Democratic subjects are disfranchised also regarding taxes, international treaties, armament and disarmament, war aims, war and peace declarations, international negotiations, military organization etc. - d) They are subjected to much more legislative and regulative restrictions than they would have time to read, learn and obey and these prohibitions are selectively and discriminatively used against dissenters. - e) They have territorialism, uniform constitution, legislation, jurisdiction, compulsory membership or subjugation, taxation, armament and military monopolies and decision-making powers in common with totalitarian regimes. - f) Their bills of rights, if they have any, are very limited, sometimes even farcical, permeated by governmental and State socialistic prejudices and do not recognize, with few exceptions (e.g. Berlin, Hessen, and in a way even the U.S. constitution), the right to resist, to secede, to issue money, to immigrate, to trade freely etc.). - - Keeping these points in mind, I assert, that I am much more in favor of really democratic controls (rather than representative-democratic pretences of them) than you are. - I can hardly imagine any institution that would be more consistently democratic, in the best and most idealistic sense, than a militia of the proposed kind would be. [Here I wish to refer to the militia indicated in my two peace books and in various other and shorter writings by myself and by Ulrich von Beckerath. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] - Moreover, it would probably be the only force with any real chance to succeed in preventing the nuclear holocaust or one with biological or chemical mass murder devices - now in the hands of several "democratic" governments, not only of despotic ones. - Furthermore, let us face the fact that the relatively few somewhat democratic and somewhat armed governments in the world are far from being in full control of their own internal affairs and far less of the international affairs, which are largely determined at present by rather undemocratic governments. - Consequently, your "more of the same" "policy", or continuation of the status quo regarding protection and defence, will certainly not get us out of trouble, at least not in the short run. (If we had another 300 years' time for a gradual development of most of the existing despotisms at least to the degree of democratic liberties now remaining or once obtained in England, the USA and Australia, then the present dangers would be greatly reduced. But these dangers are so large, in my opinion, that we are unlikely to be given as much time for a natural development of some of the preconditions for a lasting detente (namely, the realization all individual rights and liberties or, at least, some of the classical human rights in all countries). England and France, for instance, even if one includes Germany, do not seem to need much in the way of military organization against each other any more. However their democratic natures are still much too limited, so that they do not grant them a clear superiority in case of totalitarian attacks or even immunity from such attempts and they do not achieve, by their very presence, a collapse of their dictatorial or totalitarian opponents, because they do not set a shiny and convincing enough counter-example. - PAGE 3: S: "... if you were to form popular militias in local areas as they now exist, in many of them, such as USA Bible-belt small towns, those militias would surely outlaw abortions in ALL panarchies in their area ..." - - Z: My aim is NOT to establish FULL STRENGTH militias, IMMEDIATELY, militias that are POPULAR, right now, everywhere, i.e. representative of wide-spread errors, myths and prejudices, militias that are very NUMEROUS, representing the majority in every area, or militias that would ENFORCE UNIFORMITY, but, rather, to secure FREEDOM IN DIVERSITY, based upon individual choice and to do so from very small beginnings, which might be no more than local discussion clubs for the discussion of individual rights and their protection and defence. Enlightenment before action. As Goethe said: There is no more terrible sight to behold than ignorance in action. - That does, naturally, require an INTENSIVE AND PROLONGED enlightenment effort regarding individual rights - and it could make only very small initial military formations possible, particularly in bible-belt strips - or, for anti-abortionist-minded militia men, in modern large cities, where abortion is popular. (The last estimate, which I read, stated that there are approximately 56 million abortions every year, equivalent to the population of West Germany.) - - On the road to sufficient enlightenment on this subject, the anti-abortionists could be taught that the pro-abortionists are doing already a pretty good job by reducing their numbers, starting with their youngest, by 56 million every year. - If the anti-abortionists were to succeed in repressing all of these abortions, every year, then they would merely achieve that the numbers of their enemies - assuming that the non-aborted fetuses will continue with the attitudes and prejudices of their parents - will increase by 56 million a year. The more they forcefully stop abortions, the more they will thus be outnumbered by the abortionists - unless they manage to outbreed them with the number of their own children. I do not know which group uses prophylactics more extensively and successfully. - - Furthermore, whether the pro- or the anti-abortionists are presently in control, dissenters are coerced and the coercers have a righteous feeling about this coercion - because they are all, however involuntarily, members of the same national etc. community or State, and because wrongful thinking on political, economic, moral and social affairs is still predominant. But panarchism cannot be blamed for that. It rather offers an interim way out, to avoid most clashes or reduce their incidence. Australians do not attempt to pass pro or anti-abortion laws for the U.S. or vice versa. Likewise, independent panarchies will have no such ambitions for other panarchies, even while they continue an "international" agitation pro or con. - - S: "And not only abortion clinics. Such militias might very well take armed, forceful action against all sorts of victimless activities: gambling, boozing, fornicating, 'profaning the Sabbath', etc., in other words, many of them would enforce, with guns, a repressive local religious tyranny." - - Z: "Again, you have misunderstood my proposal. I have not suggested to arm all people, ignorant and prejudiced as they are, and to militarily organize them and train them so that they can still more murderously and oppressively get stuck into each other, following their prejudices, than they do already now. My proposal is VERY different from this and, at least occasionally, you should really pay attention to it. - I am even willing to concede to you that sometimes State and Federal governments prevent them from assaulting each other's rights. I merely assert that a militia of my kind could do a better job of it, if not immediately, in all areas, then in the medium and long run, depending upon the rapidity of the spread of sufficient enlightenment. - - S: "But, of course, AFTER you (1) re-educate these people until they no longer espouse these repressive opinions (2), after they have been born-again-again & have become tolerant religious (3) libertarians (4), THEN I would no longer object to a popular militia. I only object to it with the kind of people who exist NOW (5), who are the kind of people who will CONTINUE to exist in great numbers for as far as I (6) can see into the future, for the rest of my lifetime (7), anyway, which is my main area of concern." - - Z: (1) I do not aim to re-educate all people MYSELF but only to do my best to set certain self-education tools, rights and liberties, methods, processes and institutions into motion, on top of the pre-existing ones. I happen to have a very high opinion of the POTENTIAL, not of the present activity, of these alternatives. (Compare my digitized book manuscript, still only called “New Draft”, of 2010, not yet online but reviewed by G.P.d.B. at - J.Z., 5.6.12.) (2) As a panarchist, I do not mind if they go on espousing these repressive views, as e.g. Catholics and many members of Intentional Communities do among themselves and towards patient listeners, as long as they are not given powers, opportunities and institutions for forcing them upon others but merely options for their own prejudiced actions among themselves. - As we have already experienced in our libertarian propaganda efforts, even persons who are already - to a considerable extent - free in their private homes and professional lives and in their voluntary sports, cultural and entertainment activities etc., are already so OVERLOADED with these internal actions, private actions or actions among like-minded and close associates, that little times and energy remains to them to listen to, read, view or act upon our suggestions for further individual and group liberation. - Take this aspect of human behavior into consideration and then consider how much more scope would be opened up for high-priority private and internal actions to all individuals - under panarchism. They would get so many opportunities, to exhaust themselves by their own high priority creative or ritualistic or prejudiced activities among like-minded people, that very few energies would remain to them for external aggressive actions, even if they still had, in this situation, the same motives, means, organizations and opportunities for interventionism, which territorial statism does supply. Their outlook and activities would tend to become more decentralist and parochial, their disinterest in larger political issues, foreign affairs, conditions in other countries, in other panarchies, would be even larger than it is, generally, today. (Among all but those organized in my kind of militias.) They would be left alone in their pursuits and, thereupon would be largely ready to leave others similarly alone. After all, their day would have only 24 hours, too. How many of them, do you expect, would they be prepared to set aside, at their own high risk and expense, for invading other people's rights, people whom they despise or think to be idiotic, inferior and wrong, and who seem to do already enough to harm themselves - when they could rather fill these hours with doing things they are free to do, unhindered, among like-minded people and which they like doing most? - (3) Why should they have to become "religious" libertarians"? One can be an atheistic or agnostic libertarian without making a new kind of "religion" or "faith" out of this, as some of the organized atheists, humanists and rationalists have done. - (4) Nor is it a precondition that one becomes a libertarian. That is one of the characteristics of panarchism. One might be and remain a "died in the wool" conservative or State socialist, of a dying-out breed, who will take the panarchistic opportunity to establish and maintain corresponding panarchies, while all around them people practise their other and supposedly "mad and self-defeating" libertarian dreams. It would come closer to the mark, to avoid the term panarchist, that one would have to become an autonomist - no matter what particular use one would make oneself and with likeminded people, of one's own autonomy. Required would be merely that one would respect the same autonomy in others. Some of these autonomists might be sadists and masochists and all other free actions might leave them cold. So what? They would promote the trade in chains and whips and could harm and wrong only themselves - which as panarchists or autonomists they would be entitled to do. They would not have to be libertarians, far less consistent libertarians, for any of their internal policies and practices. - (5) The militia as proposed by me, is not designed for average people as they are NOW, but, rather for exceptional people like yourself, provided you could and would immerse yourself in the individual rights and liberties philosophy to a sufficient extent. The militia religion and practice might at first and for a while have only 12 genuine APOSTLES. So what? (Someone once remarked on the French Revolution that, initially, there were only about 12 genuine republicans in the whole of France. Jesus had, initially, only about a dozen followers. Mohammed had, originally, only his first wife as his follower. Every great change begins with one or a few. - J.Z., 10.9.11, 5.6.12.) - (6) Let's face it: Your vision is limited and so is mine. Many things happened that were not predicted by most people and, perhaps, not by anyone. (A recent report stated that a whole very distant planet has been discovered, which consisted entirely out of diamonds. Who would have predicted that? - J.Z., 10.9.11.) - I try to tie my visions to potentially powerful ideas, principles and institutions of liberty and not to confine them to mere extrapolations of present trends, from present realities and imperfections. I am generally not proud of the average man of today but proud of what he could make out of himself, given the liberty and opportunity. In this conviction I am confirmed by simple and yet very promising experiences like with well designed suggestion box schemes. According to the latest report that I have read on this, CANON has now far outshined MATSUSHITA's scheme by achieving close to 500 improvement suggestions per employee per year and is aiming at an average of one per morning and one per afternoon. Would you have dared to predict and extrapolate SUCH a productivity of average people, at their work, even a year ago? I wouldn't have but considered already the highest rates achieved in some departments of Matsushita enterprises: 60 per employee, around 1979, as astonishingly high. - My youngest was not impressed at all, even by the 500 figure. He merely said: In a well organized coop almost all cooperators are CONTINUOUSLY thinking how they could improve and simplify their work and save costs. And there they have a great liberty to directly put their thoughts into action and would not only get a bonus but a large share in the increased earnings. Consequently, they might become still much more productive. What is the limit? Which will be the future Olympic records in this kind of "sport"? At least one employee of CANON produced close to 300 suggestions per month - and every single one of these was good enough to be accepted! (Average acceptance rate at Matsushita used to be 90%. I do not know as yet the acceptance rate at Canon. ) - Extrapolate from THIS experience and embrace a little bit of OPTIMISM regarding the NEAR FUTURE POSSIBILITIES AND REALIZED POTENTIAL of man - assuming that all creative chances are given to everybody. (Release all creative energies! - was one of the favorite maxims of Leonard E. Read.) Consider Panarchism as the ultimate suggestion box and as an experimental freedom laboratory for the social sciences. The correspondingly freed creative imaginations of all could, in their combined results, very far exceed our most optimistic-realistic individual imaginations. - (7) Can you foresee the results of life-span extension research, if it is given its full chance, i.e. if it is no longer dependent upon government hand-outs but freely sponsored by most people coming to want to really live much longer, while healthy and active? With an all-out effort of this kind, we might add 10 years life span every year of further research, at least for a few years until some or the other natural limit is reached, at least for biological bodies and minds. As it is, most people seem to have the same death wish, which you exhibit towards panarchism and the militia. How can one get them out of that negative and unimaginative attitude? On this I have still very much to learn. - - S: "In USA our Supreme Court has proved reasonably reliable as a protector of at least some rights, like freedom of speech & press, ..." - Z.: I am not all too surprised that even Supreme Court judges, after these rights have been intellectually defended for HUNDREDS of years, have finally come around to defending them, too, perhaps more because this is politically opportune or in accordance with a popular "prejudice" in favor of these rights than out of genuine individual conviction. Moreover, it would be somewhat hard for them to flagrantly decide quite contrary to the clear and well-known wordings of the Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution. Thus, I am not ready to credit them for upholding these rights as independent and rightful decisions. Take other instances, please, of still much or more contested rights and watch their decisions on these! - What decisions have they made in favor of geographical or individual secession, of monetary freedom, of free trade, against taxation, against legal monopolies? All too few, if any, to my knowledge. They rather went along with popular prejudices on these subjects and rarely took a principled and rightful stand, judging by the occasional hints that I have had of their decisions. Perhaps someone has properly analyzed and figured out all their decisions in percentages and according to their kind. I have not yet seen such a table. - - S: "I have no faith that an armed mob of the kind of people who make up the majority in USA today would protect (any rights?)." (Your text is mutilated here.) - - Z: Neither have I. Nor have I any interest in that kind of straw man, which you continue to throw into the discussion, as if it were relevant to or identical with my proposal. I want more and better defence against such mobs than territorial governments can possibly offer me. As an ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, one might ask: Do you know no other people? Are all your friends, associates and acquaintances and neighbors merely "mobsters"? (I am only trying to "stir" or "kid" you.) - I am only interested in the kind of militia that would become popular by NOT oppressing BUT by upholding any genuine rights and liberties - when they are claimed by those concerned. A masochist, who wants to be beaten by a sadist and who belongs to a sado-masochistic panarchy, does not want militia protection. It would interfere with his private pleasure seeking and that would not concern the militia, if done among volunteers only. - - S: (On the quotation from Kant, in my Oct. 3, 87 letter on p. 17, unfortunately not a very good translation.): "This quote argues for MY minimal government position." - - Z: Admittedly, Kant had explicitly drawn only the same conclusion from it and his other utopian descriptions of an ideal free society, that are dispersed, or shall I rather say, hidden, from the censors, throughout his works. However, the way he describes these societal options, they can also be applied to institutions that go beyond the limited options of limited governments. Kant himself also drew his own pro-militia conclusion from such ethical and practical speculations, which, according to him, would grant value and dignity to philosophy (in: "Towards Eternal Peace."). An invention or discovery does not always have to be viewed only from the limited viewpoint of the discoverer or inventor. - - S: "I don't see how you get a defense of YOUR militia idea out of it." - - Z: To save time and words, I often call it MY idea or proposal which, naturally, it isn't. I had many predecessors and there are a few contemporaries with some similar ideas. - The antagonistic forces he meant are the "selfish propensities" in every man. His solution is a balancing act between them. The militia does that, too, via the various self-correcting and balancing influences that are inbuilt in a militia of the type I have described. I have often and even in this response enumerated them so I will no repeat myself here. - - S: "The defect of your militia is precisely that it eliminates the separation of powers: legislative, executive, & judicial, & unites them, instead, into one body, the militia." - - I will not attempt to reply by pointing out what has been done often and by my betters, how imperfect this more fictitious than real separation of power among our powerful men is. By now there exist probably thousands of volumes on that subject that could destroy your simple faith in this "division". - - S: "As Kant says, to safeguard against tyranny, it is wise and prudent to SEPARATE these forces and direct them against each other." - - Z: The division and decentralization and limitation of powers goes to the extreme with the militia and panarchies: not only to minority autonomy but even to individual sovereignty - and to all the principles and institutions and relationships and processes that follow from these. Each can be his own King or Prime Minister, if he wants to and no one can be a King of Prime Minister over any non-offensive other person, unless that other person has given him his INDIVIDUAL CONSENT. (Invaders and criminals with victims are usually too dumb to see that by their actions they authorize their victims and potential victims to at least try to wipe them out or restrain them sufficiently.) - Neither is the militia a single body - there are local autonomous militias - autonomous as long as they walk the straight and narrow path of their basic function - and autonomous national, regional and international federations and federations of federations. Surrounding villagers would, quite rightly, not feel safe if the local militia of one village turned into a Mafia - and they would have the weapons, military organization, training and motivation to do something about that threat and would extirpate it or dissolve it like a deadly cancerous growth. - There will be officers in the militia - but they will be elected - and subject to recall and effective and rightful resistance actions should they be mad enough to give unjust orders, e.g. to commit an atrocity. - One of the balancing factors would be precisely the representation of most types of panarchies in every local militia organization - more and more assured by modern communications, transport facilities and the inclination of free people to disperse, resettle somewhere else and move their accommodation and location and jobs again - and again. - The case postulated by Kant was meant as a description of the extreme case: Angels are not a necessary precondition for a free and civilized society. A civilized society is possible even between individual devils - based on the balancing act between their mutual antagonism. - Even the conventional military machines have often succeeded in turning habitual troublemakers into disciplined and effective soldiers. They did this by hierarchical controls. These will also exist in the militia, but on a much more popular basis and will be strongly supported by peer controls and, yes, even self-controls. - - S: Keep them busy fighting each other (as our Congress & President do all the time). History indicates that this DOES work to enhance our freedom to some degree, along with other measures, such as civilian control of the military, a written Constitution and Bill of rights, etc. - - Z: Kant believed in federalism, in the balancing act between "devilish" governments. I have less faith than he had and you have in this kind of balancing act. I rather get all my balancing powers from self-governing powers at the GRASSROOTS LEVEL. The governmental power centers tend to fight each other at my expense and my risk and thus I want the liberty to opt out of their unproductive and counter-productive and deadly squabbles rather than being merely satisfied with them somewhat restraining each other, always at my expense. Organizing for inefficient government is not enough for me. I want no single interventionist or aggressive government action against any of my peaceful activities or the peaceful activities of anyone else, nor do I want them at my expense. If most others had and saw the personal law and competing government and societies option, in the same territory, most would come to make use of it, too, sooner or later and leave the parasites to cannibalize only each other. To assure that all remaining frictions would be reduced to a minimum and aggressors defeated, almost every decent and mature citizen would sooner or later be a candidate for militia membership. - - S: "You want to throw out these time-tested safeguards, & in their place put your unlimited direct democracy militia, which looks to me like mob rule giving full power to the ignorant prejudices of the masses." - Z: Your straw-man - AGAIN! These TIME-FAILED "safeguards" are the ones under which I have daily less remaining liberties, property and earnings left. - To the extent that you love these "safeguards" and that others are foolish enough to share your faith in them, you would be at liberty, to realize them among yourselves, in your own panarchy. At least then we would have an individual secession and militia defence against their remaining power abuses towards us. And we could not be taxed to support their shenanigans. - That you still see only mob rule instead of self-rule in my proposals does seem to indicate a lack of vision. However, I have no suitable glasses to prescribe for this visual defect. - - S: "These corrupt & dangerous people could just as easily, maybe more easily, get into power WITHIN the militia you propose. Tyrants often use direct democratic means to get into power: rabble-rousing the crowd with fiery speeches, using plebiscite to by-pass cumbersome parliamentary procedures, etc." - - Z: The militia is not organized and motivated to uphold the majority principle and direct democracy. If either or both are practised by one or several panarchies and these are attacked by others, then the militia will come to their aid, because its primary commitment is to basic individual rights - and the voluntary choices and institutions that follow from them. It will similarly defend monarchical, aristocratic or representative-democratic panarchies, should they be attacked. With such aims there is little scope for rabble-rousing left and, anyhow, my kind of militia will not embrace rabble but only the best men. It may often come into contact with rabble, though, and rabble rousers - when fighting them. - Militia leaders will be subject to free criticism by their subordinates, to recall, to resistance and even execution via tyrannicide in urgent cases, otherwise to a court martial. There are always people ready to pull others down, especially when there is free opportunity and an incentive to do so and the others provide them ready cases for criticizing them and pulling them down. It is not true that there is no herb against demagoguism as a mental disease and aberrant action. True is merely that such herbs are not cultivated and distributed in sufficient quantities. I have the seeds or genetic construction plans for some of them. - It may turn out that using these "medicines" and their other general enlightening and moral training will turn even individual militiamen much more effective as individuals, even when unarmed and alone, to strongly counter demagogues on all platforms, in all media. These kinds of non-violent "weapons" could and should also be wielded by them for the maximum effect that they can obtain. The "intellectual ammunition department" of the militia would be very active (in my kind of militia) and could be very effective. (Keep in mind, for instance, that a mere 300 like me could, probably, already make cheaply accessible any segment of the total so far published case for liberty, on microfiche, anywhere, with hand-held viewers.) - (By now a comprehensive libertarian library could, probably, become compiled and then cheaply duplicated on a single large disc. - J.Z., 10.9.11.) Under certain conditions, the pen [or the keyboard, the network of mobiles, the photocopier, the audio- or video- disc] CAN be mightier than the sword. But under present conditions, the pen-men are advised by me to have a sword in their belt or a gun in their holster, too and armed sympathizers nearby or on call via pagers etc. - - S: "Why should I believe that your screening process for your militia would work better than candidates running for office & being elected by voters?" - - Z: That is a rather naive question. Where have you been during the last few decades? How many bookshelves full of political writings have you ignored? At least reread the few pages of Hayek's chapter: Why the Worst Get on Top (in democracies) in his famous: "The Road to Serfdom". - You do not have to believe anything. You may refuse to believe anything. But if you argue, bring better arguments or respond to the points I raised. - Erwin Strauss has often made the case in THE CONNECTION and in his booklets - how great the distance is between a voter and his "representative", how irresponsible the latter can act, in practice. Judgment by your neighbors and peers, by jurymen, under a free jury system, is another matter altogether. It would come much closer to the way in which you select your own friends and associates. Certainly, you will make SOME mistakes in this, even in the choice of your spouse, but these mistakes are SURVIVABLE and CORRECTABLE, easily, fast, individually and directly. - - S: "Then once past this screening process, militia members would become a legislature that governs itself and the area under its authority, a legislature that could then change the screening process, with no checks on its actions, no possibility of appeal to any higher authority, and with a term of office that never ends." - - Have you ever replied to any of the inbuilt checks and balances that I mentioned, except the initial screening of candidates? Any decent organization could, theoretically, be taken over by a number of con-men scoundrels. But what for? The decent people would leave, set up a sound and competitive alternative organization and the baddies would then be exactly where they were before, in each other's bad company. And if they not only schemed but acted criminally, they would have this competing organization and all its allies against themselves, at rather unfavorable odds. Neither local nor federated militias are organized as internally and externally coercive TRAPS, as most territorial States are, with no easy escape route and ready asylum and alternative left to individuals, minorities and majorities that are suppressed, exploited, antagonized or threatened. - You are fantasizing about my imagined just and free world, not in constructive criticism but by uttering one misunderstanding after the other - and repeating many of them. I feel certain that you could do much better - if you really tried. Maybe Erwin Strauss has infected you too severely with his negative attitude towards everything but his own pet schemes. - (Who's talking, you might say. Am I not also and always criticising the plans of others while boring them with mine? I confess, I do. However, there is this difference, that I favor panarchistic liberties and militia protection for them and their plans and the realization of their plans, too, to the extent that they can be tolerantly realized. You may be against my plan - but I am for yours, too, but not exclusively.) - - S: "How much restraint did armed citizens display during the Terror that followed the French Revolution?" - Z: There was the Red Terror during the French Revolution and the White Terror afterwards. Both were almost equally bloody. At the beginning of the French revolution only at most 10% of the citizens could read and write. Their knowledge of basic rights and liberties, and even the knowledge of most of their leaders, of the basic principles for a free society, left still very much to be desired, more so, probably, than the knowledge of individual rights among citizens and politicians today. So how much could you expect of them? Will you cite THE INQUISITION and its atrocities as an argument against religious liberty, in the same way as you want to cite the organized assaults against human rights during and after the French Revolution against modern attempt to protect the then somewhat known and since discovered individual rights and liberties? - - S: "I suspect (that) you find the bureaucracy 'inefficient' because it doesn't carry out the policies that you (& I) would like to see." - - Z: Not only that. It does not even carry out its own. It does not even know all of them and could not enforce some of them even with the best of will - and some of them are contradictory, like price supports combined with price controls, policies to encourage production and policies to reduce it. It is efficient only in making a nuisance out of itself - when it wants to, especially against the people it selects for such exercises and in wasting our earnings, properties, liberties and lives, to all too large an extent, in thousands of direct and indirect ways. - - S: "But I have no hope that 'the people' would be any more likely to carry out policies you & I would like. The people are not the solution; the people are the problem." - - Z: Agreed. But this is precisely why I want to organize very SELECTED people, individualists, innovators, radicals and want to arm them with the best tools, information means and military ones, so that they could become, alone or in combination a thousand-fold or more effective than they have been so far, as the "salt o the earth" or the "yeast" in the dough. - For instance, one post-card or manuscript-sized important or minor innovative proposal by any one of them could and should be put into channels that would assure that their ideas show up, very soon, during any request for this kind of solution, by anyone, anywhere. When their main strengths are properly marketed and their market offers and actions are sufficiently protected, then they will become almost invincible. Via their positive ideas they have always in the past determined all positive and intentional happenings and developments in the world. Alas, so far most of their creative energies and ideas remained unused. Fully utilized, by voluntary sponsors, these energies and ideas could transform our world positively and very fast - on a voluntary basis, with great advantages to almost everybody but some parasites. The militia would do its bit to give innovators and their sympathizers, in the political, economic and social spheres as well, their chance for free experimentation and would thereby accelerate progress in the same way as it has been accelerated through the experimental method in science and technology, in art, fashions, sports, hobbies, literature, music etc. - - S: "I'll keep the essence of the political system that works, even though I know it's based on a lot of flag-waving, patriotic nonsense." - - Z: Have you still not seen how basically conservative the panarchist approach is? Most people would go on and could go on with flag waving, singing patriotic songs, uniforms, marches, speeches and other rituals, as long as they want to. Very few would initially be prepared to jump into the unknown, into the cold water of quite self-responsible activities. Have masses of libertarians enrolled with me as panarchists? They would appear to be the most likely candidates but even they tend to adopt a skeptic or at best a "wait and see" attitude. Panarchism does not threaten genuine patriotism but only chauvinism of the aggressive and oppressive type. On the contrary, it opens up many new avenues for patriotic activities, as soon as enough patriots can be found and organized to take them. Once it has been active and spreading for a few years, THEN WE WILL REALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO CELEBRATE AND BE PROUD ABOUT, something more than patriotic myths, illusions and delusions. - The ORIGINAL AMERICAN DREAM is something to be proud about. Any step that brings us closer to it, should make us proud and if we should manage to even exceed it, we could be even more proud. We should at least try to do so. That is part of the original American pioneering spirit. - As I have often said, I could sincerely sympathize with the Czech people at the end of WW II for being angry with the Soviets for liberating them - in the way they did, and angry with the Americans for NOT liberating them, in the American Way. - Only in recent year have State schools in my home town produced sufficient ignorant youths, who consider the American, English & French occupation forces in West Berlin as enemies rather than as allies and protectors. Individual American soldiers had quickly won over the minds and hearts of most of the decent Germans, old and incurable Nazis, naturally, excepted, and this in spite of the handicap their government had created by the terror bombing raids, its deportation of displaced persons, its temporary collaboration with the Stalin regime, some of the genocide plans of American advisors against the German people, etc. If the full American Dream had been offered to Germans, they might have applied for membership in the U.S.A., by majority vote and this long ago. However, Germans have become relatively skeptical towards their own governments and those of others and almost no territorial government receives their full trust any longer, no matter how friendly and trusting the same Germans may have become towards the subjects of these governments. (However, I can no longer really speak for many of them since, by now, I have spent more than half my life in Australia.) - - PAGE 4: S: "... your hopelessly flawed militia, your mob of armed citizens." - - Z: I am well aware that nothing is perfect, not even what I consider to be my best plans and best visions. However, for me to accept criticism and alternative suggestions as relevant and acceptable, they must at least refer to my plans and visions, not to some completely distorted reflection of it in somebody's mind. I am still waiting for such criticism and alternatives. [My “mob” would be made up by people who compiled and thoroughly discussed the most advanced declaration of individual rights and liberties or subscribed to it and who would have sworn to uphold it and defend it among all those, who claimed these rights and liberties against attacks against them. – J.Z., l5.6.12.] - S: "Your militia can move too fast, precipitously, acting before all facts are known, before all consequences of that action are realized, before all parties are heard from, and while emotions are running high, with possibly disastrous results, later regretted." - - Doesn't that remind you also of many strong, fast and determined, energetic, pro-active and "helpful" government actions, of political and military and economic "leadership" from one disaster to the other, from one war against the poor to the other? Doesn't it remind you of the centuries of arguments against standing armies and against monopolizing decision-making on war and peace in the hands of a few or a single person? - As Lord Overstone once said: If I ruin my own bank, I ruin myself and the relatively few creditors that I have. However, if I ruining the Bank of England, I ruin the country. - It may well be that a local militia may, occasionally, act with excessive zeal and may actually do more harm than good. But it will be only one among many. The more free and wealthy people are, the less are they inclined to suddenly lay their lives and properties on the line and leave themselves open to judicial claims for excesses on their side. It will be part of their training to reduce rash actions, when not required or justified, to a minimum. They cannot make the tax-payers foot the bill. They cannot foist the responsibility for their own irresponsible actions upon someone else, as bureaucrats, present generals and politicians and judges usually can. - Moreover, the whole world is continuously full of minor and larger local or wider crises. Not all militias would mobilize for all of them and the others would have time and opportunity to observe and ponder how they would have acted and should have acted in their place. Aggressive actions, which the militia would consider as sufficient for local, national or international mobilization, would be well discussed and advertised in advance and any signs in their direction would be continuously and closely scrutinized by many different minds in contact with each other. - Ask yourself, would militias made the blunders, taken the risks and spent as much as the strong, determined and all too active U.K. government had taken regarding the Falkland Islands? Can you think of no recent or older rash and ill-considered military actions by the U.S. governments? It is always easier to spend other people's properties, earnings and lives and to risk at most an early retirement at a very high pension - instead of the gallows for mass murder, than to pay for and fight in a war for the aims and purposes of others. - How would panarchistic militias have proceeded in the Vietnam war and won it, as they certainly could have, with a minimum of bloodshed? - The U.S. government has pondered e.g. nuclear strength and the deterrence policy for many years - and persisted for decades with the wrong decisions. In some cases there is a case for rational and moral impatient action to end abuses and threats that are not tolerable for a moral and reasonable persons, like e.g. our territorial governments' present genocidal (and also suicidal) preparations, with ABC mass murder devices, against the victims of territorial and totalitarian governments. - I accept your correction regarding my term "incurably corrupt". I had used the phrase loosely and carelessly. This discussion is still written in form of a letter, an all too long one and not a well pondered and frequently revised one, like a scholarly essay. [Least of all like a digitized “argument map”. – J.Z., 5.6.12.] I find the length excusable, since all too little discussion of this subject is on record or easily accessible and do invite anyone to treat the subjects thoroughly and scholarly, using only well-chosen terms. - - S: "I don't say our behavior is TOTALLY controlled by our primitive brain stem. Rather, I DENY that behavior is TOTALLY controlled by humans' rational cerebral cortex (higher brain). Humans are NOT characteristically rational. I say human behavior is some combination of rational & instinctive, how much of each differs with different people, & with the same person at different times ..." - - Z: I can only agree and have, for a long time, with your position on this, as now clarified by you, here. - - S: "My 'belief' in the State (such as it is) is based on many reasonable arguments, mostly to the effect that alternatives won't work." - - Z: It is easy to say that alternatives won't work while they are outlawed and suppressed. Give them their chance to grow and fail on their own merits, accepted or rejected by individuals and minorities, and we will see what will work and what won't. States and subordinate "public disservices" have not been ready as yet to permit this kind of competition with them in all spheres. - Where and while such alternatives were free to work, they have often worked successfully in the past and they could do so again. Naturally, the failure rate among free experiments, as among any new business or research, or artistic enterprises and efforts, is also large. But these failures must be permitted to occur - at the expense of the voluntary participants, so that the maximum of successes can also freely occur. [The road to success is often based on many failures that are sufficiently pondered and taken into consideration. - J.Z., 10.9.11.) - - No one can provide a 100% guaranty against all kinds of possible and imaginable or unforeseen failures. That is one more reason for having rather decentralized freedom to experiment than centralized power to experiment with the lives, liberties, property and security of all others in a whole country. - The first attempts to establish ideal militias may also fail. That does not mean that one should not persist dozens, nay, thousands of times with such attempts. After all, we have experimented with forms of territorial governments thousands of times and continue to do so, hopefully, in spite of perpetual failures and disappointments. - Seeing that man is imperfect, at least some militia units will sometimes become or act imperfectly, become cancerous or infected. That is no fundamental objection. The militia and the panarchistic solution that it backs, via protecting individual rights between panarchies, is still a better organizational solution for the problems arising out of the diversity of man, his aims, beliefs and methods than any other approach that I have ever heard, read about or can imagine. - All the evidence that I have found, that has been pointed out to me, and that I have taken the time to ponder, speaks to me in favor of the militia, so much so, that I have really become PREJUDICED in its favor and developed something like a FAITH in this approach and I am not ashamed of either. [The members of private and freely hired protection, security and guard companies do already outnumber the State’s policemen in many countries. – J.Z., 5.6.12.] - - Z (p29): "Do not overlook the COMMON & DEFENSIVE interests of militia members from DIFFERENT PANARCHIES. They all want their private panarchies protected and are thus prepared to be assisted in this by others and to assist them for the benefit of their panarchies." - - S: "I agree up to, but not including, your last clause: 'they all ... are ... prepared to ... assist (others) for the benefit of (those others') panarchies." - NO. The vast majority of people today (1) do NOT want to assist others to defend their way of life, even though non-coercive (2), that those others prefer. E.g. anti-commies would NOT defend draft dodgers (3), white supremacists would NOT defend blacks (4), Nazis would NOT defend Jews (5), fundamentalists would NOT defend gays, wife-swappers (6), etc., etc. Instead, most people (non-libertarians) have a particular image of the ideal way of life that ALL should live, and are willing to coerce, or want government to coerce, all dissenters, who will not live that way unless forced. (7) Different people have different ideals, but most people (non-libertarians) have SOME ideal that they think should be made universal, using force if necessary."(8) - - Z: That, on the surface, seems to be a very plausible argument. However, as Block has shown, one can defend even the seemingly indefensible. I can do that here only by hints and will attempt it, apart from my introductory remark, only on the numbered points and very shortly. - For a starter, let me frankly admit that I have expressed myself, there, too, rather carelessly. I have presumed that at that stage they are enlightened on the benefits of panarchism [through their own practical experience with it] and the possibilities of the militia as a defensive alliance of panarchists. They will thus tend to adopt the attitude, which many Americans adopted for a while even towards "Uncle Joe" and his internal policies. They allied themselves with his "patriotic" struggle against the Nazi's war-, conquest-, oppression- and extermination machine and overlooked or were prepared to excuse similar faults of Joe's "Great Machine", at least for the time being. So they sent him substantial military aid. And in many ways, willy-nilly, they still do the same towards his successors, even while engaged, supposedly, in a survival struggle, short of direct and open warfare, between the super powers. - People are largely and to some extent excessively so, COMPROMISERS. They are supporters of the Police, even while it protects some criminals with involuntary victims, as long as the police does not become an active opponent of their own favorite activities. When they thus participate in common efforts against aggressors, they do so PRIMARILY for out of selfish reasons. They may hate "the bugger" but they need his aid, too, for their own protection. People readily compartmentalize, excuse, conveniently forget or compromise, as long as their primary objective is approached. If there is such a thing as a completely "principled" man, fundamentalist, zealot or fanatic and if he is completely incurable, as a "true believer", then he will not be accepted or will be soon be thrown out of the militia. Not all kinds of people are always fit for polite, civilized, productive, creative, and protective activities. - People who really are ideological enemies, do, nevertheless, frequently support each other, often unknowingly, but also knowingly, if only they bothered to enquire, via free market exchanges. The kind of militia, which I advocate, does intend to preserve something like free market choices for political, economic, social services, even fundamentalist choices - among fundamentalists. For that reason many to most fundamentalists will be or will become prepared, in most instances, to cooperate with it. - I can imagine that they will want to absent themselves from some discussions, decisions and actions - like politicians are also want to do. I would expect them to do so more for reasons of conscience and principle, than most politicians are likely to do. I doubt that militias will see fit to prosecute them for treason or desertion in such cases. Why should we assume that it would be inconsiderate, cruel and without human understanding and of common sense? The militia men will certainly not be like gods, without any comprehension and understanding and even sympathy for human foibles. - There is a vast gulf between avoidance, not being counted, not participating in certain actions and actively resisting them, not only by words - as they should, to get all points of view considered - but by armed resistance. At most, and in some cases, the dissenters would merely defect from the militia and perhaps even to desert towards the units of the wrong-doers, the aggressors or the all too "righteous" fundamentalists, who attack other people's individual rights. I would not expect that to happen in very many cases. - Consider also how many disagreeable facts and actions today’s people are prepared to accept in the modern political package deals and how rarely the people in democracies rise up in anger and armed against them. They will protest, organize, try to change things but overall, will go along, because of what they perceive to be over-all benefits. - I had this and similar thoughts in mind when I wrote that passage. - As Beckerath in one of his articles on anarchism wrote, the common philosophy of militia men might become something that might be termed "cosmopolitan republicanism". Like city people and especially policemen, doctors, warders, psychologists etc., they will become aware and somewhat tolerant of all kinds of odd and abnormal behavior, without immediately "foaming at the mouth" and resorting to violent counter actions. - Militia men will also experience various "future shocks" when they see the varieties of human actions and possibilities being explored, even more so than they are nowadays, when they consider e.g. the possibilities and consequences of genetic manipulation, artificial insemination etc. Not many revolutions or uprisings have as yet centered on these issues. People rather ignore them and hope for the best. - After such a long introduction, let me take up some aspects of the marked points: (1) I do not confine my proposals only to the vast majority of people as they are today. There are some worthwhile, even lovable and admirable people among us and with them a beginning could be made. - (2) People do seek allies against common enemies. As Abraham Lincoln said: "I'll walk with anyone who goes my way." - (3) Most of them are rational enough so that they could be made to applaud, welcome and ally themselves with draft dodgers from the Red Army. - (4) Even in South Africa some limited liberties of black people are now defended against worse regimes headed by black people. Most of the people that are killed in South Africa are black people killed by black people. And there were white supremacists among the French and they fought together with black people against the Nazis. - (5) Most of the lawyers and judges in Germany, after WW II, for quite a few years, were former Nazi-party members, unwillingly, or all too willingly. And they were legally forced to defend Jewish people or had a change of mind and did so willingly. The members of the Nazi judiciary mostly escaped punishment for the atrocious punishments they inflicted under Nazi laws. - (6) If you read up on fundamentalist religious communities and sects you will find that among them they practised almost any imaginable sexual custom. Very narrow-minded people would not be accepted in the militia and enthusiasm for individual rights could also become an inspiring religion. - (7) That natural tendency can be made to serve as objective a justice system as human beings are capable of. - (8) Nevertheless, these different and antagonistic idealists do not continuously and habitually attempt to cut each other's throats but rather attempt to realize their ideals among themselves, as far as possible. States give them only very limited opportunities for this, while Panarchies would give them almost unlimited ones. Most people will sooner or later come to appreciate that. They might remain vociferous in criticizing others but as panarchists and militia men they will leave their "disgusting" but internal actions alone. - Somewhat edited: J.Z., 10.9.11, 5.6.12. >>>> S: Some more notes to your remarks on page 4: S: "I say a State is the highest agency of force in a society. Thus your militia is a State, but a much worse one, in my view, than a very limited, democratic, civil government, restrained by all the traditional checks and balances." - - J.Z: To me the State is a) a territorial organization, b) it has compulsory membership, c) it organizes aggressive force against all its internal dissenters, more or less legally, and is thus, even in its most benevolent forms, basically despotic and causes civil wars, d) it is a warfare machine that provokes, causes, and prolongs wrongful international wars, e) it is an exploitation machine that e.g. via taxation, inflation and other confiscation, finances its wrongful and wasteful actions, f) it is a mass murder machine that is now armed with "modern" and "scientific" mass murder devices, which are, seemingly, under its control but which, via arms races, accidents, miscalculations, computer failures and human breakdowns, really out of its control in the long run. Their retention amounts to a mutual mass murder pact between the rulers or to the assurance that a general holocaust for man will sooner or later occur. - Against these monstrosities the militias are to provide the largest defensive force, organized on and authorized by the grass roots level, by its best elements, for all the basic rights of individual citizens which are attacked, restricted or threatened by the territorial State and by some of the institutions that are legally privileged by the State. (Or by those criminal and terrorist organizations that are privately and illegally organized and not effectively suppressed by territorial States, although one should imagine that the States do not like this kind of competition, either. - J.Z., 10.9.11.) The very limited, imagined or pretended restraints of the State against wrongful (aggressive, violent, coercive) actions by the State are to be replaced, in the relationships between the "competing governments" of the future, by the restraints practised in the proposed militia forces. This will be done for all but those communities of volunteers, who want to risk continuing present State practices among themselves and at their own risk and expense but from now on only in an exterritorial form. These will be resisted by the proposed militia only when they commit aggression or crimes against the members of other communities of volunteers. Otherwise they will be left to their internal crimes, atrocities and idiocies. To achieve its main aim, the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties among those, who appreciate them, the militia will protect especially the right of individuals to secede from the territorial States - and all panarchies. (Ulrich von Beckerath proposed one precondition for permission to secede from an ideal militia organization: A public declaration how the secessionist intends to protect individual rights in the future.) - The militia is the only organization that I can envision as an organization being or becoming able and willing to reverse the slide towards totalitarianism and general holocaust, a downward and accelerating slide, which territorial States have by now institutionalized and against which none of the "traditional democratic restraints" provide sufficient restraints. - - S: "I suppose I distrust all structures, including governments & armies and militias ..." - - Z: So do, I, especially armies, militias and government of the old kind, all too badly motivated, organized, trained, armed and commanded. [Especially all those with compulsory membership and territorial laws. – J.Z., 5.6.12.] (However, I do not oppose genuinely free enterprises and free traders, or other voluntary associations, for their members, workers, owners, customers, clients etc. They too, are or ought to be efficiently organized, which would often exclude the employer-employee relationship and ownership by distant investors. - J.Z., 10.9.11.) - - S.: "But some structures are more likely than others to be beneficial. Beneficial structures are those that tend to induce people to act in ways that don't harm others, structures that guide them 'as if by an invisible hand. A beneficial social structure, for one thing, will SLOW DOWN the use of armed force. It will be 'inefficient' in that respect, so to speak."'- - Z: I claim that the militia, combined with panarchism and individual rights declarations and practices, as advocated by me, would achieve this objective, with the difference that not "no harm" but "no wrong" would be the common objective and that only the use of AGGRESSIVE  force would be MINIMIZED, and confined to the enemies of the militia, i.e. the enemies of individual rights and liberties, while the ORGANIZATION of DEFENSIVE force would be, not initially, but in the long run, become MAXIMIZED, so that, as a result, even the USE of that defensive force to restrain the remaining or reborn, revived or reorganized aggressive forces would be MINIMIZED. (As long as crime pays, it is likely to be continued. - J.Z., 10.9.11.) Apart from arms and military organization and whenever justified and effective, the militia would also use all kinds of non-violent means and methods to achieve its objective, among them would be certain disarming public appeals and offers, uttered, publicized and repeated long before a critical situation would arise, so that e.g. every conscript of the opposing regime would be informed about the rightful options the militia has to make to him personally and to his favorite voluntary association. - - S: "A beneficial social structure, for one thing, will SLOW DOWN the use of armed force. It will be 'inefficient' in that respect, so to speak. The benefit of that comes from allowing people to think twice & more before acting. It also gives any possible opposition time to become informed of the impending action and to mobilize against it. This is one thing that tedious debate in legislatures accomplishes. Your militia can move too fast, precipitously, acting before all facts are known, before all consequences of that action are realized, before all parties are heard from, & while emotions are running high, with possibly disastrous results, later regretted." - - Z: How many involvements in war were determined by parliamentary discussions, rather than by individual leaders or misleaders or their cabinet decisions? How informed were and are these decision-makers even now regarding alternative options and how amenable to other avenues than using "their" cannon-fodder conscripts, professional soldiers, armament workers and tax slaves? While militia mobilization CAN be even faster, via the ON THE MINUTE MAN system, than governmental mobilization has proven itself to be, in spite of the existence of standing armies, the situation would have to be quite clear and the threat acute - before such rapid and massive mobilization of well trained, motivated and enlightened militia forces would take place. Militiamen would often have pondered such situation, studying contemporary and historical precedents and counter-measures that could and should have been undertaken. They would have established danger indicators and parameters for threats and aggressive actions that would require local, national or international responses. Moreover, they would have their own observers on the spot, almost anywhere, either as members or sympathizers. Moreover, modern communications would allow them to get the full picture fast. They could not be conscripted, taxed, commanded against their will and for the aims and purposes of others or even for confused, wrongful or not at all declared rightful war aims, as e.g. during WW I, II and most wars since and before. Their just war and peace aims and rightful warfare methods would be predetermined and published long in advance and remain unchangeable in basics and merely improvable in details. – Consider that militiamen would have to be prepared to lay down their lives for their convictions and, as enlightened people, would not tend to make such a decision lightly and often in trivial and doubtful cases. Their knowledge and appreciation of individual rights and liberties and their oath to uphold them would be considerable restraints for them. Thus they would often rather call for clarification and decisions of an international arbitration court and declare their readiness to enforce its decision, if necessary. - - I am still under the impression that in most cases you have talked past my proposals about something else, about straw-men institutions and practices, which I oppose as much as you do. I would rather like to see “my” militia proposal discussed than distorted shadows of them, seen in other people's lights and through distorted lenses. - On many points, in our ideals, values and judgments I feel that we are thinking alike. However, when it comes to expressing them in words and placing our proposals among, while attempting to distinguish them from, all the possible wrong choices, actions and institutions, then numerous misunderstandings and wrong suppositions creep in. - However, what can one expect at this stage? A serious and wide-spread discussion of all libertarian defence, resistance, liberation, revolution and protection options has barely begun. Writings on the subjects are still dominated by statist thinking and prejudices. I do hope to do my bit to change that situation. - PIOT, John Zube, Jan. 20, 1988. – Slightly revised: 5.6.12.

MILITIA, IDEAL: The credo of the militia is not merely to protect any particular panarchy in its independence but the protection of the peaceful coexistence and independent development of all of them, with all their varieties, as determined by individual consumer sovereignty in this sphere. For that purpose, it upholds claimed individual rights, rights claimed by individuals or groups, which are members of particular panarchies and which are part of the individual rights code recognized and defended by the militia, against aggressive actions by members of other panarchies and sometimes also, by members of the same panarchy, should its internal security forces be unable to keep the peace and in case such a panarchy does not split up in time to prevent such clashes. As individuals, the militia members have made their choice to belong to one or the other panarchy. As militia members they made the public choice to protect their own individual rights and those of others, to the extent that they are claimed, if necessary even with their own lives. This does not expect too much for them. Regardless of their party affiliation, many present-day policemen, private security men and soldiers do risk their lives in protective efforts. (Naturally, in the absence of a commitment to individual rights protection, the latter types do also risk them in aggressive actions.) - J.Z., 17.9.87, 1.4.89.

MILITIA: Among all military forces especially the following should be distinguished: 1.) Mass armies of territorial governments established by conscription, including also the misnamed “peoples’ armies” and “Volkssturm” (Hitler’s 12+ & 60+ years old boys and men, all conscripts, all without rightful war aims.), also militias raised and commanded by territorial governments, - 2.) Armies of volunteers only, also raised, maintained and commanded by territorial governments and fighting for their aims. These might be professional soldiers, patriotic volunteers, mere conscripts or mercenaries. – 3.) Voluntary militias, knowing and appreciating individual rights and liberties, raising, maintaining and managing themselves and committed only to upholding these rights and liberties with weapons, methods, and structures that correspond to these rights and liberties. They would be self-mobilizing and have only elected and recallable leaders. – Such a force does not yet exist, nor does an ideal and agreed-upon human rights declaration. - J.Z., 20.6.03. 19.9.08, 27.12.11, 5.6.12. - It would be constituted by local volunteers, but their organizations might soon become nation-wide and internationally federated or confederated, without infringing the exterritorial autonomy of their members, to the extent that the defence of genuine individual rights and liberties (claimed by victims), are anywhere infringed – against the wills of the victims. - J.Z., 3.1.11. – Volunteers of communities that do not believe in individual rights and liberties will hardly complain if these rights are infringed not only by some of their members against other members but also by outsiders against some of their members. I believe that they would deserve the result of their choices. – J.Z., 5.6.12.

MILITIA: An ideal militia will be less and less required the more man becomes enlightened and civilized, i.e., the more he respects individual rights and liberties of others. But how extensive this mutual tolerance can become -will have to be practically demonstrated, not merely extensively discussed. Thus the establishment of an ideal and sufficiently enlightened militia will require already much higher degrees of peaceful coexistence and mutual tolerance of alternative institutions and communities of volunteers in the political, economic and social spheres than exists now. These communities will also require more and more developed ideal militia forces for their establishment and maintenance. And both, panarchies and ideal militia forces, will require much better declarations of individual rights and liberties than were so far compiled or published – And all three factors will require a much better and more thorough and complete use of alternative media for enlightenment purposes than was so far made of them. - J.Z., n.d. & 30.10.07. - IDEAL ONE OR, RATHER IDEAL FEDERATION OF LOCAL MILITIAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PANARCHIES, POLYARCHIES & HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS

MILITIA: And the people won’t help some other baron oppress his people; it might be their turn next.” – “You mean, the people are armed?” – Prince Bentrik was incredulous. – “Great Satan, aren’t yours?” Prince Trask was equally surprised. “Then your democracy’s a farce, and the people are only free on sufferance. If their ballots aren’t secured by arms, they’re worthless. …” - Beam Piper, Space Viking, p.149. - PEOPLE IN ARMS, DEMOCRACY, GENUINE PEOPLE’S ARMIES, VOTING, BALLOTS, ARMS, GUNS

MILITIA: Armed force, and nothing else, decided the outcome of the American Revolution. (*) Without armed force mobilized on a decisive scale, there would be today no subject for discussion. Deprived even of its name, the “Revolution” would shrink to a mere rebellion – an interesting episode, but like dozens of others in the modern history of Western societies. Crude, obvious and unappealing as this truism may be, it is still true; without war to sustain it, the Declaration of Independence would be a forgotten manifesto. Writing about an earlier revolutionary war, Thomas Hobbes rammed home the point when he said that ‘covenants without swords are but words’.” – John Shy, A People Numerous & Armed. – Actually, they were not very numerous compared with the English people. And their revolution did not lead to mutinies or military insurrections of the royal forces, only to some desertions of conscripts, some of them German troops sold to England by their princes. Insofar the revolution was incomplete. It also did not embrace the monetary freedom options but rather introduced monetary despotism. Nor did it liberate the slaves. It was largely a fight of some new States against an old State. It expropriated and prosecuted royalists, instead of leaving them their king as a ruler for their voluntary communities. If it had been are truly liberating revolution, in every respect, then it could have won rather fast and with little bloodshed. The best revolutions are those in which the armed forces of the old regime go over to the new regime or society, i.e., desert or fraternize - without fighting. – (*) ? – J.Z. 18.12.07, 5.6.12. - MILITIA & HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS, ARMS, WEAPONS, PROTECTING RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, FORCE & RIGHTS, REVOLUTION, RESISTANCE, AMERICAN REVOLUTION

MILITIA: Do not overlook the COMMON DEFENCE aims and interests of militia members from DIFFERENT panarchies. They all want their own panarchies, i.e. the rights and liberties claimed within them by their voluntary members, protected against interference by members of other panarchies. And they would be more than the average panarchy members trained to distinguish between rightful and wrongful actions. Consider them as armed and well educated jurors, if you like. - J.Z., 17.9.87, 1.4.89.

MILITIA: Ideal militia forces would largely replace the current military and police forces of territorial States. They could provide better defence and police services. At the same time they could greatly reducing the need for such services, by upholding, against all criminals and other aggressors, all genuine individual rights and liberties. Naturally, they would do this only to the extent that they are claimed by communities of volunteers. Such militias would be formed and self-managed by neighbourhood volunteers who are sufficiently enlightened and informed, trained and motivated to uphold all individual rights and liberties, when this is required. They would thus be very different from most militias of the past and present. - Some competing and professional protective agencies might remain, to be hired, in addition, if and to the extent that they should become necessary. – How often were policemen and soldiers, so far, sworn in and trained to uphold individual rights and liberties against all wrongful orders and laws? – I do not know of a single such case. - J.Z., 11.8.05, 24.10.07, 5.6.12. - IDEAL ONES, FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, ONCE THESE ARE FULLY PUBLISHED & SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD

MILITIA: Military Organization: Every rational being has the right to associate with others in military organizations for the realization and protection of human rights and natural rights or rational beings and to train itself in the use of rightful weapons. - - Comment: From the other human rights and natural rights of reasonable beings it follows that these organizations must be organized in such a way that they could not be used for anything else. Membership must be voluntary, permitting everybody to leave this organization any time. Members must swear to defend the fundamental rights and nothing else. They are not permitted unjust weapons. They would have to elect and, if necessary, to recall their officers. Their obedience must find its limit in the human rights and natural rights of rational beings and they must, even as soldiers, retain their liberty of speech, press and assembly. Such an organization would not be militaristic but an ideal police and peace force. - From the human rights draft in PEACE PLANS No. 4, point 50. - & HUMAN RIGHTS

MILITIA: Militias: your Best Defense against Foreign and Domestic Enemies, by Jim Kerr, staff paralegal at the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship. - A Christian and still all too statist defence of a conventional militia for the USA. - J.Z., 10.9.11. - Original Message - From: John Smith [] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:33 PM. - To: - Subject: Fwd: INFORM AMERICA! A.L.E.R.T. - Militias, The Original 'Homeland Security'. - From: "INFORM AMERICA!" <> - Reply-To: - To: - Subject: INFORM AMERICA! A.L.E.R.T. - Militias, The Original 'Homeland Security'. - Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 03:56:44 -0500. - THE 'QUIET REVOLUTION' HAS BEGUN!  - Real Americans are urged to join Liberty League and unite to resist the encroaching fascism. Visit and read 'The Most Dangerous Message In America!'. Then join me on my new Wednesday night conference call at 10:00PM Eastern (7:00PM Pacific). Call 918-222-7101, enter code 2577 then press #. Long distance charges only apply. - Today's A.L.E.R.T. (American Law Education Rights & Taxation): November 05, 2002. - Foreword from Gordon Phillips, Founder of INFORM AMERICA! - Homeschoolers Take Note (and please alert Tom Ridge): The state Militias have always been, and remain to this day, our best defense of 'homeland security'. [Bold print by me, to sum up his main message. -J.Z.] Of course, unvarnished historical truths such as this (as detailed in today's fine article to follow) are scrupulously not taught in regional government-funded, outcome-based, school-to-work, social-conditioning-and-cultural-homogenization centers (which some still call the 'public schools'). - That calculated omission is your cue to pay close attention. And please do your civic duty (your alternative to 'AmeriCorps'). Upon completion of today's politically incorrect studies, as you exit the peaceful, educationally conducive and Second Amendment-friendly atmosphere of your loving (and well-armed) home to enjoy an afternoon game of soccer with your multiply [Sic! instead of multiple! - J.Z.] body-pierced and otherwise cosmetically mutilated peers upon their supervised early afternoon release from daily incarceration in one of the aforementioned, certified 100% vulnerable, gun-free 'Dewey Camp' domestic terrorism target practice zones, please be sure to inform them that Jim Kerr, ever armed with the facts, has nailed it again. - - MILITIAS: YOUR BEST DEFENSE AGAINST FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES, by Jim Kerr, staff paralegal at the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship. - We are truly a 'Nation under God,' if for no other reason that the form of government we have (a Republic), is based upon principles that come right out of the Bible; and, of course, Congress has declared the Bible to be the Word of God.(*)[See Public Law 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211 below] When we apply these basic principles [??? - J.Z., a long-term atheist and advocate of genuine individual rights and liberties, still to be optimally expressed and published.] on a National scale, a condition called 'liberty' exists, whereby we enjoy all the rights that the Creator has endowed us with. [Alas, we still do not enjoy all of our genuine individual rights and liberties and they are least of all clearly expressed in the Bible, other "holy" books and constitutions, and bills of rights of territorial governments. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] In this instalment of our series about the draft, we will examine national defense, as provided for by the Framers, and how that system has been altered over the years. However, it will be necessary to begin by comparing and contrasting libertarian government [If he meant by this a "limited" but still territorial government then this is a contradiction in terms. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] with imperial government. Having established this foundation, we will then explain the differences between militias and standing armies; show that the Founders and Framers intended for militias to protect us against foreign and domestic enemies, so as to avoid the problems standing armies create; and finally, we will examine the piecemeal process whereby militias were replaced by standing armies. - - Libertarian Government vs. Imperial Government - There are basically only two kinds of government structures: imperial and libertarian. [My main distinction is that between territorial governments, with many involuntary subjects and exterritorially autonomous governments, societies and communities with voluntary subjects only. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] The Imperial model, where a ruler, be he a king, emperor, president, etc., is the sovereign, and governmental power descends from the top, down. The people are mere subjects; and the subjects frequently feel a sense of security, believing they are protected by the ruler, who is the sovereign. Rights are deemed privileges granted (or denied) by the sovereign. This kind of government is most common throughout history, primarily because it provides an efficient means of plundering the subjects. - The libertarian model is grassroots in nature, where governmental power descends [rises? - J.Z.] from the bottom up. The people are the sovereign, and the rulers are mere servants of the people. The people have rights that originate from the Creator, and the government is instituted to protect these rights, which include life, liberty, and the right to own property. In this system, nobody is plundered. For a fuller analysis of this important principle, you can order the Reasonable Action Newsletter # 241: Sheriffs, Counties, and our Republican Form of Government. - - Militias And Standing Armies. - Organized national defense takes the form of either a standing army or a militia. Militias are based upon the Biblical, grassroots premise of rule from the bottom, up, and exist in truly libertarian nations. [As if those not believing in the Bible could not form rightful militias as well. - Alas, so far there may not even exist a single person on Earth who knows and appreciates all his or her genuine individual rights and liberties. No one can find them fully and clearly expressed in any holy book, constitution or law, possibly not even in any of the numerous private drafts, including those by my friend Ulrich von Beckerath and my own. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] Militiamen collectively defend their rights, and they plunder nobody; not even foreigners. Insofar as foreign nations go, they mind their own business. [Do they, as territorial warfare States? - J.Z., 10.9.11.] Conversely, standing armies are imperial in character. While they may sometimes be used to protect life and property, history teaches us that they are more frequently used to assert the will of a sovereign (e.g., king, president, secretary general, etc.) over foreigners. Sometimes, standing armies are used to oppress their own kinsmen, as was the case with the Waco Massacre. - - The Founders and Framers understood what and who the militia were. As George Mason, in the debates in the convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia (June 14, 1788) stated: 'Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people. ...' - '[A] militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ....' [Ascribed to Richard Henry Lee.] 'Who are these militia? are they not ourselves.?' - [Letter from Tench Coxe to the Pennsylvania Gazette (Feb. 20, 1778)] The militia is composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they know how to use; and a standing army is some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large. - Madison also appreciated the value of militias, as is reflected in his Federalist No. 46 where he argued that the power of Congress under the proposed constitution '[t]o raise and support Armies' (art. 1, § 8, cl.12) posed no threat to liberty, because any such army, if misused, 'would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands' and then noting 'the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,' in contrast to 'the several kingdoms of Europe' where 'the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.' - The Federalist Papers at 299 (Rossiter, New American Library). Plainly, Madison saw an armed people as a foundation of the militia which would provide security for a 'free' state, one which, like America but unlike the 'kingdoms of Europe,' was not afraid to trust its people to have their own arms. - The militia consisted of the people bearing their own arms when called to active service, arms which they kept and hence knew how to use. [An ideal militia would be autonomous and self-mobilizing. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] If the people were disarmed there could be no militia (well-regulated or otherwise) as it was then understood. That expresses the proper understanding of the relationship between the Second Amendment's preamble and its substantive guarantee. - Justice Joseph Story, in his highly esteemed Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) described the militia in this manner: 'The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample the rights of the people. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.' - - Establishment Of The Militia. - Being informed of the sentiments of the day, we can see why the Articles of Confederation prescribed that 'every State shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.' - - Later, in the Constitution, we find: Art. 1 Section 8, Clause 15-16. [Congress shall have the power] to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; - and ... Amendment II. Right To Bear Arms - A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - A unique characteristic of the 2nd Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause, which sets out its purpose. This Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing upon our God-given right to keep and bear arms; and that this is necessary for our collective right to defend ourselves. - Pursuant to the Constitutional provisions relating to militias, Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792 (the first, passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia; and the second, passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia). [To that extent quite wrongful royalist and absolutist powers were very early on restored in the U.S.A. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] - The Militia Act of 1792, enacted May 8, 1792, defined the militia as 'each and every free able-bodied white male citizen ... who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years ...' and required each to 'provide himself with a good musket ... or with a good rifle...' 1 Stat. 271 (1792). - This remained law for 111 years, into the 20th century, until it was repealed in 1903 with passage of the 'Dick Act,' which created the National Guard. [In slang terms quite appropriately named, since it territorially nationalized or monopolized defence, probably still more so than did the Act of 1792. - J.Z., 10.9.11.] - After the Spanish-American war of 1898 federal defense policymakers, assisted by a group of retired professional military officers, began to lobby for changing the state militia system. Secretary of War Elihu Root initiated the program of reorganization in the military establishment, resulting in the passage of The Dick Act in 1903. The Dick Act signified the beginning of the demise of the old, essentially state-controlled, system. The Act required the states to submit to numerous federal requirements regarding the training, housing, and equipping of the state militias. The Dick Act was the first in a series of moves by Congress, that made the states offers they couldn't refuse: 'free' training and equipment in exchange for relinquishing control. The states happily complied. (cf.: 'The rich rule over the poor. The borrower is servant to the lender.' - Proverbs, 22:7) - - On January 3, 1916, President Wilson further diminished the powers of the People as a Militia under Title 32 U.S. Code. This Act authorized the use of the newly constituted 'National Guard' to serve beyond the borders of the United States. The inability to order the militia beyond the borders of the United States arose from the fact that the role of militias was defensive. However, the 1908 Act was clearly a violation of the Constitution, a fact that did not escape the attention of the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army nor the United States Attorney General, both of whom acknowledged this portion of the Act unconstitutional. - See United States War Department, Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate General of the Army: 1912-1940 644 (1942). - Undeterred, Congress passed another National Defense Act in 1916, as America was gearing up to become involved in WWI, the war that made the world 'Safe for Democracy' (or communism, as the case may be). Among the increased requirements imposed upon the states (and the Regular Army who had to administer these requirements) Congress devised a clever way to sidestep the Constitutional prohibition against foreign use of militia troops: President Wilson was authorized to draft state Guard members into federal service as reserve troops. - For its part, the Supreme Court upheld this constitutional end-run in Arver v. U.S., 245 U.S. 366 (1918) (ruling that the power to draft members of the National Guard into the Regular [standing] Army, as well as the power to compel civilians to render military service, was granted to the President by the Constitution). - Thereafter, President Wilson began drafting whole regiments into the Reserves. - Furthermore, the National Defense Act, as a condition precedent to the receipt of federal funds, forced the states to cede most of whatever control over the militia that remained, including the constitutional prerogative to appoint officers to command the militia. - - Do you see the pattern here? The federal government imposes ever increasing and costly demands upon the states; and the states are forced to accept federal money, so that it can comply with these demands, along with the loss of control that goes along with the money. Furthermore, by a piecemeal process, a standing army was created, taking orders from the President. What was once rule from the bottom up, has now become rule from the top down. - - (*) Public Law 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211. - Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the 'Year of the Bible.' - 'Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people; 'Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation; - 'Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States; - 'Whereas many of our great national leaders-among them Presidents, Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson-paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is 'the rock on which our Republic rests'; - 'Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies; [Particularly towards slaves, Red Indians, Negroes, Chinese, Japanese! - J.Z., 10.9.11.] - 'Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation - as it has never been tested before; and 'Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it 'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, - That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national 'Year of the Bible' in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.' - Approved October 4, 1982. - END OF ARTICLE - INFORM AMERICA! RESOURCES. – My preferred kind of militia would exclude these and other kinds of religiously prejudiced people. – J.Z., 5.6.12.

MILITIA: Only those citizens knowing and appreciating their individual rights and liberties and prepared to back them up, rightfully armed, trained, organized and self-mobilized, with quite rightful defensive measures, will be in sufficient control of their own lives and can effectively defend themselves against power abuses by territorial governments. – J.Z. 5.12.04, 22.10.07. - Maybe only they will be able to rid us of territorial governments. - J.Z., 3.1.11. - MILITIA OF VOLUNTEERS FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

MILITIA: Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habits of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace. Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution.” – Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, 1938. – An ideal militia would not attack any syndicalistic activities of volunteers doing their own things, with their own properties, but certainly resist any attempt to coercively introduce or uphold any form of syndicalism or any other ism for dissenters. – J.Z., 18.12.07, 27.12.11. - IDEAL MILITIA FORCES, FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

MILITIA: Should it really only be possible to organize and manage large military forces for wrongful purposes but not for quite rightful ones? Or to establish them as incorruptible and self-managed institutions? All of them for the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties only? Would it be impossible to replace the all too flawed and incomplete human rights declarations of States and that of the UN by correct and complete ones, according to present knowledge? Is it impossible to replace monetary despotism by monetary freedom, compulsory taxation by voluntary taxation, territorial and coercive monopoly States with involuntary members and subjects by exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers only, collective territorial sovereignty by individual sovereignty, territorial experiments by exterritorial ones, collective responsibility ideas and practices by those based upon individual responsibility, flawed social insurance and social service systems by rightful and economic ones, monopolistic defence, police and prison services by quite rightful and competitive ones? Under experimental freedom for volunteers, organized in exterritorially autonomous communities, all possible and rational alternatives could be tolerantly tried out and fast progress will be almost guaranteed including a speeding up of general enlightenment. All creative energies could then be finally released. But to achieve this some forms of ideal militias may already be required, some better declarations of individual rights and liberties, more complete reference libraries for freedom lovers and more publicized examples for the possibility of peaceful coexistence for all kinds of alternative institutions. – J.Z., July/Aug. 06, unfinished notes, somewhat revised 30.10.07. 3.1.11, 5.6.12. - IDEAL ONES, OF VOLUNTEERS FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, Q.

MILITIA: Some militia ideas recorded in Berlin, Germany, back in 1953, mainly by Ulrich von Beckerath: - I.) Protokoll zu einer am 27.Juli 1953 in der Wohnung von Herrn K. stattgefundenen Besprechung. - Die anwesenden Herren E. K., W. Naumann und U.v.Beckerath erklaeren der Meinung zu sein, dass die Wiedervereinigung Ost-Deutschlands mit West-Deutschland und mit Berlin nur moeglich ist, wenn zuvor in Ost-Deutschland eine demokratische Verwaltung gebildet wird. - Die Anwesenden halten es fuer zweckmaessig, dass zur Erreichung dieses Zieles ein Vorbereitender Ausschuss geschaffen wird, der Vorschlaege ausarbeitet um sie in Versammlungen und in Schriften zu verbreiten. - Der naechste Schritt sollte nach der Meinung der Anwesenden sein, dass ein Verein auf Grund des Berliner Vereinsgesetzes gegruendet und vorschriftsmaessig angemeldet wird. Herr K. erklaert sich bereit, die Satzung auszuarbeiten. - Der folgende Schritt sollte nach der Meinung der Anwesenden sein, dass eine Prinzipienerklaerung ausgearbeitet wird, ein Entwurf zu Grundsaetzen einer neuen Verfassung und ein Programm zu solchen Einzelheiten der technischen Durchfuehrung der Wiedervereinigung, die wichtig sind, aber in der Oeffentlichkeit noch nicht eroertert wurden. - Die Anwesenden sind der Meinung, dass das gegenwaertige Verwaltungssystem Ost-Deutschlands zahlreiche und schwere Missstaende bewirkt hat und solche Missstaende auch dann bewirken wuerde, wenn die an der Verwaltung Beteiligten alle guten Willens waeren. - Die Anwesenden sind ferner der Meinung, dass die Misstaende ohne Selbsthilfe des Volkes nicht beseitigt werden koennen, daher die Moeglichkeit einer Selbsthilfe in der Gesetzgebung Ostdeutschlands vorgesehen werden muss. - Die Anwesenden sind ueberzeugt, dass der Traeger einer gesetzlich organisierten Selbsthilfe eine Miliz zu sein hat. Die Erlaubnis zur Schaffung der Miliz soll bei den Besätzungsmaechten nachgesucht werden. - Die Anwesenden sind darueber einig, dass die Miliz unter anderm folgende Aufgaben sowohl bei der Abstellung von bestehenden Misstaenden als auch bei der Verhinderung von drohenden Missstaenden als auch bei der sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Reorganisation Ostdeutschlands zu erfuellen hat: 1.) Die Miliz wird grundsaetzlich das Zustandekommen von Monopolen privatkapitalistischer Art und staatskapitalistischer Art verhindern; sie wird sofort an Ort und Stelle eingreifen, wo die Errichtung solcher Monopole versucht wird. Betriebe (und Zusammenschluesse) bei denen die Gefahr einer kapitalistischen Monopolbildung besteht, soll die Miliz zwingen, sich als offene Betriebe zu organisieren, d.h. als Betriebe, die jeden sich zur Mitarbeit Meldenden im Rahmen des technisch und wirtschaftlich Moeglichen zur Mitarbeit annehmen. - 2.) Die Miliz soll alle Herrmungen beseitigen, die zur Zeit die gewerblichen und die landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe hindern, ausreichende Kredite aufzunehmen und die sich hieraus ergebenden Verpflichtungen zu erfuellen. Hierzu gehoeren nach der Meinung der Anwesenden alle Bestirtmungen, die die Herstellung von Garantiegemeinschaften zur Garantie aufgenommener Kredite und damit zusammenhaengender Verpflichtungen hindern. - - 2 - - 3.) Die Miliz soll ferner an Ort und Stelle alle Hemmungen beseitigen, die zur Zeit der Sicherung der Zahlung von Loehnen in gewerblichen und in landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben entgegenstehen, insbesondere der Bildung von Zahlungsgemeinscahften. - 4.) Da in Ostdeutschland voelliger Freihandel herrschen muss, so soll es Aufgabe der Miliz sein, ihn zu sichern und die bestehenden Verzollungseinrichtungen einem nuetzliehen Zweck zuzufuehren. - 5.) Wo Uebergriffe der Behoerden stattfinden, sie z.B. die freie Meinungsaeusserung hindern oder die Entgegennahme der Meinungsaeusserung anderer, oder wo Unfaehigkeit von Behoerden offen zutage tritt, z.B. bei der Organisierung der Versorgung, da soll die Miliz sofort eingreifen. - 6.) Sabotagegefaehrdete Betriebe und Einrichtungen soll die Miliz unter ihren besonderen Schutz nehmen und erforderlichenfalls auch ihre Verwaltung uebernehmen, z.B. bei Eisenbahnen, bei der Schifffahrt, bei sonstigen Transporteinrichtungen, beim Funk- und beim Funkmeldewesen, beim Flugwesen, bei Versorgungsbetrieben. Die Verwaltung ist immer nur treuhaenderisch. - 7.) Durchfuehrung der Versorgung von Fluechtlingen und Vertriebenen, unbürokratische Verteilung von Unterhaltsmitteln an sie und Beschaffung von Arbeitsgelegenheit soll ueberall durch die Miliz geschehen, wo die Verwaltungsbehoerden die Versorgung durch buerokratische oder nur durch unzulaengliche oder verspaetete Massnahmen gefaehrden. - 8.) Ueberwindung von unverhergesehenen Widerstaenden aller Art, soweit dazu eine bewaffnete und von demokratischem Geist erfuellte Macht erforderlich ist. - - Einzelheiten zur Organisation der Miliz sollen noch ausgearbeitet werden. Einigkeit besteht darueber, dass bewaffnete Organisationen, die nicht ihre Offiziere selbst waehlen und sie auch wieder absetzen koennen, nicht als Miliz anzusehen sind. - - Die Eroerterung einiger Einzelheiten der auszuarbeitenden Prinzipienerklaerung fuehrt zu folgendem Ergebnis. 1.) Das Eigentum einer offenen Genossenschaft gilt als Gemeineigentum im Sinne der Theorie des Sozialismus. Staatseigentum oder Monopoleigentum, das nicht als Staatseigentum anzusehen ist, gilt nicht als Gemeineigentum, moegen auch die Organisatoren solchen Eigentums gute Absichten gehabt haben. - 2.) Die Aufnahme von sich zur Mitarbeit Meldenden als Mitarbeiter soll bis zur Erreichung derjenigen Grenze geschehen, bei deren Ueberschreitung nach den Grundsaetzen einer durch die Erfahrung gerechtfertigten Betriebswissenschaft und einer rationellen Betriebstechnik der Betrieb geschaedigt oder gefaehrdet wuerde. Eine solche Ueberschreitung wuerde z.B. stattfinden, wenn die Aufnahme neuer Arbeitskraefte nicht geschehen koennte, ohne die Arbeitszeit im Betrieb so zu verkuerzen dass dadurch der Anteil der Verwaltungskosten am Preise des verkaufsfertigen Produkts sich offenbar erhoehen wuerde. Eine etwa notwendig werdende Verkuerzung der Arbeitszeit soll sich nicht auf diejenigen Arbeitsplaetze erstrecken, an denen von bestimmten Personen eine gewisse Mindestarbeitszeit eingehalten werden muss, z.B. bei Betriebsleitern, Kontrollorganen, Wachmannschaften, Buchhaltern, und andern. Die vorstehend bezeichneten Beschraenkungen bei der Aufnahme gelten nicht, solange der sich Meldende nur Mitgliedschaft beansprucht und nicht Mitarbeit. Fuer Betriebe, deren Rechtsform nicht die genossenschaftliche ist, sei es auf Grund des Genossenschaftsgesetzes oder von genossenschaftlichen Satzungen, gelten besondere, im einzelnen noch auszuarbeitende Bestimmungen. - 3.) Fuer Gueter, deren Bezahlung durch Verrechnungsanweisungen geschieht, kann eine Ermaessigung der Transportkosten gegenueber den Transportkosten solcher Gueter gefordert werden, deren Bezahlung nicht durch Verrechnungsanweisungen erfolgt. - 4.) Das Volk hat das Recht, seine Produktion und seinen Austausch so zu organisieren, dass ein aus irgend einem Grund verursachter Mangel an Zahlungsmitteln nicht zu einer Einschraenkung der Produktion oder des Austausches noetigt. Jeder Einzelne hat das Recht, an der Ueberwindung solcher Stoerungen mitzuwirken und z.B. Gemeinschaften zu organisieren, die sich die Ueberwindung zum Ziel gesetzt haben. Als wichtigstes Mittel zur Ueberwindung der Stoerungen ist die Verwendung von wie Geld gestueckelten und typisierten Verrechnungsanweisungen anzusehen. - 5.) Ohne Zwangswert und Zwangsumlauf von Zahlungsmitteln ist keine Inflation moeglich. Ohne Zahlungsmittelmonopol ist keine Deflation moeglich. - - Der vorlaeufig bestellte Schriftführer: U. v. Beckerath, 28.7.1953. - gez. Bth. - - II.) Besprechung zur Gruendung eines "Vorbereitenden Ausschusses zur Bildung einer demokratischen Verwaltung in Ost-Deutschland. - 7.September, 1953: Gegenstand der Besprechung ist der Einbau einer Miliz in die kuenftige, ost-deutsche Verfassung. - - Einigkeit besteht darueber, dass eine Organisation, die nicht auf freiwilligem Eintritt, der Moeglichkeit des Austritts zu jeder Zeit, der freien Wahl der Fuehrer und ihrer jederzeitigen Absetzbarkeit beruht, keine Miliz im wahren Sinne des Wortes waere. - - Einigkeit besteht auch darueber, dass die "Miliz" genannten Organisationen in manchen Laendern, welche diese Voraussetzungen nicht erfuellen, nicht den Namen "Miliz" verdienen. - Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass diese Auffassung der Meinung Kant's nicht entgegensteht, der in seiner Schrift "Zum ewigen Frieden", Kapitel 3, "Stehende Heere (miles perpetuus ) sollen mit der Zeit ganz aufhoeren", doch ausdrücklich bemerkt: "Ganz anders ist es mit der freiwilligen, periodisch vorgenommenen Uebung der Staatsbuerger in den Waffen bewandt, sich und ihr Vaterland dadurch gegen Angriffe von aussen zu sichern." - - Einigkeit besteht ferner ueber folgendes: Die kuenftige Verfassung soll ein solches soziales und politisches System schaffen, dass kein vernuenftiger Grund besteht, jemals gegen dieses Gemeinwesen Krieg zu fuehren. - Nachdem die Verfassung in der ganzen Welt bekannt ist, und ihre Auswirkungen jedermann vor Augen sind, darf erwartet werden, dass es keiner Regierung gelingen wird, den waffenfaehigen Teil ihrer Untertanen zu einem Krieg gegen dieses Gemeinwesen einzusetzen; es darf im Gegenteil erwartet werden, dass die Heere der kriegfuehrenden Regierungen mit den Milizen der angegriffenen Gemeinwesen gemeinsame Sache machen, um im eignen Lande eine aehnliche Verfassung zu schaffen und aehnliche Einrichtungen wie in Ost-Deutschland, die Kriegshetzer und Kriegsorganisatoren aber unschaedlich zu machen. - Hervorgehoben werden die mentalen Schwierigkeiten einer solchen Entwicklung im gesamten Ausland. - Ueberall wurden die deutschen Soldaten als grausam hingestellt, die Haager Landkriegsordnung, obwohl s.Zt. von Deutschland formell anerkannt, voellig missachtend (z.B. durch grausame Behandlung der Kriegsgefangenen oder gar ihre Ermordung ) und durchaus willige Werkzeuge des Hitlerismus. Zur Verhandlung steht die Frage: Wird nicht auch die Miliz der Ost-Zone so angesehen werden? - - Die Besprechung wird folgendermassen unterteilt: A.) War das Verhalten der deutschen Soldaten in den beiden Weltkriegen wirklich so, dass das Vorurteil der nicht-deutschen Welt als gerechtfertigt erscheint? - B.) Wenn das Verhalten der deutschen Soldaten wirklich so gewesen waere, was laesst sich tun? - C.) Wenn das Verhalten der deutschen Soldaten nicht so war, wie es in dem ueberwiegenden Teil der auslaendischen Literatur hingestellt ist, was laesst sich tun? - - - Alle Teilnehmer der Besprechung kennen den Krieg aus eigner Erfahrung und koennen zahlreiche Tatsachen berichten, um ihre Meinung zu belegen. - - Zu A.): Alle Teilnehmer der Besprechung konnten feststellen, dass der deutsche Soldat, wenn er nicht aufgehetzt wird und ihm falsche Ansichten ueber auslaendische Soldaten und auslaendisches Zivil beigebracht werden, einen Abscheu vor Grausamkeiten hat, sie verhindert, wo es ihm moeglich ist und sogar geneigt ist, sich mit Gefangenen, auslaendischem Zivil und sogar bei Waffenstillstaenden mit Soldaten der Gegenseite "anzubiedern", dass die Offiziere Muehe haben, es zu verhindern. Oft haben die hoeheren Kommandostellen besondere Befehle zur Verhinderung eines solchen Verhaltens erlassen. Schlechte Erfahrungen-  - 2 - - hat man aber durchweg mit der SS gemacht und haeufig mit Offizieren im allgemeinen. Die Teilnehmer der Besprechung wissen aber auch von ehrenwerten Ausnahmen unter den Offizieren zu berichten. - Ferner wird berichtet, dass die "Gebildeten" im allgemeinen sich leichter aufhetzen liessen als Arbeiter und bei der Verhinderung von Grausamkeiten weniger taetig waren, als man gerade von Gebildeten haette erwarten sollen. Auch hier wird von Ausnahmen berichtet. - Von der SS waren die begangenen Abscheulichkeiten eine Auswirkung der Religion, zu welcher der Hitlerismus sie erzogen hatte. Dies ist die Ueberzeugung der Teilnehmer an der Besprechung. - - Die Notwendigkeit einer weitgehenden Aufklaerung im allgemeinen und einer religioesen im besonderen wird von allen hervorgehoben. - - Ein Bestandteil dieser Aufklaerung muss ein Hinweis sein, dass eine Religion schlecht sein muss, die Grausamkeiten duldet oder sie gar fordert. - Eine solche Religion verdient nach der Ueberzeugung der Anwesenden eher die Bezeichnung eines religioesen Wahnsinns. - - Vorgesetzte, die zu Grausamkeiten auffordern, sind daher kuenftig als von einem Religionswahn besessen anzusehen, und schon aus diesem Grunde ist ihnen, als der Vernunft beraubten Menschen, kein Gehorsam zu leisten; sie sind im Gegenteil unschaedlich zu machen. - Ist aber zu erkennen, dass ein solcher Vorgesetzter nicht religioeus wahnsinnig ist und trotzdem Grausamkeiten befiehlt, so ist er als schlechter Deutscher zu betrachten und als ein perverser Kerl, der ebenfalls baldmoeglichst unschaedlich zu machen ist. - - Besondere Aufgabe der Miliz muss es sein, bestaendig solche Ansichten im Volke zu verbreiten, darauf hinzuwirken, dass bereits in den Schulen die Allgemeinen Rechte des Menschen und Buergers gelehrt werden, und dass die Grundsaetze der Haager Landkriegsordnung allen Bewaffneten zugaengig gemacht werden. Insbesondere soll jeder Miliz-Angehoerige ein Exemplar der Haager Vertraege besitzen. - Ein solches Vorgehen muss zuletzt in der ganzen Welt das jetzt bestehende Vorurteil gegen deutsche Soldaten beseitigen. - - Zu B.) Übereinstimmung besteht, dass sich noch folgendes tun liesse. Die Ost-Zone muss sich ein Fremdenrecht schaffen, wonach jeder Fremde die gleichen buergerlichen und wirtschaftlichen Rechte hat wie ein Einheimischer. - Vielen erscheint dies als voellig utopisch; sie vergessen, dass unter dem Kaiserreich das Niederlassungsrecht und das Arbeitsrecht fuer Fremde tatsaechlich unbegrenzt war, und dass nur die politischen Rechte (z.B. das Wahlrecht) ihnen vorenthalten waren. Dabei waren die Einbuergerungs-Bestimmungen sehr liberal. - Aehnliches gilt fuer die meisten Laender in der Zeit vor 1914. - Es handelt sich also nicht darum, etwas ganz Neues zu schaffen, sondern nur darum, einen frueher bestandenen Zustand wiederherzustellen. - Kommt hinzu, dass unter dem zu formulierenden Wirtschaftsrecht eine Einwanderung erwuenscht ist, waehrend sie heute den "Einheimischen" Konkurrenz auf den Hals ladet. - Ferner aber muss gefordert werden, dass der Sprachunterricht in den Schulen auch auf Volksschulen ausgedehnt wird. Erinnert wird daran, dass z.B. an allen Hamburger Volksschulen Englisch gelehrt wird und zwar mit gutem Erfolg. - Auch wird daran erinnert, dass in den Schweizer Staedten verhaeltnismaessig sehr viele Kinder mehrere Sprachen sprechen. Es handelt sich also um eine Forderung, deren Durchfuehrbarkeit erwiesen ist. - Es sollten sich aber auch in der Ostzone Vereinigungen bilden um im Ausland deutsche Schulen einzurichten, so weit die Erlaubnis dazu gegeben wird. Die Erfahrung in beiden Kriegen hat gezeigt, wie voellig sich manchmal das Verhaeltnis zwischen Soldaten einer Nation und denen einer andern oder dem Zivil aendert, wenn auch nur wenige darunter sind, welche die Sprache der andern verstehen und als Dolmetscher dienen koennen. Hiermit sind alle Anwesenden einverstanden. - - 3 - - Auf die Propaganda der Miliz gegen alle Religionen, Weltanschauungen, Idealismen und andere Ismen, welche Grausamkeiten im Kriege billigen, dulden oder gar fordern, muss das Ausland immer wieder hingewiesen werden. - Einladungen an auslaendische Arbeiter muessen erfolgen, damit sie sich von dem Bestehen einer solchen Propaganda ueberzeugen und zu Hause berichten koennen: Eine SS ist in der Ostzone nicht mehr moeglich. - Ferner: Auch die Gebildeten lehnen Ismen ab, die zur Rechtfertigung von Grausamkeiten gebraucht werden koennen; sie verteidigen vielmehr die Allgemeinen Rechte des Menschen und Buergers. - Offiziere aber, die Kriegsgreuel dulden oder gar befehlen, die finden bei der bewaffneten Macht Ost-Deutschlands einfach keinen Gehorsam mehr, im Gegenteil, sie haben alle Aussicht, durch den bei jedem Truppenteil befindlichen Soldatenrat gleich festgenommen oder in anderer Weise unschaedlich gemacht zu werden. - - Ferner: Ein Motiv vieler "Gebildeter" gegenueber den Kriegsgreueln der SS war anscheinend die Besorgnis der Gebildeten, durch Bekaempfung der Greuel ihrer Zivil-Karriere zu schaden. Eine solche Besorgnis faellt bei der in Ost-Deutschland bestehenden Wirtschaftsordnung weg. Auch darueber werden die eingeladenen Arbeiter zu Hause berichten. - - Zu C.) Der Standpunkt, der unter C.) ausgedrueckt ist, das ist der Ausgangspunkt fuer die Anwesenden. - Zu den in den Ausfuehrungen zu A.) und B.) angegebenen Massnahmen muss daher noch hinzukommen, die bei jeder Gelegenheit anzubringende Aufklaerung ueber die Verschiedenheit der SS von allen andern Volksschichten und die Forderung an das Ausland, nicht den Deutschen in allgemeinen und besonders nicht den Arbeitern zuzuschreiben, was Schuld der SS war. - - Als notwendige Ergaenzung der Allgemeinen Rechte des Menschen und Buergers wird noch folgendes anerkannt: Das Recht des Einzelnen, bei einem kuenftigen Kriege neutral bleiben zu duerfen, ist eines dieser Rechte. - Die Anwendung von Waffen aber, die ganz unvermeidlich dieses Recht verletzen und sogar unvermeidlich Kinder, Kranke und Invalide toeten, verstuemmeln, etc., diese Anwendung ist nicht nur völkerrechtswidrig, sie verletzt auch die Allgemeinen Rechte des Menschen und Buergers, gleichgueltig gegen welches Volk der Welt sie angewendet werden. - Aufgabe der Miliz ist es daher, eine solche Anwendung mit geeigneten Mitteln zu verhindern, sowie die Fabrikationsstaetten fuer solche Waffen ueberall als rechtswidrig zu erklaeren und auf die sich daraus ergebende Menschenpflichten eines jeden Einzelnen hinzuweisen. - Als rechtswidrige Waffen haben nicht nur Atomwaffen zu gelten, Anlagen fuer Gas- oder fuer Bakterienkrieg, sondern auch Einrichtungen zum Luftkrieg im allgemeinen, sofern nicht die Anwendung ausschliesslich gegen dem Imperialismus dienende Heeresmassen gewaehrleistet ist. - (Anm. von J.Z. 8/5/83: Auch diesen sollte man zunaechst die Moeglichkeit geben zu desertieren oder einen Militaeraufstand zu beginnen, bevor man sie als wirkliche Feinde behandelt. Einige Einzelheiten darueber sind in Peace Plans 8, 16-18 und 61-63 zu finden.) - Weitere Aufgaben der Miliz sollen in einer weiteren Besprechung eroertert werden. - Der Schriftfuehrer: U. v. Beckerath. - - - Vorbereitender Ausschuss zur Bildung einer demokratischen Verwaltung in Ost-Deutschland. - - In LMP microfiche, Bth. papers: 2581/2582, - I had many discussions with U. von Beckerasth on militias and, as far as could, I did embody them in my first peacebook: - J.Z 10.9.11. – HUMAN RIGHTS, NWT, DISARMAMENT, DISOBEDIENCE , WEAPONS

MILITIA: Tax resisters ought to be organized, armed and trained at least as well as the tax extortionists are. As protector also of the rights to one’s property and earnings an ideal militia would organize tax resistance as well. – J.Z., 18.7.93. - To leave the protection of their right to those who have subjected them to e.g. tax slavery and military slavery is absurd. – Not the citizens but their governments should be disarmed. - J.Z., 4.12.07. - TAX RESISTANCE, POLICE & STANDING ARMY, GUN CONTROLS, RESISTANCE, DISARMAMENT OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS

MILITIA: Tax slaves ought to be well armed and militarily organized and trained. Then they would have a chance to greatly reduce or even abolish taxation. – J.Z., 20.4.89. - & TAXATION

MILITIA: The credo of the militia is not merely to protect any particular panarchy in its independence but the protection of the peaceful coexistence and independent development of all of them, with all their varieties, as determined by individual consumer sovereignty in this sphere. For that purpose, it upholds claimed individual rights, rights claimed by individuals or groups, which are members of particular panarchies and which are part of the individual rights code recognized and defended by the militia, against aggressive actions by members of other panarchies and sometimes also, by members of the same panarchy, should its internal security forces be unable to keep the peace and in case such a panarchy does not split up in time to prevent such clashes. As individuals, the militia members have made their choice to belong to one or the other panarchy. As militia members they made the public choice to protect their own individual rights and those of others, to the extent that they are claimed, if necessary even with their own lives. This does not expect too much for them. Regardless of their party affiliation, many present-day policemen, private security men and soldiers do risk their lives in protective efforts. (Naturally, in the absence of a commitment to individual rights protection, the latter types do also risk them in aggressive actions.) - J.Z., 17.9.87, 1.4.89. – IDEAL MILITIAS

MILITIAS: Do not overlook the COMMON DEFENCE aims and interests of militia members from DIFFERENT panarchies. They all want their own particular panarchies, i.e. the rights and liberties claimed within them by their voluntary members, protected against interference by members of other panarchies. Thus will help defending it and all other panarchies against attacks. – J.Z., 17.9.87. – The best way to protect their own free choices of systems and laws is to protect those choices of all others as well. – J.Z., 7.12.07. – Moreover, they would be more than the average panarchy members trained to distinguish between rightful and wrongful actions. Consider them as armed and well educated jurors, if you like. - J.Z., 17.9.87, 1.4.89. – IDEAL MILITIAS & PANARCHISM

MILITIAS: I would rather have the best possible constitutions (that is, those of volunteers under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws) resting upon the best possible military forces (those of volunteers, upholding individual rights and liberties, in defence organizations that are themselves exterritorially autonomous, and that use only rightful weapons and methods against real enemies only) than the best possible of the territorially monopolistic and coercive constitution of the present States, resting upon their military and police forces and other “constitutional liberties” that are offered under territorialism. – Panarchism and ideal militia forces would support each other. – J.Z., 27.8.93, 4.12.07. – IDEAL MILITIAS, TERRITORIALISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENTS

MILITIAS: Ideal militia forces would largely replace the current military and police forces of territorial States. They could provide better defence and police services. At the same time they could greatly reducing the need for such services, by upholding, against all criminals and other aggressors, all genuine individual rights and liberties. Naturally, they would do this only to the extent that they are claimed by communities of volunteers. Such militias would be formed and self-managed by neighbourhood volunteers who are sufficiently enlightened and informed, trained and motivated to uphold all individual rights and liberties, when this is required. They would thus be very different from most militias of the past and present. - Some competing and professional protective agencies might remain, to be hired, in addition, if and to the extent that they should become necessary. – How often were policemen and soldiers, so far, sworn in and trained to uphold individual rights and liberties against all wrongful orders and laws? - J.Z., 11.8.05, 24.10.07. - IDEAL ONES, FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, ONCE THESE ARE FULLY PUBLISHED & SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD

MILL, JOHN STUART, On Liberty. According to Carl J. Friedrich ; Political Theory, Harper, 1967, p. 25, individual sovereignty is the very heart of his doctrine of practical philosophy. - Unfortunately, he did not develop it as radically as some others have. - J.Z.

MILL, JOHN STUART, The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way." - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, AUTONOMY, SELF-SOVEREIGNTY, EXTERRITORIALITY

MILL, JOHN STUART, the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually and collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection ..." - John S. Mill, "On Liberty", Great Books. 271. - SELF-PROTECTION, SELF-DEFENCE, NON-INTERVENTION, FREEDOM OF ACTION.

MILL, JOHN STUART, There is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct which affects only himself, or if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary and undeceived consent and participation." - J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Great Books, 272. - VOLUNTARISM:

MILL, JOHN STUART, We have the right to choose the society most acceptable to us." - J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Great Books, 304. - 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

MILL, JOHN STUART: 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. - J.Z., 15.10.11. - POWER, SOCIETY, CIVILIZATION, COMPULSION, COERCION, FORCE, INITIATED FORCE

MILLARD, THOMAS F., America and the Eastern Question, N. Y., 1909.

MILLARD, THOMAS F., China: Where It Is Today - and Why, N. Y., 1928.

MILLARD, THOMAS F., Democracy and the Eastern Question, N. Y., 1919.

MILLARD, THOMAS F., The End of Exterritoriality in China - THE A. B. C. PRESS, SHANGHAI, 1931, with short bibliography. Its short bibliography was reproduced in PP 66-69, the whole book, 1931, indexed, 278pp, in PP in PEACE PLANS 790. Its bibliography is integrated here. - J.Z., 1.9.04. - MILLARD, THOMAS F., The End of Exterritoriality in China, The End of Exterritoriality in China by Thomas F. Millard at ...  - Read the complete book The End of Exterritoriality in China by becoming a member. Choose a membership plan to an academic-level library with ... - - Similar pages

MILLENNIALISM: I think the greatest curse of American society has been the idea of an easy millennialism – that some new drug, or the next election or the latest in social engineering will solve everything.” – Richard Cornuelle, Demanaging America, ch.9. – Territorial millennialism, with its monopoly and coercion is the real culprit. Volunteers, doing only their own things for or too themselves, in their attempts to realize their own ideals among themselves, were not, are not and will not be the major problem. They either merely harm themselves or they set some successful examples for others to follow them, when they are ready for them. – J.Z., 19.12.07, 5.6.12.

MILLER, VINCENT H. & WOLLSTEIN, JARRET B.: New Declaration of Independence, May 1992, 6pp: 102 in PP 1398.


MILLET SYSTEM & PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: 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. - DHIMMI & DHIMMITUDE

MILLET SYSTEM: Even under the Turkish Empire a number of other religious communities enjoyed a large degree of local autonomy under the millet system or the “djemma” (dhimmi), as the Arabs called it. The autonomy, at least temporarily and in some localities, went beyond religious affairs to jurisdiction and municipal administration, as long as over-lordship of the Sultans and his local representatives was recognized and a head tax paid. Much more of this part of history ought to be brought to light by historians interested in helping to achieve peaceful coexistence between diverse communities - in the only way that it can be achieved, namely by voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., n.d., 11.9.99.

MILLET SYSTEM: See:  D. K., in ON PANARCHY XI, in PEACE PLANS 832. - - LIFE: - "World Library", volume "The Balkans", chapter: Obstacles to Harmony, p.138, brings details on the Millet system, which offered a degree of autonomy.  - STAVRIANOS, L.S.: The Balkans since 1453, Rinehart & Co, N.Y. 1958, p. 383ff, brings some details on the Millet system, as having been under corrupt, exploitative and domineering clergymen, keeping people in ignorance and over-taxing them - just as much as the Ottoman Empire did towards its other subjects. In other words, it was not fully free competition between and with all kinds of panarchies, e.g. atheistic and humanistic ones included. - J.Z., n.d. – However, do we have fully free competition in political, economic and social systems ANYWHERE by now, in our “modern”, “enlightened”, “scientific” times? – J.Z., 27.12.11.  – And this after so much “progress” and  “enlightenment”! – J.Z., 5.6.12.

MILLET, JERRY: Texas: Letter to ANALOG, June 1961: the no-government concept includes as a correlative proposition the idea that people will be correspondingly free to choose, individually or collectively - whatever economic, social, moral, et cetera, system they want ... will carry society to a situation where, because of its extreme flexibility, it will be able to endure for as long as it desires." - - "People ought to be free to choose - individually or collectively - whatever economic, social, moral etc., system they want." - I WISH I HAD THE ADDRESSES OF ALL THOSE STILL ALIVE WHO MADE AT ONE OR THE OTHER STAGE SOME PANARCHISTIC REMARKS. - J.Z., 17.1.99. – Google gave me today over 200 results for people so named and located. – J.Z., 5.6.12.

MILLET, MILLET SYSTEM: The Turkish term "M", derived from the Arabic MILLA, meant any one of the religious communities within the Ottoman Empire. The MS was the organization of the non-Muslim population into religious communities. It established their rights and obligations under their ecclesiastical leaders. Following Islamic and ME practice, the Ottomans granted the Christian and Jewish religious communities wide autonomy in matters of personal status, community affairs, legal procedure and education, and gave their heads jurisdiction over their members. These leaders were responsible for the maintenance of order within their communities and the payment of the JIZYA, the poll tax, and other taxes required of non-Muslims. Until the 19th century there were three M.s: the Greek Orthodox (see there); the Armenian (see there) Gregorian and the Jewish. Subsequently, separate M. status was given to various other denominations and sects, so that by 1914 the number of Ms. had risen to 14. The MS by its very nature helped preserve religious divisions, and as those sometimes coincided with ethnic divisions (e.g. the Armenians or in the Balkans), it promoted the rise of nationalism among the non-Muslims of the Empire, and also encouraged foreign intervention on their behalf. (Apparently, they were not autonomous enough and remained, sometimes, persecuted! - J.Z.) Consequently, in the 19th century the Ottoman government sought, for the sake of the independence and integrity of the Empire, to undermine the system. One method was introduction of M. 'constitutions' in the 1860s, seeking to increase lay participation in the affairs of the community. Owing to foreign pressure, and the M.s' insistence on self-preservation, the MS was maintained until after the final dissolution of the Empire, when the new Turkish constitution established the principle of national unity and equality. The rights of minorities featured, however, as a major issue in the Lausanne (see there) Peace Conference (1923) and the Western Powers secured an undertaking by the Turkish government to uphold some of the traditional religious, judicial and educational rights of the non-Muslims, which were to be guaranteed by the League of Nations. These rights were voluntarily (??? J.Z.) renounced by the Jewish, Armenian and Greek communities in 1925-6 following the steps taken by the Turkish government to secularize the state." (D.K.) - "Political Dictionary of the Middle East in the 20th Century", revised and updated edition, edited by Yaacov Shimoni and Evyatar Levine, Quadrangle, 1972, 1974 - I found interesting e.g. the entries on capitulations, millet, minorities and Iraq. - Such historical precedents should be kept in mind when considering the future potentials of societies of volunteers. - Nationalists could be consoled by the option that they could gain more adherents worldwide than they would lose nation-wide - if only their program is attractive enough. E.g., they could gain as many adherents as e.g. the Pope still has, world-wide.- J.Z., 11.11.04, in a letter to GPdB & C.B. - As far as I know, this limited system of a degree of tolerance applied only to those religions based upon another and supposedly "holy" book. - Other religious minorities were either converted to Islam or wiped out. - Islamic countries occupied mainly by Muslims are, mostly, still not known for a large degree of religious liberty and of political and economic liberty. - All the more honor to the exceptions. - J.Z., 1.10.11. - DHIMMI, DHIMMITUDE, PERSONAL LAW, CAPITULATIONS, TOLERANCE, SHIH SHUN LIU

MILLET: Millet, Turk, nation, people, body of co-religionists, (fr. Ar. millah, religion): a non-Muslim group or community in Turkey organized under a religious head of its own who also exercises civil functions of importance." - Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1965.

MILTITZ, A. de: Manuel des Consuls, 2 vols. in 5, London and Berlin, 1837-41.

MINARCHISTS, PANARCHISTS & OPTING OUT: Or should our miniarchists opt for the theory of democracy, so that when we have a libertarian regime in the capital, we can have what I call "democratic libertarianism" - libertarianism only as long as the people vote libertarian?" - THE CHARLES CURLEY LETTER, May 77. - Why tie ourselves down with their fate and tie them down by our opposition? Why not, instead, aim at an individualized voting system by which we can vote in, lastingly, libertarianism for ourselves, while they continue to vote-in for themselves whatever statist paradise they have lately dreamt up or consented to? Mini-archists should not only consider minimizing the functions of their ideal state but also the membership to it, by confining it to volunteers only, usually individual secessionists from the existing states. That kind of tolerance or secession or voluntary segregation could be achieved relatively fast - after achieving a minimal but already effective consensus and this approach would certainly minimize resistance against itself. It does not provoke, threaten or antagonize any but totalitarians. Making the realization of libertarianism dependent upon first converting the majority to the libertarian faith and then getting libertarianism voted in, would postpone its realization indefinitely and expose it to the threats posed by a revival of reactionary and anti-freedom thinking. - J.Z. 3.7.89, 12.12.03. – LIMITED GOVERNMENT, MINI-ARCHISM, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, VOTING, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, LIBERTARIANISM, LIBERTARIAN PARTY, DEMOCRACY

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, IN EVERY RESPECT: What is the alternative to voting? MYOB! - J.Z., 30.7.82.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS: Minding their own damned business may be all we can hope for. It may be enough. - - MOB, William Burroughs called it. “My Own Business … the right of any individual to possess his inner space (*), to do what interests him with people he wants to see … On the one side we have MOBs dedicated to minding their own business, on the other we have the enemies of MOB (**) dedicated to interference.” – Michael Zwerin, A Case for the Balkanization of Practically Everyone, p.141. – Alas, as far as I know, he examined and proposed only territorial options. - - (*) also his relationships with other people, exterritorially and across all imposed frontiers! – (**) the “mobs”, the “masses”, the majorities or their leaders. - J.Z., 8.12.07. - MYOB, MOB: MY OWN BUSINESS, PANARCHISM

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS: Your life is your own, yours to succeed or to fail with, yours to live as you decide. (*) Your obligation is to yourself: to the only person whose life does in fact depend on you. It will, in reality, be your actions that make your life what it is. (**) Why feel guilty about making the best you can of your own efforts – and why not allow others the same chance? – Let “Mind Your Own Business” be the political slogan of free men in a free land.” (***) – Thomas W. Hazlett, THE FREEMAN, 8/76. - - (*) All territorial governments prevent that to a very large extent. – They do not allow you to secede and compete with them, regarding all “public services” via associations of volunteers. - - (**) As if we were not legally restricted in all too many ways. E.g. prevented from opening a note-issuing bank. - - (***) The whole land and all its people do not have to be free, but dissenters of all kinds should certainly have the individual choice to become as free or unfree as they want to be, quite independent of any present territorial government and its supporting majority, via individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for their voluntary communities. - J.Z., 8.12.07. - MYOB, SELF-OWNERSHIP, SELF-DETERMINATION

MIND: If you don’t control your own mind – you won’t control anything else.” – 1977 Collins Desk Calendar. – Controlling others or things etc. is not the main objective. Releasing all creative energies and sufficiently combining them or making them accessible to all, is, according to Leonard Read much more important. However, one should be fully in control of the own life, even to the extent of individual secessionism from any territorial State or other community or society and to engage, under personal law and exterritorial autonomy conditions, in any political, economic and social experiment at the own risk and expense, together with like-minded people. Only then would we be sufficiently in control of our own lives or soon become able to control our conditions sufficiently and rightfully. – J.Z., 19.12.07. - PANARCHISM

MIND: The power to change the world is in your mind. Don’t be afraid to use it.” – Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin, THE CONNECTION 138 p.28. – However, you should try to change it only as far as your own affairs and those of like-minded volunteers are concerned. Setting alone or together with others an as shiny example as you can, to be followed, if at all, then only by other volunteers. Everything else amounts merely to aggression or to attempts at persuading others with words. To achieve the freedom of action or experimentation would be the first step and it is not easy to achieve that as long as the territorial monopoly for political, economic and social systems is maintained and even popular. Imagine how slow technical, artistic and scientific progress would be if it entirely depended upon persuasion instead of practical demonstrations. – J.Z., 5.12.07, 5.6.12. – At most you can contribute some ideas on changing the world and work towards some institutions that would allow everyone to have a positive influence on changing the world. But no one can be or should be its rightful dictator, with the power to actually change it, regardless of the thoughts, ideas, preferences, habits, traditions, rights and liberties of all other people. – J.Z., 26.12.11. - POWER & CHANGING THE WORLD

MIND: We simply must free the mind from its fetters and permit it to function without restraint.” – Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, 198. – This does also require freedom of action or experimentation, as long as this is done only at the own expense and risk. – J.Z., 13.9.07. - FETTERS, PREJUDICES, POPULAR ERRORS & MYTHS

MINDING ONE’S BUSINESS: Each of us is trying to manage everyone’s business but his own.” – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, March 68. – Panarchists and Polyarchists rather hold that each individual should be free to mind his own business even to the extent of choosing or founding a society or community that would correspond to his political, economic and social ideals, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, rather than hoping for a sufficiently limited but still territorial government or sufficient general enlightenment and education to also allow him to do his own things. We do not try to make supposedly ideal travel, amusement, reading, fashion, hobbies, arts and crafts, cooking, drinking plans or sports activity plans for all people in a territory. So why should we continue to insist on enforcing upon all of them a single political, economic or social system? – Even Leonard E. Read did not demand this general freedom to experiment. But at least he stood up, in general terms, for monetary freedom and, at least once, by including a corresponding article in THE FREEMAN: “Production Unlimited” (*) for freedom in organizing production and jobs within an enterprise. - J.Z., 18.12.07. – (*) John C. Sparks, “Production Unlimited”, THE FREEMAN, March 62. – Alas, I heard later from Mr Sparks that this very interesting and successful experiment was squashed through a take-over bid for the firm. I haven’t heard of a single case in which the ingenious method of self-management, developed by this firm, was applied by other firms. Productivity and incomes of the participants were greatly increased and administrative costs reduced. The mere time-servers left the firm but there was a waiting list for new openings in it! – The jobs were made much more interesting and diverse. I reviewed this article shortly in my PEACE PLANS series. There are probably thousands of books on management and yet they seem all to have ignored this outstanding experiment. The voluntary socialists and the decentralists should also have been interested in it. Naturally, the trade unionists were not, for it made them superfluous. – J.Z., n.d. – SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, IDEAS ARCHIVE, PANARCHISM

MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS: If the social doctors will mind their own business (*), we shall have no troubles but what belong to nature. Those we will endure or combat as we can. What we desire is, that the friends of humanity should cease to add to them. … To mind one's own business is a purely negative and unproductive injunction, but, taking social matters as they are just now, it is a sociological principle of the first importance. There might be developed a grand philosophy on the basis of minding one's own business.” - W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, p.106/107. - (*) They should get the panarchistic or polyarchic freedom to do so, together with like-minded followers or patients. - J.Z., 23.12.07. - MYOB, MEDDLING, REFORMERS, STATISTS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS: Love of one's fellow men is a real force in personal, family and even work relationships, but well-founded traditions and habits are better guides in national and international affairs. Indeed, as Alice was told, what makes the world go round is not love but minding one's own business.” - Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Right Turn, p.4/5. - Panarchies or Polyarchies are the ideal institutions for minding one's own business – the one that one has in common with like-minded volunteers, even when it comes to whole political, economic and social systems. - J.Z., 23.12.07. - MYOB, VS. LOVE

MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS: Minding one's own business is the doctrine of liberty. Admittedly, this has no glamour for the "friends of humanity", the social architects, the ones who would mind other people's business. To rule out their masterminding of others is to deny their peculiar pursuit of happiness. - - Minding one's own business, on the other hand, serves self by serving others and is a task of a size to fit the individual - big or little. This can be life's most fascinating venture - self-interest in its most intelligent conception, benefaction at its very best.” - Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.60. - - It goes beyond the private enterprise and commercial business. The principle can and should be extended to whole political, economic and social systems wanted by volunteers for themselves. Panarchism and Polyarchism would give them that option. Territorial statism denies it to all. - J.Z., 23.12.07. - MYOB

MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS: The danger of minding other people's business is two-fold. First, there is a danger that a man may leave his business unattended to; and, second, there is the danger of an impertinent interference with another's affairs. The "friends of humanity" almost always run into both dangers.” - William Graham Sumner, quoted in THE FREE MAN'S ALMANAC, Sep. 27. - The most general form for minding one's own business is provided by panarchies or polyarchies, i.e. exterritorially autonomous communities of like-minded volunteers, doing their own things for or to themselves, by their own standards, under their own personal law. - J.Z., 23.12.07. - MYOB, REFORMERS

MINIMUM INCOME: There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income.” – Hayek, Law, Legislation & Liberty. - One good reason is that our “free society government” does not have voluntary membership, i.e., that such welfare measures do not have unanimous consent. They are also still based on compulsory taxation, i.e. upon tribute gathering by the State. There are at last 4 rightful alternatives: 1.) Charity. 2.) Insurance. 3.) Credit. 4.) Private guaranty communities or mutual aid societies. – Not all libertarians are consistent non-statists and complete libertarians. – However, Hayekians and all others should be free to establish their own kind of welfare society for themselves, in form of a panarchy or polyarchy of volunteers. - J.Z., 4.4.88, 6.12.07. – W. F. Buckley, pointed out, with facts and figures, that in natura, through the provision of cheap staple foods, survival could be very cheaply provided by others. But the provision of shelter, heat, electricity, water and sewage services might cost much more. – No Welfare State has so far been able to accommodate all of the homeless street people and to provide conditions of productive full of part-time employment for all of them, too, in accordance with their remaining capacities and willingness to work. It prevents their employment - largely through monetary despotism and other forms of economic interventionism. Moreover, it has not allowed them to build their own slums and tent cities, either, but, largely, squeezed them out of its system. - J.Z., 15.2.09, 3.1.11. - DIS., SAFETY NET, GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME, MINIMUM LIVING STANDARD, WELFARE STATE, SOCIAL SERVICES, PANARCHISM, HOMELESS, STREET PEOPLE, DIS.

MINIMUM WAGE LAWS: the most mistaken notion that has ever been conceived.” – James Maitland, Eighth Earl of Lauderdale, An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth, Edinburgh, 1st. ed. 1804, 2nd. ed., 1819, Chapter I. (On the other hand, he was the principal parliamentary supporter of the anti-truck legislation of 1817! That is, he upheld the monetary despotism of an exclusive currency, rather than welcome any experiment to do without it, from primitive barter to full monetary freedom. And this at a time when token money even of individual stores was widely used and this practice needed only intelligent expansion to supply sound alternative exchange media for wage payments and also to assure the sale of the goods produced. – “Everything good comes rarely together.” 200 years later we still have minimum wage or basic wage laws! Worse: We have still monetary despotism and tribute levies called taxes. Just goes to show how slow progress is when it is administered by territorial governments.) - J.Z., 9.12.07, 5.6.12. – MONETARY FREEDOM

MINIMUM WAGE LAWS: When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effects of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.” – Murray N. Rothbard: Outlawing Jobs: The Minimum Wage, Once More, in: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, The Environmentalist Threat, in Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed., The Economics of Liberty, Mises Institute, 1990, p.364. - - However, of what help are hundreds or thousands of articles against territorial laws and popular prejudices on minimum wage laws – if the victims are not free to opt out from under them? - J.Z., 4.10.07. – UNIONS, TRADE UNION MONOPOLISM

MINISTRY OF MUSLIM AFFAIRS: Code of Muslims. Personal Laws of the Philippines, Manila, 1983, IX, 57pp, in English and Arabic.

MINORITIES & IDEAS UNDER TERRITORIALISM: A little leaven raises the entire lump of dough; a tiny flame starts a mighty conflagration; a small rudder turns a huge ship. And a handful of people, possessed of ideas and a dream, can change a nation - especially when that nation is searching for new answers and a new direction." - Rev. Edmund Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 1/77, p.39 - - So why haven't the correct anarchistic and libertarian ideas spread and changed history during the last 200 years? Largely because they were still tied up with and strangled or suffocated by the territorialist systems. How often, for how long and to what extent can the advanced dreams influence the uninformed or dishonest and deceptive systems of territorial majorities now? How long does such an influence take and how many sacrifices and how deeply does it penetrate? Rather allow minorities to become exterritorially autonomous and thus obtain the chance to provide better examples and demonstrate errors as well as truths, at their own expense and risk. We have already adopted the voluntaristic and experimental opportunities in many spheres of our lives. We ought to adopt this framework in all of them, especially in the political, economic and social spheres. That this simple reversal or alternative is not extensively and publicly discussed shows up all too much in inflexibility and petrification in the minds of all too many people. This in spite of the fact, that exterritorial autonomy has existed for longer periods than territorial sovereignty has and in spite of the fact, that absolutist or totalitarian territorial sovereignty is being widely rejected for many of our personal preferences and actions. - J.Z., 30.7.92, 9.1.93.  - Moreover, the "free marketeers" have so far still failed to establish a genuinely free market for ideas and talents. - J.Z., 9.12.03.

MINORITIES & MAJORITIES, AUTHORITY & HATE: How a minority, reaching majority, seizing authority, hates a minority." - Leonard H. Robbins. - Territorialism drives even the otherwise best people into hatreds and territorial intolerance. - J.Z., 12.7.92. - How could you come to like the various choice others make for you, quite legally, more than your own. Inevitably, you will consider them as your enemies - unless you happen to share their tastes in everything, which is only very rarely the case. - J.Z., 10.12.03.

MINORITIES & NATIONALISM: Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Colonel Qathafi (Gaddhafi etc.), "The Green Book". - Rather, genuine nations or peoples, whose self-determination is suppressed, in the name of territorial nationalism, are destroyed or prevented from coming into existence. In our times territorial States within States or territorial enclaves within territorial States are rarely tolerated and exterritorially autonomous communities within territorial ones almost never. - J.Z. 12.1.93, 5.6.12. - What is usually offered as nationalism amounts largely to a centralistic and coercive suppression of genuine nationalism and other isms in favor of an enforced and merely fictitious nationalism of supposedly uniform and united territorial nations, which at most represent only the country-wide majority. - J.Z., 10.12.03, 5.6.12. - Many of G’s mass murders have only recently become revealed. - J.Z., 20.10.11.

MINORITIES OF THE WORLD UNITED: In favor of full exterritorial autonomy for all of them. They would have nothing to lose but their chains or delusions and would have everything to gain that can be rightfully attained by their own and self-responsible actions. Even the situation of ruling majorities would be improved – because they would no longer have to strain themselves to keep down the dissenting minorities or suffer internal faction fights. – J.Z., 23.10.93, 14.1.99.

MINORITIES, FULL AUTONOMY FOR ALL OF THEM: To the extent that they desire it for themselves, but only on an exterritorial basis and for their own volunteers: Dissenting minorities are in trouble everywhere mainly because they are subjected to territorial systems, which are either run by a territorial majority or by a ruling minority. While lip service is paid to them and some minorities are even granted favored status and some privileges, most are disfranchised, as far as full exterritorial autonomy is concerned for their own affairs. They would cease to be victimized if they federated with all other minorities, even those who make up temporary majority coalitions, with the aim of full exterritorial autonomy for all of them, if and when they do require it for themselves. The attempt to solve the minority problem territorially will always lead to the local suppression of some minorities which, elsewhere, may form the majority. To become free and independent, they must give up all attempts to achieve their independence territorially or by trying to become majorities or by trying to become a dominating minority. Few have ever seriously tried to achieve their independence exterritorially and to fight the territorialist prejudices against this kind of independence. With exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities as their main aim, they would make friends, allies and neutrality stands almost anywhere and would cease to provoke animosity, resistance and suppression. This aim they could achieve quite peacefully and relatively fast, if they seriously tried for it. Without it their situation is relatively hopeless. Their own territorialism drives them only into fruitless struggles or bloody revolutions or terrorist actions, which increase rather than reduce the number of their enemies and postpone the achievement of their ideals. - J.Z., n.d. & 5.6.12.

MINORITIES, LIBERATION, TERRITORIALISM: One can suppress minorities or a majority by territorial rule but one cannot liberate all minorities and a majority by territorial rule.  It does not matter whether a territorial rule is practised by a minority or a majority, for it still amounts to despotism over the dissenters, although, under majority rule, over a lesser number of dissenters. – J.Z., 2.5.93, 14.1.99.

MINORITIES, THEIR SHEER NUMBER IN ALMOST ALL TERRITORIAL STATES: Zaire, in Africa, alone, has 40 different tribes, not to speak of religious and ideological groups. (Hint in Gordon Kent: Peace Maker, Harper Collins Publishers, 2000, page 447. New Guinea has been described as the country with a thousand tribes. - Little Benin, next to Togo, has ca. 50 different ethnic languages, as I read recently, in a newspaper article on a privately run railway service there. - J.Z., 20.10.11. – A common platform of exterritorial autonomy for all of them could hope for much support from many to most of them. – J.Z., 5.6.12. – INTERNATIONAL FOR PANARCHIES, ALL MINORITIES THAT WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

MINORITIES, VETO, MAJORITY: Why do you and your old-style friends still seek to revive the LIBERUM VETO?" - "Because the major problem of any free government is how to protect the responsible few from pressures of the irresponsible many. Plato knew that. So did Cicero." - James A. Michener, Poland, p. 336. - To the extent that the "liberum veto" of a single polish aristocrat in the national assembly could stop an oppressive measure being applied against dissenters, it was panarchistic. But to the extent that it prevented it from being applied to those who desired it, it was anti-panarchistic. - J.Z., 3.4.89. – POLAND, VETO OF ARISTOCRATS

MINORITIES: A federation of all those minorities of the world which strive for full exterritorial autonomy, i.e., make no exclusive territorial claims and will not respect the territorial claims of any other minority or of any majority, could become the most powerful federation in the world! For even majorities do have their dissenting minorities. – It would also stand up for the full exterritorial autonomy of all majorities, which would suit many to most of them well, for thus they would be rid of all their "troublemakers" and could pursue their policies with unanimous consent. - J.Z., n.d., & 19.12.07, 3.1.11. - INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION EXTERRITORIALIST MINORITIES

MINORITIES: A government is free in proportion to the rights it guarantees to the minority.” – Alfred M. Landon, Kansas Day address, October 1936. – The majority can be so little relied upon in this respect, that practically all of the limited rights of the bill of rights amendments to the US constitution have been severely restricted by a flood of legislation and jurisdiction. Kings, emperors and feudal lords were also supposed to protect the rights of their subjects. The reality was different. – All minorities, including individuals, if they want to, should be free to declare their secession and exterritorial independence. – Moreover, in free association with all other dissenting individuals and minorities in the world, they could become free to defend this independence against any further usurpations of their individual rights and liberties by any territorial majority or minority regime. – The only thing territorial governments could ever guaranty was more wrongful laws, taxes and interventions. – I would rather say that minorities are unfree to the extent that governments claim and practise territorial powers. - J.Z., 19.12.07, 5.6.12.

MINORITIES: A little leaven raises an entire lump of dough; a tiny flame starts a mighty conflagration; a small rudder turns a huge ship. And a handful of people possessed of ideas and a dream can change a nation – especially when that nation is searching for new answers and new direction.” – Edmund Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 1/77, p.39. – How often, for how long? How long does it take and how many sacrifices? Mere persuasion attempts do have their limitations against masses of popular ignorance and prejudices. Thus rather allow minorities that are somewhat enlightened to set practical examples, independent of majority opinions, demonstrating truths and errors on a small scale, without having to convert the majority first and thus also limiting any wrongs and damages as much as possible. Then it should be up to other minorities or the majority to accept or reject such changes for themselves. We do not advance in science and technology by the territorial method, either. We have excluded it in all spheres except those of political, social and economic systems. That was and remains a great wrong and severe mistake, with disastrous consequences. - So why haven't the correct anarchistic and libertarian ideas spread and changed history during the last 200 years? Largely because they were still tied up with and strangled or suffocated by the territorialist systems. How often, for how long and to what extent can the advanced dreams influence the uninformed or lying systems of territorial majorities now? How long does such an influence take and how many sacrifices and how deeply does it penetrate? Rather allow minorities to become exterritorially autonomous and thus obtain the chance to provide better examples and demonstrate errors as well as truths, at their own expense and risk. We have already adopted the voluntaristic and experimental opportunities in many spheres of our lives. We ought to adopt this framework in all of them, especially in the political, economic and social spheres. That this simple reversal or alternative is not extensively and publicly discussed shows up all too much in inflexibility and petrifaction in the minds of all too many people. This in spite of the fact, that exterritorial autonomy has existed for longer periods than territorial sovereignty has and in spite of the fact, that absolutist or totalitarian territorial sovereignty is being widely rejected for many of our personal preferences and actions. - Moreover, the "free marketeers" have so far still failed to establish a genuinely free market for ideas and talents - J.Z., 30.7.92, 9.12.03. 3.12.07. - IDEAS UNDER TERRITORIALISM, IDEAS ARCHIVE, INDIVIDUALS, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITY, PERSUASION ONLY OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM? PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: A minority has no right to govern, but a claim to be respected." - Dagobert D. Runes, A Dictionary of Thought. – Also in his: Treasury of Thought, p.91 and in his: A Book of Contemplation, p.89. - “… but to be left alone” – would be better. – J.Z., 1973. - A minority has the right to govern itself, not others. And that right is to be respected. – J.Z., ca., 1993. - It does have the right to govern itself and the right to demand that this right be fully respected. – J.Z., 19.12.07. - Some majorities or ruling minorities or rulers had such a high respect for some minorities and out of that respect, under the territorial system, such a fear of their competition, that they murderously persecuted them and wiped them out. More than mere respect is required. A minority, while not having any right to govern others, has yet the right to govern itself, regardless of what the majority and other minorities want them to do. – J.Z., n.d.  & 27.12.11. - PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: All minorities have the right to rule themselves. None of them has the right to rule others. – J.Z., 4.12.07. – That also applies to the small minorities of “representatives” elected by majorities. – By rights they can only try to represent those, who voted FOR them. - J.Z., 27.12.11. – DEMOCRACY, VOTING, REPRESENTATIVES

MINORITIES: All parties and other reform or revolutionary groups to gain experimental freedom or minority autonomy on an exterritorial autonomy or personal law basis, i.e. to attain the liberty to run their own programs among their own voluntary members, at their own risk and expense. Anyone to be free to secede from any of them, to join or form another such group. This experimental freedom would rapidly demonstrate e.g. which full employment program does work. - J.Z. 14.12.92. - Experimental freedom for all, including all existing political parties and movement - except for the intolerant, fanatics, true believers etc., as far as their territorialist ambitions go. – J.Z., 16.2.09. – PANARCHISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY

MINORITIES: All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable, that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801. – Unfortunately, even he did not recognize the right of individuals and minorities to secede, especially not when it came to the slaves. – J.Z., 13.12.07. - MINORITY RIGHTS VS. MAJORITY RULE, DEMOCRACY

MINORITIES: An international federation of minorities is, at least potentially, the greatest power. – J.Z., n.d. – I meant an international federation in favour of full exterritorial autonomy for all of them. They would have nothing to lose but their chains or delusions and would have everything to gain that can be rightfully attained by their own and self-responsible actions. Even the situation of ruling majorities would be improved – because they would no longer have to strain themselves to keep down the dissenting minorities or suffer internal faction fights. – J.Z., 23.10.93, 14.1.99. – To that extent even all of the territorial majorities could become allies of such a federation. It would assure them permanent rule over all their remaining volunteers. They would no longer have to fear an election victory of their opponents or an uprising against them. – J.Z., 5.6.12. - OF THE WORLD UNITED, INTERNATIONAL OF PANARCHIES

MINORITIES: As Louis Hartz notes, if minorities still have rights, why not the minorities within the minorities – until we are back in a state of nature.” – Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1955, pp.158-162. – Joseph R. Stromberg, LIBERTARIAN FORUM, 6/76. - Or, rather, came back to individual sovereignty and personal laws, under which mankind has, probably, lived much longer than under territorial laws and institutions. – The state of nature is, in many respects, preferable to the conditions which artificially made and coercively upheld territorial States have been imposing upon us for all too long, often not even respecting their own bills of rights, which are still all too flawed and incomplete. – J.Z., 19.12.07. - Anyhow, the frequent practice of schisms in the sphere of religion, for instance, has not yet led to the disappearance of most churches and sects, but rather to their multiplication. – J.Z., 25.12.07. – RIGHTS, Q., DIS., PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, DIS.

MINORITIES: But we are so few.” – “We are enough.” – From a Western, “Great Source Hey”. – Even a small minority could easily achieve very much if it were freed to secede and to do its own things with its own volunteers under personal laws. – J.Z., 19.12.07. – SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: Do you realize that almost everybody is a member of a minority now? The Civil Rights Commission, which investigates complaints about discrimination, said in a recent news story that 86 % of the population can have their complaints investigated since they belong to one minority or another.” – Robert Anton Wilson, in DIAGONAL RELATIONSHIP No. 10. – - Just a thought on Robert Anton Wilson’s letter: - If 86 % of the population are members of one minority group or another, then we have just defined a new minority group, comprising 14 % of the population. Even better, an underprivileged minority: These people never had the benefit of membership in a minority group of their own.” - Mare S. Glasser, DIAGONAL RELATIONSHIP No. 11. - - In other words, even a formal numerical majority has a real self-interest in minority autonomy, even while it does not recognize that self-interest as yet. – J.Z., 8.6.82, 19.12.07. Can it become sufficiently enlightened in this respect? The international federation of minority panarchistically minded minority groups, still to be established, should have a corresponding clause in its constitution. Then it might rename it into an International Federation that favours FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL MINORITIES & MAJORITIES. – J.Z.,  5.6.12.

MINORITIES: Each Irish, Scottish, Welsh and any other minority or majority has the right to rule itself, by its own personal laws, representing the political, economic and social system views of its own volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy – and none has the right to rule the volunteers of any other community, unless they have committed an aggressive act against one or a few of the own members. It seems possible that all sufficiently reasonable beings will one day come to agree upon that formula and from then on leave each other sufficiently alone. In our times such autonomy is even more important for ideological differences than for religious, racial or national differences. – J.Z., 27.3.87, 5.12.07. - EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MINORITIES: Every good movement in history has been led by an infinitesimal few – those who take advantage of the ever-present NOW!” – Leonard E. Read, ABC’s of Freedom, under NOW. – The opportunity to do one’s own things should be ever-present, for individuals and for minorities. They should not have to depend on rare opportunities, which arise only now and then. – Territorialism suppresses many of the major opportunities for them. - J.Z., 19.12.07. & INDIVIDUALS, USING OPPORTUNITIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: Every minority group in the world to be quite safe (*) - as long as it only does its own thing at its own risk and cost. – J.Z., 29.1.83. – (*) And all other people would tend to be safe from any radical or terrorist minority as well, one all minorities have attained and appreciated that right and opportunity. – J.Z., 25.12.07. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR PANARCHISM FOR ALL MINORITIES, TERRORISM, SUICIDE BOMBERS

MINORITIES: Every serious student of the history of our public law and policy has known that the defence of the rights of minorities against majorities is one of the fundamental purposes of our system of government.” - Charles A. Beard, The Economic Basis of Politics, compiled and annotated by William Beard, p.154. – That may be the declared intention - but in practice minorities are continually outvoted, unless they form powerful pressure groups. They are certainly not allowed to secede and govern themselves. Granting some of them some privileges or subsidies at the expense of the majority and all other minorities, cannot make up for that basic wrong and this wrongs all the others. – J.Z., 19.12.07. – It is mainly only the interests of the ruling minority that guides them. – 16.2.09.

MINORITIES: Federation of all Minorities. See: ZUBE, JOHN, Minorities Compact. – INTERNATIONAL OF MINORITIES

MINORITIES: Freedom is not generally realized when only the majority has the few liberties that it wants, at its stage of enlightenment, ignorance or prejudices and has also granted some liberties even to members of minority groups, but only when all groups and individuals have all the rights and liberties that they want for themselves, in their own and exterritorially quite autonomous associations, always only at their own expense and risk. – J.Z., 9.10.88, 7.12.07. All other forms of government make a mockery of self-government, consent, self-determination, self-responsibility and self-reliance. – J.Z., 7.12.07. - MAJORITIES, PANARCHISM & FREEDOM

MINORITIES: Freedom is perhaps threatened above all, by the fact that a small minority has realized that its own resolve enables it to cut like a hot knife through the butter of the great uncertain and irresolute majority.” – John Peyton, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, March 12, 1977. – – Obviously, not every minority is so determined and successful. Otherwise all of them would have achieved full exterritorial autonomy for themselves already – and left the majorities to their own devices. – Alas, there are minorities not satisfied with ruling themselves. Instead they do aim at ruling and exploiting those people, who do not agree with them. Territorialism gives them all too often all too many chances to do this – quite legally. – J.Z., 15.2.09. - There is a great difference between tolerant and thus tolerable and intolerant and thus intolerable minorities. The latter should never be granted any territorial power. And the former would not need it or, in most cases, do not even wish for it. – To mind one’s on business properly is already a difficult enough job. But they might try to win in a societal Olympics, in which the most improved voluntaryist society would be declared the winner. – Perhaps the so far most handicapped societies should have their separate societal Olympics, like we have now for paraplegics. – While their achievements might not be setting top records for all, their improvements, seeing their starting points, might be the greatest. – Increase in voluntary membership or clients or customers would only be one indicator. - J.Z., 16.2.09, 3.1.11. – MINORITY DESPOTISM? AGGRESSIVE & INTOLERANT MINORITIES, MAJORITIES, THE PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY, PRESSURE GROUPS, LOBBIES, PRIVILEGES, RULERS, A SOCIETAL OLYMPICS?

MINORITIES: Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for members of one party – however numerous they may be – that is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for one who thinks differently.” (*) – The Polish Marxist Rosa Luxemburg, in her tract “The Russian Revolution”, written in Breslau prison, Summer 1918. Compare the English libertarian, William Hazlitt: “The love of liberty is the love of others, the love of power is the love of ourselves.” – “Political Essays”, 1819. - (*) And who wants to act differently, while being tolerant towards those peacefully engaged in their own activities, in their own communities. – J.Z., 23.9.07. – We do not have to love them but we should be just enough to tolerate their tolerant actions. – J.Z., 116.2.09. - RIGHTS OF MINORITIES, FREEDOM FOR MINORITIES, ONE PARTY REGIMES, JUSTICE, TOLERANCE, LOVE, POWER, LIBERTY, MINORITY AUTONOMY

MINORITIES: Full autonomy for all of them! To the extent that they desire it for themselves, but only on an exterritorial basis and for their own volunteers: Dissenting minorities are in trouble everywhere - mainly because they are subjected to territorial systems either run by a territorial majority or by a ruling minority. While lip service is paid to them and some minorities are even granted favoured status and some privileges, most are disfranchised, as far as full exterritorial autonomy is concerned for their own affairs. They would cease to be victimized if they federated with all other minorities, even those who make up temporary majority coalitions, with the aim of full exterritorial autonomy for all of them, if and when they do require it for themselves. The attempt to solve the minority problem territorially will always lead to the local suppression of other minorities which elsewhere may form the majority. To become free and independent they must give up all attempts to achieve their independence territorially or by trying to become majorities or by trying to become a dominating minority. Few have ever seriously tried to achieve their independence exterritorially and to fight the territorialist prejudices against this kind of independence. With exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities as their main aim, they would make friends, allies and neutrals almost anywhere and case to provoke animosity, resistance and suppression. This aim they could achieve quite peacefully and relatively fast, if they seriously tried for it. Without it their situation is relatively hopeless. Their own territorialism drives them only into fruitless struggles or bloody revolutions or terrorist actions, which increase rather than reduce the number of their enemies and postpone the achievement of their ideals. - J.Z., n.d. - FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL OF THEM: PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: Governments exist to protect the rights of minorities. The loved and the rich need no protection, - they have many friends and few enemies.” - Wendell Phillips. -  Which government ever protected the rights of all minorities against itself and against all majorities? - J.Z., 11.10.02. - DEMOCRACY, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

MINORITIES: How a minority, Reaching majority, Seizing authority, Hates a minority!” - Attributed to Leonard Harman Robbins, Minorities. - Bergen Evans, Dictionary of Quotations, p.423 (1968). - Unverified. - Territorialism drives even the otherwise best people into hatreds and territorial intolerance. - J.Z., 12.7.92. - How could you come to like the various choices others make "for" you, quite legally, more than your own? Inevitably, you will consider them as your enemies - unless you happen to share their tastes in everything, which is only very rarely the case. - J.Z., 10.12.03. - & MAJORITIES, AUTHORITY, HATE, ELITES, RULERS, AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT, POWER, CORRUPTION

MINORITIES: I am in favour of all of the smallest minorities of all: individuals. – J.Z., 4.9.93. – Provided they do their own things only for and to themselves or among like-minded people. – J.Z., 16.2.09. & INDIVIDUALS

MINORITIES: I can think of few important movements for reform in which success was won by any method other than that of an energetic minority presenting the indifferent majority with a fait accompli, which was then accepted.” – Vera Brittain, 1896- , The Function of a Minority, in Peter Mayer, editor, The Pacifist Conscience, a Pelican Book, paper back, 1966, p.288. – Provided the minority was free to do so. How many minorities struggled in vain, for many decades and still do? This freedom experimental freedom would be institutionalized by panarchism and make prolonged struggles superfluous. – J.Z., 11.9.08. In their own interest all anarchists and libertarians should become interested in rights of minorities, going to full exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers. – J.Z., 5.6.12. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION

MINORITIES: If I cater for enough minorities, they add up to the majority.” – David Garnett, Stargonauts, Orbit, 1994, p.61. – A federation of all the minorities in the world, with a common panarchistic or polyarchic platform, would amount to the largest and most powerful majority ever. It surely should be able to achieve exterritorial autonomy and personal laws for all of its members, for all their diverse communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 24.9.07. - MAJORITIES, PANARCHISM & A FEDERATION OF ALL MINORITIES THAT DESIRE PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM FOR THEMSELVES

MINORITIES: In addition, too few decisions are left for the sub-national level – regions, states, provinces, and localities, or non-geographical social groupings.” - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.441. – Underlining by me. – J.Z. - DECISION-MAKING, NON-GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIAL GROUPINGS, PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: It doesn’t require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires to people’s minds.” – Samuel Adams, quoted in: Michael Z. Williamson, Freehold, p.581. - It would be much easier for minorities to achieve something if individuals and minorities were free to opt out and to do their own things for themselves or to themselves, thereby setting either an attractive or a deterrent example for all others. – Minorities should never have to depend upon majority permission or approval to do their own things, quite tolerantly, among themselves. – Better public examples and experiments are much more effective than lectures, propaganda, preaching and good advice. - J.Z., 8.9.07. - & MAJORITY, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: It is always the minorities that hold the key to progress.” – Raymond Blaine Fosdick, b.1883. – Andrews Quotes, p.301. - At least one of them does, if any. – Certainly not all of them. – J.Z., 19.12.07. - Let each of them have a key, which opens to them the door to their own full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. - As their key might be considered the right of individual secessionism. - J.Z., 3.1.11. – Also the right to organize under full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 5.6.12. -  & PROGRESS

MINORITIES: It is indispensable to a “free government” (in the political sense of that term), that the minority, the weaker party, have a veto upon the acts of the majority. (*) Political liberty is liberty for the weaker party in a nation. It is only the weaker party that lose their liberties, when a government becomes oppressive. The stronger party, in all governments, are free by virtue of their superior strength. They never oppress themselves.” (**) - Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, Works II, 215. - - (*) Such a veto right goes too far. The majority should be free to do its own things, at its own risk and expense – while not subjecting the dissenting minorities to its schemes. That would best be done through organizational separation, allowing the dissenters to opt out. – (**) knowingly. - J.Z., 19.12.07. – PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, VETO POWER, DIS.

MINORITIES: It is patently impossible to achieve the public good (*) by coercion or by discrimination against law abiding individuals, whatever minority group they happen to belong to.” – Prince Phillip, A Place for the Individual – Royal Society of Arts Lecture, 1976. – For individual innovators or minorities, to have to abide by all laws of the majority or of a minority government - is already coercion and discrimination against them. The ruling group may only use force in defence against aggression against itself, by any individual or group. Otherwise, it ought to leave individuals, minorities and majorities alone. – J.Z., 6.4.89. – Alas, he did not clearly reject territorialism but still insisted upon “law-abiding” by minorities, meaning the English territorial laws, rather than demanding personal law communities that do not offend against the rights and liberties of members of other communities but simply run their own affairs under full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 15.2.09. - (*) because "the" public good does not exist and cannot be created. Individuals need not be law-abiding. They may opt out of laws etc., however, they must respect the rights and liberties of others, if, when, where and by whoever they are claimed, for whatever reason. - J.Z., 8.4.89. - - His many utterances, relating to liberties and rights, are the best that I encountered from any royalties. - J.Z., 20.10.11. -  & PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: Later in his essay he truly says that there is nothing inherently authoritative about a majority, but goes on to say THAT A MINORITY ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION ONLY IF THEY 'consider the decision as THEIRS'.” - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.41, on Joseph Tussman, Obligation and the Body Politic, p.26.

MINORITIES: Minorities are only to be denied the right to become territorially ruling majorities or minorities ruling majorities and other minorities but never the right to rule themselves, at their own expense and risk. They are to lose all privileges, monopolies and subsidies and to gain full self-government, self-determination etc., all exterritorially, under their own laws and institutions. Minorities ought to made enlightened enough to become the first to reject, together with all other minorities, territorial rule and territorial aspirations. – J.Z., n.d. – I can only hope that anarchists and libertarians will come to initiate and lead this movement, i.e. become concerned with more than their own liberation and thus achieve it, too, much sooner. – J.Z., 5.6.12. -  MINORITY RIGHTS, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

MINORITIES: Minorities of all countries unite and guarantee to each other full exterritorial autonomy after your liberation from territorial majorities. – J.Z., 27.10.80, 19.12.07.

MINORITIES: Minorities of the world unite in discussion meetings and, if you must, also in marches and demonstrations, and, if necessary and possibly, even in resistance actions, to finally establish and protect individual secessionism and full exterritorial and voluntaristic autonomy for all who desire it. - There exists no rightful and better way to end most of the present frictions and clashes. – Full individual consumer sovereignty towards all , governmental services as well! - J.Z. 8.9.88. 3.4.89. 16.2.09, 5.6.12. - EXTERRITORIAL, A CONFEDERATION OF ALL MINORITIES TOWARDS THIS AIM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FULL FREEDOM OF CONTRACT & ASSOCIATION, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY

MINORITIES: Minorities should not be law abiding but, rather, do their own things, under their own personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy – as long as they do respect the rights and liberties of other individuals, minority groups and of all majorities. – J.Z., 6.4.89, 3.1.11. - LAWS & PANARCHISM, DOING THE OWN THINGS

MINORITIES: minorities to have concurrent power with majorities, and not merely to have the hope of some day becoming majorities." - Arthur A. Shenfield in Agenda for a Free Society Law. - Until I saw that, I was not aware that he is as consistent and radical an advocate of laissez faire, perhaps the only one among the famous names of the IEA. With this statement S. has already gone in the panarchist direction. – Has he somewhere elaborated this notion? - J.Z., 5.12.07 - - PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Colonel Qathafi (Gaddhafi etc.), "The Green Book". - Rather, genuine nations or peoples, whose self-determination is suppressed, in the name of territorial nationalism, since territorial States or enclaves within territorial States are rarely tolerated and exterritorially autonomous communities within territorial ones are almost never tolerated in our times. - J.Z. 12.1.93. – They are still to become generally established in all “national” territories. – J.Z., 5.6.12. - What is usually offered as nationalism amounts largely only to a centralized and coercive suppression of genuine nationalism. - J.Z., 10.12.03. – Or to its abuse for the purposes of the warfare State, often a despotic and at least an authoritarian and territorialist one. – J.Z., 15.2.09. – Territorial nationalism does perhaps do more wrong and harm than any other movement. – J.Z., 19.2.09. – NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

MINORITIES: Never doubt that a small group of dedicated people can change the world for in fact that is the only thing that ever had.” – Margaret Mead. – (*) But without the experimental freedom of panarchism only with the greatest difficulties, as far as political, economic and social systems or territorialism are concerned. – J.Z., 3.12.07. – (*) In a slightly different version her statement runs: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” - CHANGE THE WORLD

MINORITIES: Not only the majority should get the government or society of its dream or free choice, but everybody should get his as a result of his own decision and corresponding efforts. - J.Z., 18.2.89, 3.4.89, 5.6.12. - MINORITY AUTONOMY RATHER THAN MAJORITY DESPOTISM

MINORITIES: Once one minority, anywhere, gets full exterritorial autonomy, then all minorities, everywhere, will be much closer to it. Thus all minorities should associate in their support for full exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, of all kinds of minorities, which are prepared to respect the rights of other minorities and those of the majority. – J.Z., 3.8.88. – Their kind of federation might become the largest political force on Earth. – Even majorities are largely made up of various factions or minorities. – A new “International” but one without any territorial ambitions and without being confined to any ideology, except that of tolerance for all tolerant people. - J.Z., 19.12.07. - INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ALL MINORITIES

MINORITIES: One can suppress minorities or a majority by territorial rule but one cannot liberate all minorities and a majority by territorial rule. It does not matter whether a territorial rule is practised by a minority or a majority, it still amounts to despotism over the dissenters, although under majority rule over a lesser number of dissenters. – J.Z., 2.5.93, 14.1.99. - LIBERATION, TERRITORIALISM

MINORITIES: Only small minorities, whether in a Communist society or in a capitalist society, are concerned with nonmaterial ends. Nonmaterial undertakings, therefore, will flourish most in the societies where minorities have the greatest opportunities. A free-enterprise society is precisely the kind of society in which a minority can more or less do what it wants. (*) It’s free to pursue its own interests, but not in a collectivist society; if it’s a perfect democracy, it will be dominated by the majority; if it’s a dictatorships, it will be dominated by one minority, but other minorities will not be free to move.” – Milton Friedman, PLAYBOY, 2/73. - (*) Free banking advocates under central banking, exterritorial autonomy advocates under territorialism, free traders under protectionism, single taxers under their compulsory tax, opponents of the postal monopoly under the postal monopoly, opponents of copyrights under copyrights laws! – Liberties and rights concern material and moral ends and means. - J.Z., 19.12.07, 3.1.11. - CAPITALISM, MATERIALISM, MAJORITY, COLLECTIVISM, FREE ENTERPRISE SOCIETY

MINORITIES: Our history is a history of minorities put down with clubs.” - H. L. Mencken, Essay in Pedagogy, in Prejudices, Fifth Series, p.246. – From now on let it become a future in which all tolerant minorities are tolerated when they are doing their own things for or to themselves only. – J.Z., 16.2.09, 3.1.11. - EXTERRITORIAL, MINORITY RIGHTS, MAJORITY RULE, HISTORY, MINORITY AUTONOMY

MINORITIES: Politics is the means by which the will of the few becomes the will of the many.” – Howard Koch - The will or the territorial dictation over the many and over all other minorities? - J.Z., 3.1.11, 5.6.12. - MINORITY RULE THROUGH “REPRESENTATIVE” TERRITORIAL POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM

MINORITIES: respect for the minority, in political life, which is the essence of freedom.” – Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History, p.43. – Firstly there is not just one minority. There are many of them. And respect for any of them is not as sufficient substitute for full exterritorial autonomy for all of them. – The greatest respect for them in political life would be shown by letting all minorities peacefully secede and organize themselves, with all their volunteers, under personal law. - J.Z., 5.12.07. – Just like those, who truly respect their marriage partner would let them unilaterally demand and get a divorce. – J.Z., 25.12.07.

MINORITIES: Such an agreement may possibly be wiser than unceasing and deadly conflict; it nevertheless partakes too much of the ludicrous to deserve to be seriously considered as an expedient for the maintenance of civil society. It would certainly seem that mankind might agree upon a cessation of hostilities, upon more rational and equitable terms than that of unconditional submission on the part of the less numerous body. Unconditional submission is usually the last act of one who confesses himself subdued and enslaved. How anyone ever came to image that condition to be one of freedom, has never been explained. And as for the system being adapted to the maintenance of justice among men, it is a mystery that any human mind could ever have been visited with an insanity wild enough to originate the idea.” – Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, Works II/212/13. - MINORITY AUTONOMY VS. MAJORITY RULE, TERRITORIALISM

MINORITIES: The few acting in concert are the masters of the many straining at random.” – G. R. Turner, Young Man of Talent. – The minorities of our time have also the advantage that the territorial systems presently upheld by majorities constitute targets for mass murder devices, perhaps even in the hands of a minority of intolerant extremists or terrorists. These targets can be dissolved by individual and group secessionism, combined with exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of societies and communities of volunteers, among them, possibly, some former terrorists. – J.Z., 19.12.07. - & THEIR POWER, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: The first, heretical principle of Third Wave government is that of minority power. It holds that majority rule, the key legitimating principle of the Second Wave era, is increasingly obsolete. It is not the majorities but minorities that count. And our political system must increasingly reflect that fact.” - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.428. - Alas, it does so already by giving privileges to many successfully lobbying pressure groups, vested interest groups and “underdog” groups, who try to blame today’s majority collectively for what wrongs their forefathers may have committed or have committed towards these minorities. Or they use their political leverage for unearned advantages for themselves at the expense of the majority. Toffler should not have spoken of power, which many minorities also know how to abuse, but of self-government, self-determination, self-administration, self-management, exterritorial autonomy, freedom of action, freedom to experiment, within the limits or equal rights of others to act and experiment at their cost and risk. – J.Z., 24.9.07. - MINORITY AUTONOMY OR MINORITY SELF-GOVERNMENT OR MINORITY POWER? PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: The minority has everywhere an eternal right, namely to proclaim the truth." - Robespierre. - Firstly, there is not only one minority but many minorities exist, in every country. Even majorities are ever changing and made up of various and ever changing minority groups. And there is not only one truth. There are many. I wish it were true that e.g. all of agriculture's problems could be cured by a single agricultural bon mot or experiment, all of natural science by e.g. "energy is mass times the square of the speed of light" or by one experiment in chemistry or physics and all social problems by a single social thesis or experiment. Imagine all taste buds could be satisfied by one recipe or one batch of wine or one kind of stew. Instead: All minorities and all majorities and even individuals do have the right not only to proclaim what truths they believe to have found, but also to practise them, both at their own expense and risk. Moreover, each individual has more than one aim and no individual is very likely to be fully successful either with his first proclamation or with the very first experiment to reach any particular one of his many different aims. - Naturally, with "the" truth on his side, Robespierre was ready to permanently cure all the others, all corrupt and "sinners" in his eyes - with the guillotine. – J. G. Fichte, in his Contribution on the French Revolution, over 200 years ago, proclaimed the right of individuals to secede from the State. Where could we be now, if sufficient people had listened to him and understood him? Will my "On Panarchy" series be appreciated only in another 200 years? J.Z. 15.1.93. - Its 24 PEACE PLANS issues on microfiche have, in the meantime, become digitized by me. - J.Z., 3.1.11. – DIS., PANARCHISM

MINORITIES: The small minority on the earth (and most in need of societal protection) is the individual.” - Richard Boddie & Dagny Sharon. - I would rather say: the smallest. And "societal protection" is not, precisely, what he is actually getting. Unless he has the freedom of individual choice - including individual secessionism - regarding the kind of society or community or government that he wants to be associated with and protected by, he is not likely to get much protection, while his oppressors are getting protectors by the dozens: The major of Detroit, I was told by a journalist, has about 60 bodyguards. How many have you? - J.Z., 29.1.02. - MINORITY AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PROTECTION, SOCIETY, PANARCHY

MINORITIES: The student of history knows that the minority has, often as not, been closer to the truth than the dominant group.” – Dagobert D. Runes, A Dictionary of Thought. – Correct for one or the other minority but incorrect for some minorities. – Some minorities are even further away from some truths than the majority usually is. – J.Z. 8.12.07. – Do we have, as yet, a free population anywhere, in which no peaceful minority is suppressed through the prejudices of the others and corresponding territorial legislation? – J.Z., 16.2.09, 3.1.11. - DIS.

MINORITIES: The truth, the hope of any time, must always be sought in minorities.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882). Complete Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Vol. VIII. - Thus minorities should not only be free to speak and otherwise publish truths and to inform themselves about them but also free to practise them among themselves. - J.Z., 14.10.02. - Minorities, especially the ruling one, are also enthusiastic defenders and spreaders of lies, errors, prejudices and myths. Thus all minorities should at most rule themselves, not the majority or other minorities. - J.Z., 27.11.02. - TRUTH, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MINORITY AUTONOMY UNDER PERSONAL LAWS, FREEDOM OF ACTION, NOT ONLY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION & INFORMATION, SELF-GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-DETERMINATION

MINORITIES: The ultimate libertarian or voluntaryist federation would not confine itself to libertarian members, including anarchists, but would extend membership to all other minority groups that are willing to be tolerant to others than their own members, i.e. to all doing their own things for or to themselves only, everywhere and independent of all majority opinions, constitutions laws and jurisdictions and of those of other minorities. – J.Z., 7.5.83. In short, it would aim at self-government for all, down to individuals, as the smallest minority. – J.Z., 19.12.07. – Tolerance towards all tolerant people and intolerance only towards all intolerant people. – J.Z., 5.6.12. - INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MINORITIES

MINORITIES: There is always at least a minority that does not get along.” – Jim Downard, THE CONNECTION 102 p.3/34. – And it should be fully free to do its things to and for itself, autonomously and exterritorially. - J.Z., 8.1.93, 10.12.03. - Why should it have to get along and conform or cease to resist and obstruct, as long as it is not free to secede and do its own things to or for itself? – Naturally, I am not thinking here of criminal and parasitic minorities. – J.Z., 5.12.07. Why should it have to get along, when it should rather be free to do its own thing, to or for itself? – J.Z., 8.12.07. – Only aggressive minorities, not satisfied with exterritorial self-rule, must be kept in check. – J.Z., 16.2.09. - DIS.

MINORITIES: To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all.” – Sheldon L. Richman, Mises’s Blueprint for the Free Society, in: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed., The Economics of Liberty, Mises Institute, 1990, p.361/62. – There are xyz minorities, all with the right to self-government – which is possible for them as well as for the majority under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for all volunteers. – There was never a justification for territorial majority - or minority despotism. - J.Z. 4.10.07. Not even for that of the advocates of “limited” territorial governments. – J.Z., 22.1.08. - MINORITY AUTONOMY VS. MAJORITY DICTATES

MINORITIES: To various ethnic and minority groups we can show that only under liberty is there full freedom for each group to cultivate its concerns and to run its own institutions, unimpeded and un-coerced by majority rule.” – Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, p.316. – Did he really envision full exterritorial autonomy for them or did he only think of their current autonomy of cultural and religious diversity? – J.Z., 19.12.07. – Someone will, hopefully, combine all utterances of Rothbard on panarchism and related subjects in one bibliographical list, abstracts list and review compilation. – J.Z., 5.6.12. – PANARCHISM OR LIMITED MINORITY AUTONOMY? ROTHBARD.

MINORITIES: We can fight a losing battle to suppress or submerge today’s burgeoning minorities, or we can reconstitute our political system to accommodate the new diversity. We can continue to use the crude, bludgeon-like tools of Second Wave political systems, or we can design sensitive new tools of a minority-based democracy of tomorrow.” - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.436. – No minority is obliged to rule itself democratically. All other options should be open to all of them, even more flawed systems and, naturally, less flawed ones. Sooner or later those, who adopt flawed ones, are likely to learn from their mistakes, since they are, under exterritorial autonomy and voluntarism, all carried out at their own expense and risk only and under panarchism better alternatives would be practised all around them or at least pointed out by alternative media. – J.Z., 24.9.07, 5.6.12. – Here Toffler is close to panarchism! – J.Z., 16.2.09. - AUTONOMY & DIVERSITY

MINORITIES: While Socialism was the rallying philosophy of the wave of National Liberation of majority groups), libertarianism (*) could very well be adopted as the foundation of a new wave of 'Minority Separatism' which could bring the ancient nation-states crumbling into ruins." - NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, No. 51, Dec. 5, 1976. - Yes, as long as this separatism is not confined to the tribalism, parochialism and utopian territorial egalitarianism which most decentralists seem to have in mind. Or to any other form of territorialism. We can no longer afford to ignore the exterritorial alternatives. Our very survival is at stake and more of the same will not stop the trends towards holocaust - J.Z. 4.7.89, 15.2.09. – - (*) Libertarian exterritorial tolerance even for statist volunteers not only for all kinds of anarchists and libertarians! - J.Z., 3.1.11, 5.6.12. - MINORITY SEPARATISM, SECESSIONISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT. THE TERRITORIAL TARGETS MUST BE ELIMINATED TO PREVENT NUCLEAR WAR.

MINORITIES: Whoever restricts the rights of minorities forces society into forms of stagnation. – (“Wer Minderheiten in ihren Rechten einschraenkt, zwaengt die Gesellschaft in Formen der Erstarrung.”) – Karl-Hermann Flach, Noch eine Chance fuer die Liberalen, Eine Streitschrift, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1971, 1977, S.13. - PANARCHISM, STAGNATION, DEVELOPMENT, RIGHTS, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS OF ALL MINORITIES.

MINORITIES: Why do you and your old-style friends still seek to revive the LIBERUM VETO? Because the major problem of any free government is how to protect the responsible few from the pressures of the irresponsible many. Plato knew that. So did Cicero.” – James A. Michener, Poland, p.336. – To the extent that the "liberum veto" of a single polish aristocrat in the national assembly could stop an oppressive measure being applied against dissenters, it was panarchistic. But to the extent that it prevented it from being applied to those who desired it, it was anti-panarchistic. - J.Z., 3.4.89. - The territorial State allows either the majority to outvote minority rights or minorities to rule other minorities and the majority. The solution does not consist in granting veto rights to anyone but secession rights and exterritorial autonomy to all. The veto could also be misused by irresponsible individuals or minorities. – J.Z., 7.12.07. – Panarchists would not attempt to veto, territorially, the actions of others among their volunteers. They would only veto, or voluntarily accept the personal laws of other communities for their own community, depending on whether they dislike or oppose them or whether they find them rightful and useful. – A territorialist veto should be distinguished from an exterritorialist one. - J.Z., 19.2.09. VETO, MAJORITY, UNANIMITY, LIBERUM VETO, PANARCHISM, DIS.

MINORITIES: Why should a minority subordinate itself to the majority? This is apparently only a customary and fixed idea. Doesn’t the majority have anyhow many options to realize its aims at the own risk and expense, independent of those pursued by the minority? For this purpose it does not need a privilege towards the minority. Likewise, there is no justification for compelling the minority to act exactly like the majority does. – K. H. Z. Solneman, ZUR SACHE 3, S.6.

MINORITIES: Yet another corollary is equally conceivable to the Individualist, namely, that unrepresented or under-represented minorities should reassert the principle of no taxation without representation, refuse to pay their taxes or deny the Commissioners of Taxes some part of them, and try their strength in the Courts.” - Deryck Abel, Ernest Benn, Counsel for Liberty, p.76, quoting Benn. – That resistance does no go far enough. A minority might be fully represented but continuously outvoted. Then not a tax strike but only its secession would go far enough and would be quite right. – J.Z., 29.12.07. - TAX STRIKE

MINORITIES: Zaire, alone, in Africa, has already 40 different tribes, not to speak of religious and ideological groups. - Hint in Gordon Kent: Peace Maker, Harper Collins Publishers, 2000, p.447. - New Guinea has been described as the country with a thousand tribes. Little Benin, next to Togo, has ca. 50 different ethnic languages, as I read recently, in a newspaper article on a privately run railway service there. - J.Z., 20.10.11. – A common platform of exterritorial autonomy for all of them could hope for much support from many to most of them. – J.Z., 5.6.12. -THEIR SHEER NUMBER IN ALMOST ALL TERRITORIAL STATES POINTS AT THE WRONGS & ABSURDITIES OF TERRITORIALISM, INTERNATIONAL FOR PANARCHIES, ALL MINORITIES THAT WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

MINORITY AUTONOMY FOR ALL - EXCEPT THE INTOLERANT, FANATICS, TRUE BELIEVERS ETC.: Tolerance for all tolerant people and societies, intolerance only for all intolerant ones, those which try to extend their internal intolerance towards other societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers. – J.Z., 5.6.12.

MINORITY AUTONOMY OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL: All parties and other reform or revolutionary groups to gain experimental freedom or minority autonomy on an exterritorial autonomy or personal law basis, i.e. to attain the liberty to run their own programs among their own voluntary members, at their own risk and expense. Anyone to be free to secede from any of them and to join or form another such group. This experimental freedom would rapidly demonstrate e.g. which full employment program does work. - J.Z. 14.12.92.

MINORITY AUTONOMY RATHER THAN MAJORITY DESPOTISM: Not only the majority should get the government of its dream - but everybody should get his. - J.Z., 18.2.89, 3.4.89. – But only as a result of his or their corresponding efforts, not as a present. However, no one has the right to obstruct them in such efforts. – J.Z., 5.6.12.

MINORITY AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL, A CONFEDERATION OF ALL MINORITIES TOWARDS THIS AIM: Minorities of the world unite - in discussions, meetings and possibly even marches and demonstrations and resistance actions, to establish and protect individual secessionism and full exterritorial and voluntaristic autonomy for all who desire it. - J.Z., 8.9.88. - There is no better way to end most of the present frictions and clashes. - J.Z. 3.4.89. – PEACE, COEXISTENCE, HARMONY, MUTUALISM

MINORITY RIGHTS IN ESTONIA & OTHER STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: Minorities are only to be denied the right to become ruling majorities or minorities ruling majorities and other minorities but never the right to rule themselves, at their own expense and risk. They are to lose all privileges, monopolies and subsidies and to gain full self-government, self-determination etc., all exterritorially, under their own laws and institutions. Minorities ought to made enlightened enough to become the first to reject, together with all other minorities, territorial rule and territorial aspirations. - J.Z., n.d.

MINORITY SEPARATISM, SECESSIONISM: While Socialism was the rallying philosophy of the wave of National Liberation (of majority groups), libertarianism could very well be adopted as the foundation of a new wave of 'Minority Separatism' which could bring the ancient nation-states crumbling into ruins." - NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, No. 51, Dec. 5, 1976. - Yes, as long as this separatism is not confined to the tribalism, parochialism and utopian territorial egalitarianism, which most decentralists seem to have in mind or already strive for. We can no longer afford to ignore the exterritorial alternatives. Our very survival is at stake and more of the same will not stop the trends towards holocaust - J.Z. 4.7.89, 5.6.12.

MINORITY: Later in his essay he truly says that there is nothing inherently authoritative about a majority, but goes on to say THAT A MINORITY ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION ONLY IF THEY 'consider the decision as THEIRS'. - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p41, on Joseph Tussman, Obligation and the Body Politic, p.26.

MINORITY: Minorities should not be law-abiding but, rather, do their own thing - as long as they respect the rights and liberties of other individuals, minorities and majorities. - J.Z., 6.4.89. – They should only abide by their own and individually self-chosen personal law systems. - J.Z., 5.6.12.

MIRACLES: Here’s a toast to free men, the miracle workers!” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.49. - He should have put the term "miracle" in quotation marks. Free men would merely act normally and naturally and thus not create any artificial problems and crises for themselves. Laissez-faire, laissez passer: Let people produce and exchange. This would be quite natural and normal and also enlightening and wealth, peace, progress and justice promoting. No more political interventions, except among those foolish enough to want them for themselves. They would be the equivalent of religiously motivated flagellants. - Fools deserve a self-inflicted whipping! - J.Z., 4.1.11, 5.6.12.

MISES COMMUNITY, THE, The Mises Community, Definition of Panarchy (2008)

MISES INSTITUTE BLOG: On - - there is a short discussion of panarchy, mostly full of misunderstandings, but at least some unusual other terms are suggested. - J.Z., 1.10.11.

MISES OVER MARX: - Dangerous Buttons No. 247. - Mises for the Miseans, Marx for the Marxists and all other wise or foolish leaders or mis-leaders for those prepared to follow them. None of their teachings or doctrines should be imposed upon peaceful dissenters. - J.Z., 4.1.11.

MISES, LUDWIG von, no people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want." 1919.

MISES, LUDWIG von, SECESSION: offers presently quite a few books on secession. Most are favoring only territorial secession but some do go beyond it. - J.Z., 27.8.11. - E.g.: Secession, State, and Liberty [Paperback], David Gordon (Editor), 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews) | Like (0) $29.95 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping -25 of 27 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars - Secession is dead only if might makes right, August 19, 2002, By Andrew S. Rogers (Stamford, Connecticut) - See all my reviews - (TOP 500 REVIEWER) - (VINE VOICE) - (REAL NAME) - As editor David Gordon notes in his introduction, secession may be the most under-theorized concept in political science. - The last essay, Bruce Benson's look at arbitration as an alternative to state-run judicial systems in commerce and trade, provides a true-life example of a type of modern individual "secession," and recalls Mises' suggestion (quoted by several contributors) that the right to secession can ultimately be carried down to the community, home, and even individual level. Murray Rothbard reinforces this idea in "Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State." –ROTHBARD & DAVID GORDON

MISES, LUDWIG von, There are only few friends of tolerance left in the West" said Mises in Omnipotent Government, p.11, and perhaps none in the East. (Mises himself was, generally, not a friend of the degree of tolerance here advocated. However, see the quote above. – J.Z.) - SPREAD OF TOLERANCE:

MISES, LUDWIG von, With power comes the exercise of intolerance" - said Mises in "Socialism", p.189. - Exercising tolerance is the opposite of exercising power. - While tolerance means: no power over the affairs of others, it also means: full power over the own affairs. - J.Z., in pamphlet TOLERANCE. - However, a tolerant ruler or government, like a tolerant society, CAN become very influential. - J.Z., 15.10.11. - - INFLUENCE, TOLERANCE, POWER

MISES, LUDWIG VON: In 1919, Ludwig von Mises said that the idea of secession could make democracy pro-liberty. He proposed, as a restraint on civil government, that 'no people nor any part of a people shall be held in a political association it does not want.' Absurd, everyone said, but today we see that the principle of voluntary association is tenable and just." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., in speech, reproduced in CHALCEDON REPORT, July 1998, pp 21ff. - Did Mises consider the exterritorial secession and autonomy option anywhere in his writings? – J.Z., 17.9.04. – Perhaps in his remaining papers, which may not yet be published, there are some notes on the proposal of a former Austrian Prime Minister: “The idea of personal or non-territorial federalism had been propagated already at the beginning of the 20th century by the Austrian Social Democrat Karl Renner who tried to find a fair and democratic solution for the ethno-national diversity in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - The idea was to represent different nations at the state level in separate autonomous national councils.” – My father was also a panarchist and lived long in Austria. He was also a life-long collector of ideas, but he never pointed out that proposal to me. Neither did Ulrich von Beckerath, nor was a local computer expert from Austria familiar with it. – Gian Piero de Bellis, in a recent email, pointed this idea out to me and, like me, wants to know further details. He attached a 4 page report, which he will try to get permission to put online on his website: “FCT / SAI/ FES SEMINAR: “RIGHTS AND POWER SHARING MECHANISMS FOR NON TERRITORIAL MINORITY COMMUNITIES IN PROPOSED FEDERALLY RESTRUCTURED SRI LANKAN STATE”, (Colombo, 24.5.2003). - THE CONCEPT OF NON -TERRITORIAL FEDERALISM. - Welcome address by Mr. Dietmar Kneitschel, Resident Representative Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.“– Any large Austrian Library and library in Sri Lanka should have more on this proposal. – J.Z., 19.2.09. - See:  - SECESSIONISM & DEMOCRACY, FEDERALISM, EXTERRITORIALITY, NON-TERRITORIAL REPRESENTATION & AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM

MISSILE GAP: The supposed missile gap should be 100 %. Unilateral nuclear armament is the only moral thing to do with regard to these “weapons”. Nuclear missiles are only “weapons” for totalitarians. But we should have and use all kinds of other “missiles” directly or indirectly against the totalitarian decision-makers. They are not immune to knives, bullets, arrows, poisons or blows to the head with a mere hammer. Or to broadcasts of freedom ideas, rightful revolution and military insurrection and liberation ideas and proposals, governments in exile offering quite rightful war and peace-aims, all only for those, who would volunteer for them. Among their subjects there are many who strongly, although only secretly, disagree with them. They are our natural and secret allies. A panarchistic program could mobilize all the dissenters against tyrants and keep the peace among the dissenters. If any missiles were smart enough to wipe out only a tyrant and a few bystanders, their courtiers and guards, then I would be in favour of them. But to wipe out a whole capital city, in which they reside, is not justified but would just be another wrongful mass murder. - One should not act in even more totalitarian fashion against totalitarians than the totalitarians usually do. - The smartest “missiles” still seem to be those of sharpshooters. - Against totalitarian and dictatorial regimes we do need genuine liberation and revolution programs and ordinary weapons, that can be used with discrimination, more than we need nuclear missiles. (On Earth there is no rightful use of them at all! – J.Z., 5.6.12.) And we should regard and treat their military forces and civilians as our potential but still secret allies rather than irreconcilable enemies or obedient subjects of a despotic regime. Nevertheless, billions of taxpayers’ money have been spent on nuclear mass murder missiles and, to my knowledge, not a cent by tax payers or volunteers on liberation and revolution programs for freedom lovers. I have not found any worthwhile thoughts or writings on this subject - outside of those of Ulrich von Beckerath and my own. Prizes on the heads of all despotic or tyrannical rulers, combined with asylum and protection in anonymity offers for them, if they resign and flee, after rendering at least one mass extermination device useless! Their remaining voluntary followers should even be given the chance to continue their system among themselves, at their own risk and expense – in free competition with all other systems, i.e. without any territorial monopoly. – We should not force them into desperate resistance. – Practised only among their own volunteers, their system would have a much better chance, if it has any merits. – We will also continue to need deterrent examples to achieve sufficient enlightenment for all others. - J.Z., 21.3.89, 5.12.07. - - The notions of a nuclear deterrent do not seem to be deterred e.g. by the possibility of an accidental nuclear war, a computer mistake and that of quite mad rulers. – There exists no rightful target on Earth for nuclear “weapons”. - J.Z., 16.2.09. – Panarchism would remove the territorial targets for them, which were never rightful targets in the first place. – J.Z., 5.6.12. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH OR UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT? TYRANNICIDE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

MISSIONARIES IN CHINA: According to a hint, received probably from Dr. J. J. Martin, there were about 1000 missionaries in China who were, at least for a while, granted exterritorial status, too. I do not know whether this was independent of the exterritorial status of diplomats and of foreign concessions and territories in China. - J.Z., 13.1.93. – AUTONOMY OF MISSIONARIES IN CHINA.

MISTAKES, THE OWN MISTAKES, VS. THE EXAMPLE SET BY OTHERS: It is the true nature of mankind to learn from mistakes, not from example." - Fred Hoyle, Into Deepest Space. Panarchism maximizes both learning options. J.Z. 21.6.92.

MISTAKES: Each has the option of messing up his own life – but not anybody else’s.” – Stanley Schmidt, Moral Engineering, ANALOG editorial, Mid Sept. 82, p.9. - MESSING UP, ERRORS, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

MISTAKES: Everyone has the right to make mistakes, to try out his errors in practice - at his own expense and risk. - J.Z., in pamphlet on TOLERANCE.

MISTAKES: Freedom really means the freedom to make mistakes. (*) This we have to realize. We may be highly critical with regard to the way in which our fellow citizens are spending their money and living their lives. We may believe that what they are doing is absolutely foolish and bad, but in a free society, there are many ways for people to air their opinions on how their fellow citizens should change their ways of life. They can write books; they can write articles, they can make speeches; they can even preach at street corners if they want – and they do this, in many countries. But they must not try to police other people in order to prevent them from doing certain things simply because they themselves do not want these other people to have the freedom to do it.” – Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy, 22/23. - - (*) And the freedom to try to succeed. – J.Z. - AS A RIGHT & FREEDOM, FREEDOM TO ACT & TO EXPERIMENT

MISTAKES: From now on we are going to make our own mistakes. God knows enough have been made for us.” - La Donna Harris, a Red Indian, quoted in THE AUSTRALIAN, 10.11.72. – Perhaps some Red Indians can become interested in exterritorial autonomy for Red Indian volunteers? – J.Z., 19.2.09. - PANARCHISM

MISTAKES: Governments institutionalize mistakes, whereas the market eliminates them. Markets respond quickly to consumer demand, whereas governments don’t.” – John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.66. - Thus let us finally have a free market for "governmental" services as well, in all spheres. Under voluntarism, personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, this would be possible, rightful, rational and beneficial in every way for all participants, at least as a learning experience, and for those, who, for the time being, would abstain and merely observe such free experiments. - J.Z., 4.1.11. - THE MARKET, GOVERNMENT

MISTAKES: Human beings are, of course, fallible. We make mistakes by the carload, and not because of bad intentions. We make them because we do not know enough or cannot see in more than one direction at a time. We cannot even remember our past clearly, let alone predict our future. And yet, systemaphiles (system-mongers is possibly a better expression. – J.Z.) do not usually take into account the virtual certainty of error in human calculations. They unfold their plans as if errors were only an occasional defect in the edifice of human history, whereas Error is the name of the building itself.” – Neil Postman, Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, p.110. – Only when free to act and free to make mistakes can we hope to achieve many successes as well. – Territorial leaders are much less likely to learn from their mistakes. They rather look for “culprits” or “guilty” persons among the others, their victims. – Self-criticism is not their strength or habit. - J.Z., 2.7.92, 5.12.07, 4.1.11.. - ERRORS, PLANNING, COMMANDS, ORDERS, SYSTEM-MONGERS, TERRITORIALISM, DOMINATION, RULE, CONTROLS, LAWS, REGULATIONS

MISTAKES: I do not mind so much my own mistakes, made at my own expense, but I do mind mistakes made by others at my expense. – J.Z., 12.4.80. - Especially those made by territorial governments. - J.Z., 4.1.11.

MISTAKES: I have always thought mistakes should be remedied.” (*) – James Bond – George Lazenby, in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Services”. - (*) Whenever this is possible. There are some that cannot be undone or properly indemnified. – Can we undo or remedy all the damages done by allowing territorial governments to go on and on, at our risk and expense? - J.Z., 4.12.07. - All we can do and should do is to finally end the wrongs, messes and damages caused by territorialism, its numerous wrongful impositions. - J.Z., 4.1.11. – How all nationalized and otherwise statized property could be returned to the people has been described in some details in PEACE PLANS 19 C. – It is online a part of a CD at - J.Z., 5.6.12. - REMEDIES, INDEMNIFICATION, MAKING GOOD

MISTAKES: If man has a natural right to make his own blunders, it is no business of government to save men from themselves.” - John Bowle, Political Opinion in the 19th Century, p.229. - If competing or voluntary governments, ruling only over voluntary victims, continue with their mistakes, then these are self-inflicted punishments and it is not the business of outsiders to save them from themselves, except by good advice or by setting sound examples of alternatives. - J.Z., 4.1.11. - MISTAKES AS A RIGHT, PROTECTION

MISTAKES: If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.” – Jacob Hornberger (1995). – Naturally, only at the own expense and risk. - J.Z., 4.1.11. - In such all too general terms many libertarians are also panarchists. But they would probably deny it – if you held them to their words - or find excuses. – "I did not mean it like that! - J.Z., 19.2.09. - RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, RESPONSIBLY, FREE CHOICE, DECISION-MAKING, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

MISTAKES: No man ever became great or good except through many and great mistakes.” – William E. Gladstone, quoted in ANALOG, 3/97. – Mistakes serve us well enough only if we understand them and learn from them enough. Territorial governments seem to be unable to do this. – J.Z., 30.11.07 – They do commit the same wrongs and harmful as well as irrational actions, legalized by them, over and over again, for centuries. Moreover, they deny the right of their victims to secede from them. - J.Z., 4.1.11. - SUCCESS, GREATNESS, TERRITORIALISM

MISTAKES: The physician can bury his mistakes, but the architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.” - Frank Lloyd Wright – The own mistakes, at the own expense, should be tolerated by others, just as we should tolerate their mistakes made at their own expense. But mistakes that wrong or harm others do require indemnification and should, as far as possible, be prevented in the first place, e.g. through panarchism. – J.Z., 8.8.08. - MISTAKES, TOLERATION, INDEMNIFICATION, PANARCHISM, JOKES

MISTAKES: The right to be wrong is fundamental throughout the cosmos.” – Robert Sheckley, Dimension of Miracles, p.21. – That applies without qualifications only to acts undertaken at the own risk and expense. If others are wronged or harmed in the process then indemnifications become due. By acting mainly not territorially, upon involuntary victims but exterritorially, among like-minded people, wronging others and thereupon owing indemnification, will become relatively rare. – J.Z., 8.12.07. - ERRORS, WRONGS, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, PANARCHISM

MISTAKES: When people are free to make their own mistakes they learn from them and then get things right. Only people can save themselves, according to their own lights." - Margaret Thatcher, National Press Club, Washington, 1975. - That general formulas does not clearly include and express the required details is clearly shown by numerous such statements made by people with no notion of panarchy and opposed to it when it has been described to them. - J.Z. 8.4.89. - Thatcher did not apply the panarchist solution to the Falklands Islands, either and, obviously, not to the dissenters in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, not to speak of the numerous other minority groups in the rest of the U.K. - J.Z., 6.9.04. - Rulers always think that their territorial subjects should have to put up with all the mistakes the rulers make and all the wrongs they commit and should not be free to secede from them and to peacefully compete with them or go on a tax strike towards them. - J.Z., 4.1.11. - But in one of her books she mentions at least one alternative institutions effort in the Balkans. – J.Z., 5.6.12. - MISTAKES AT THE OWN EXPENSE, LEARNING FROM ONE’S MISTAKES - AT THE OWN EXPENSE, PANARCHISM

MISTAKES: Wise men learn by other men’s mistakes, fools by their own.” – H. G. Bohn. – Alas, even wise men make mistakes but do learn from them. Fools make more mistakes and do not sufficiently learn from them. – We should be quite free to make our own mistakes or to enjoy our own improvements, even to the extent of establishing or joining communities of like-minded people, who want to practise or experiment with their own kinds of political, economic and social systems in form of whole communities or societies, as long as they do not claim any territorial monopoly for themselves. Complete free choice, freedom of action, free enterprise, free trade and consumer sovereignty in these spheres as well! Why should we ever have come to believe that there they cannot be rightfully, rationally and beneficially applied? - J.Z., 6.12.07. - & PANARCHISM, DIS.

MISTAKES: You say that I would do better to follow a given career, to work in a given way, to use a steel plow 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.” – Bastiat, in G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone. - - All errors are interrelated and all truths as well. All have so many aspects and relationships that they can hardly become fully stated with a few words. – J.Z., 6.12.07. - MAKING ONLY THE OWN MISTAKES RATHER THAN THOSE ORDERED BY OTHERS, SELF-DETERMINATION, FREE CHOICE, MARKET RELATIONSHIPS VS. PRIVILEGES, PLUNDER & COERCION, FREEDOM, ADVICE, LEGISLATION, KNOWLEDGE, EXPERTS, TYRANNY, PREJUDICES, FREEDOM OF ACTION, COMMAND ECONOMY, DICTOCRACY, CENTRAL PLANNING & DIRECTION, LEADERSHIP, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, DIS.

MITCHELL, CHRISTOPHER R.: Accepting Separatism: New Models and New Opportunities, 3pp, from CCAR NEWSLETTER, August 1990, 177, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051.

MITCHELL, JOHN: World Government is Anti-Christian, New Times Ltd., Melbourne, an 8 pp pamphlet that advocates, among other things, secession on page 5: "... the right of the minority to contract out, without penalty for doing so."

MIXED COURTS & MIXED CASES: [Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.] Also note that often so-called "mixed courts" for "mixed cases" were established in order to handle the multiplicity of various laws in one particular location. Such mixed courts would be a very practical solution, especially for really small extraterritorial communities or for widely dispersed extraterritorial communities. Some jurists obviously knew more than one system of law at that time as well (something also Liu notes in several places). - RCBJ in his review of SHI SHUN LIU's book. - JURISDICTION, PERSONAL LAW, CAPITULATIONS

MIXED COURTS: By the treaty of February 24, 1606, between Henry IV of France and James I of England, it was arranged that all commercial disputes involving nationals of one party in certain portions of the other should be heard and decided by a mixed tribunal, composed of four merchants, two French and two English. ... In case they could not agree, they should choose a French merchant if it was in France, or an English merchant if it was in England,"so that  the Judgment pass'd by the Plurality of Voices shall be follow'd and put in execution." These merchant judges were to be known as “Conservators of Commerce", and in each country the two foreign Conservators were to be appointed by their Ambassador. 3 Later, the system was altered in such a way that no foreign merchants were to have jurisdictional rights in either country, the ambassador or his deputy only being permitted to "assist at any Judgment and Trials whatsoever which concern the Goods and Life of a Subject of his Prince, and especially when a Definitive Judgment is to be made or pass’d. 4 - - 3 Arts. 7, 8, 9.  A General Collection of Treatys  (London,  I772). vol. ii, pp. 150-151. -  - 4 Art. 43, ibid., p. 175. – LIU, ibid, page 38.

MIXED COURTS: See: FERAUD-GIRAUD, L.J.D.: Les Justices Mixtes dans lea Pays hors Chretienite, Paris, 1834. See: HOLLINGTON K. TONG, "The Shanghai Mixed Court and the Settlement Extension," Millard's Review: vol. x, pp. 445-454; also Lei Kuo Tsai Hua Ling Ssu Tsai Pan Chunn Chili Yao (a resume of the extraterritorial rights enjoyed by the Powers in China), published by the Commission on Extraterritoriality, appendix i. pp. 23 et seq. – Quoted in LIU, ibid.

MIXED ECONOMY: No mixed economy can help being a mix-up. – J.Z., 16.4.77. – Panarchism would allow individuals and minorities to un-mix themselves from the general territorial messes imposed so far upon all the people in a territory. – J.Z., 7.12.07.

MIXON, J. WILSON, Private Means, Public Ends: Voluntarism vs. Coercion. - By J. Wilson Mixon (ed). -

MOB: I wish men to be free, as much from mobs s kings – from you as from me.” – Lord Byron. – Majority despotism is also a despotism. Any majority has only the right to rule or manage itself, according to its own ideas and opinions. – J.Z., a

MODELS, THE OTHER MODEL, THE OTHER OPTION: If and to the extent that we are able to consider our own political ideals as mere models, we should be able to consider, at least theoretically and as observers of historical precedents, or as an entertaining game or in an attempt to describe by contrast, or for futuristic speculations, those models which are quite different or opposite, in several ways, to our own preferred political model and to the conventional territorial models. And if we claim to be reasonable and capable of objectivity, then we should also be able to judge the characteristics of these different models somewhat fairly. Seeing how large human ingenuity is, how large the time span for experimentation was and how many different societies experimented with different models, we should even expect that models have existed, and have been recorded, somewhere by someone, whose characteristics are quite opposite to those of our ideals. And let us furthermore assume, that they did at least temporarily satisfy all those who voluntarily participated in them. Panarchies provide frameworks for all different models, all supported by volunteers only. Actually, it does not oppose our favorite and more or less idealized models but provides a framework for all but totalitarian ideals. And even these could be practised, to some extent, panarchistically, i.e., among volunteers and thus quite tolerantly, at least towards non-members. - Even the Nazis and Soviets, apart from their territorial monopoly claims, were not always aggressive, everywhere and towards everyone. - J.Z., 92, & 4.1.93, 9.12.03. - THE OTHER MODEL, THE OTHER OPTION, PANARCHISM, ALTERNATIVE SOCIETIES

MODERATES: Though they seem at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end.  It is the fanatic and the moderate who are poles apart and never meet.” - Eric Hoffer. - Fanatics and moderates still have the absolute power of territorialism as their common practice and ideal. - J.Z., 22.8.02. - VS. FANATICS & TERRITORIALISM

MODERATION: Moderate reformers always hate those who go beyond them.” – J. A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, Lecture 20. – To each kind of reformer his own kind of reforms, at his expense and risk and that of his voluntary followers. The same to any radical and extremist. Exterritorial autonomy and voluntary membership in communities, societies and governments or States makes that possible. Only territorialism, coercively upheld, makes it impossible. – J.Z., 19.12.07. - HATE, REFORMERS, RADICALS, REFORMERS, TOLERANCE

MODERATION: Moderation is a fatal thing, Lady Hunstanton. (*) - Nothing succeeds like excess. – Lord Illingworth.” – Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900, A Woman of no Importance, Act 1. – Hyman Quotes, p.406. – Another hint refers to Act III. - - Nothing fails like excess, either. – All reformers and revolutionaries should moderate - and also radicalize - their demands, confining it - and also extending it - to full exterritorial autonomy for themselves – as well as for all others. – That would be a very radical departure from the present immoderate, wrongful and coercive, although legalized, territorialism. - J.Z., 19.12.07, 6.6.12 . – I would also be a compromise that should suffice to satisfy every moral and rational being, who has explored this freedom option from all angles. – J.Z., 25.12.07. – (*) Do not try merely moderate resistance against a murder attempt. – J.Z., 6.6.12. - COMPROMISES, MIDDLE WAY, PANARCHISM, REVOLUTIONS, REFORMS, - DIS.

MODERATION: Most people want even freedom only in moderate doses. – J.Z., 28.11.75. – That would do no wrong or harm to others, if the all too limited freedom choices of such people would not also be territorially imposed upon all others. Exterritorially everyone could have as few or as many liberties as he wants for himself, among like-minded associates. – J.Z., 7.12.07. – MORALLY, this amounts to the exterritorial imperative for individuals and communities of volunteers. In common language: Do your own things and let other people do theirs. Nobody is to interfere with the lives of others. Let them make their own decisions – and suffer or enjoy the consequences. – J.Z., 28.12.11. - DIS.

MODERATION: The moderate are not usually the most sincere, for the same circumspection which makes them moderate makes them likewise retentive of what could give offense.” – Walter Savage Landor, “Diogenes & Plato”, Imaginary Conversations, 1824-53. – The exterritorial autonomy option for voluntary communities, makes them radical in their independence but moderate by confining all their activities and reforms to their own affairs. They compromised by confining all their reform affairs to their own affairs, at the own expense and risk, but in doing so, they may run them radically differently from the ways in which the remaining citizens of the old regime continue to live, as long as they are prepared to put up with it. I.e., they are radical moderates or radical compromisers. New words have to be coined to sufficiently describe that condition of tolerant actions and institutions of great diversity. – Panarchism and Polyarchism are two such terms. – J.Z., 13.12.07. - DIS.

MODUS VIVENDI: At a time when large territories can be depopulated with a single weapon, no territorial settlement of antagonistic movements offers a modus vivendi. On the contrary. The territorial division of potential enemies leads to the construction, storage in readiness and finally the use of these "weapons". Only exterritorial autonomy separatism under personal laws would remove target areas for mass extermination devices all over the world. - J.Z., n.d., & 20.12.07. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, PEACE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, WAR & TERRITORIALISM

MOHAMMED: See: Koran. He recognized a degree of autonomy for all peoples who had a "holy book".  This was expressed later by the millet system or djimmis. Islam also invented the head tax, of a gold piece per annum, on each member of such tolerated autonomous communities, which gave the central ruler a financial interest in upholding this tolerance for different communities. However, the chore of digging out such liberating and protective practices out of the mass of merely religious revelations, assertions, preachings and dogmas - I do gladly leave to others. - J.Z., 14.9.04. – I found not sufficient tolerance, justice, peace, economic, social and political thinking in any religion that I encountered. They haven’t even learned from the examples set by religious tolerance or religious freedom to apply the same tolerance in the political, social and economic systems spheres. – J.Z., 6.6.12. - RELIGIONS, ISLAM

MOHR, RICK: The Alternative Society, article in "THARUNKA", Univ. of NSW Student Paper, 24.2.1970, p.8, describes the underground community as an alternative society.

MOLESTATIONS: For belief or practice in religion (*) ... no man ought to be punished or molested by any outwards force on earth whatsoever." - John Milton, Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes. - (*) and in politics, economics and ideology. - J.Z., 4.4.89. – TERRITORIALISM, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

MOLINARI INSTITUTE - USA: (Online Library) - November 2005. - - - It offers the on-line texts of Gustave de Molinari and much more. - GPdB, hint. - One of the best libertarian sites that I know of, providing numerous digitized important libertarian texts. - Many of them are relevant to the issues raised by panarchism, polyarchism, multi-government and exterritorially free communities and societies. - It offers also a large batch of anti-copyrights web references. - J.Z. 26.9.11. - It made my day, when I discovered it. - J.Z., 20.10.11. - Institute Molinari - Europe [October 2004] - Plein de documents fort intéressants. - GPdB reference

MOLINARI, GUSTAVE de, If de Puydt is the originator, in modern times, of the term Panarchy, the first to put forward in writings the proposal of competing governments was Gustave de Molinari, an economist of the classical liberal tradition, and editor of the Journal des Économistes from 1881 until 1909. - In an essay that appeared in October 1849 he expressed his conviction that security is a service that, like all the others, can be provided by agencies freely chosen by individuals, competing amongst each other and attracting customers on the basis of the quality of their performances (commitment and results). - Gustave de Molinari, On the Production of Security - - In a book with the title Les soirées de la Rue Saint-Lazare, 1849 (The Evenings of the Rue Saint-Lazare), consisting of a series of conversations between three individuals having different worldviews (a conservative, a socialist and an economist), Gustave de Molinari, who plays the role of the economist, had already openly proclaimed his demands for the introduction of “free governments” and by that he means “governments whose services I can accept or refuse according to my free will.” (Eleventh Evening) - - And the rationale behind it is that, with the end of state monopoly and the development of competition, the price of services (first of all security) “would always be reduced to the level of the costs of production” because “each person would contract with the company which inspired in him the greatest confidence and whose conditions appeared the most favourable.” - Gustave de Molinari, The Evenings of the rue Saint-Lazare (eleventh evening) - Gian Piero de Bellis, in his "On Panarchy".

MOLINARI, GUSTAVE de, On the Production of Security. - Gustave de Molinari, On the Production of Security (1849) [English] January 2009. Also: - Gustave de Molinari, De la production de la sécurité (1849) [Français] Janvier 2009. - Should the translation start with "On the" or with "The"? - J.Z.

MOLINARI, GUSTAVE de, The Evenings in the Rue Saint-Lazare. - Gustave de Molinari, Les Soirées de la Rue Saint-Lazare, Septième Soirée (1849) [Français] Janvier 2009 - Gustave de Molinari, Les Soirées de la Rue Saint-Lazare, Onzième Soirée (1849) [Français] Janvier 2009. - Gustave de Molinari, The Evenings of the Rue Saint-Lazare, Eleventh Evening (1849) [English] April 2009.

MOLINARI, GUSTAVE DE: The Production of Security" & Panarchism: This essay, 17pp, with 2pp preface by Murray N. Rothbard, was fiched in PEACE PLANS 320. It discusses competing protective agencies but only as if they might always operate only as separate and special free enterprises and thus might not offer more or less comprehensive and wanted societal services in package deals, as territorial governments try to do. His proposals amount more to competing enterprises in every sphere rather than competing governments. He may have elaborated this idea more in others of his writings. Only a few seem to be translated so far, e.g., his "The Society of the Future, a forecast of its political and economic organization", translated by P. H. Lee Warner, 256 pages, reproduced in PEACE PLANS 481. Dr. David Hart is a specialist on Molinari, has many of his works, mostly in French and wrote a dissertation on him. At the University of NSW I once saw a very long bibliography of Molinari. Perhaps someone will one day get around to extract all his panarchistic ideas from his writings and translate them at least into English. I fiched some of his French titles. See my main literature list. Perhaps Dr. David Hart has already got around to digitize some of his French writings. -  I do not remember clear passages of his in favor of individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy - but, most likely, they can be found in his writings. - J.Z., 28.8.04. - The Production of Security, Centre of Libertarian Studies, 1977(?). This and related works by G. M. were discussed in a thesis by Dr. David Hart, reproduced by LMP.

MOMMSEN ET MARQUARDT, Manuel des antiquités romaines. (Paris, 1888-1907), vol. iii (Mommsen, Le Droit public romain, vol. iii), p. 225. – Liu, Exterritoriality, page 25. See: Rome & Peregrinus.

MONARCHISM: I know of many great wrongs committed by our “great” political parties and their government or opposition leaders. However, most of them have been committed quite legally, simply by legalizing them. But I do not know of a single crime that our Queen has committed against us. Do you? The Queen is one of our most important safeguards against all too power-hungry and abusive territorial politicians. She has the power to recall the bastards and thus to call for a new election, directly or through her Governors. – To that extent, as an anarchist and panarchist, I am in favour of constitutional monarchism rather than unlimited republican but territorial powers for politicians, which they strive to achieve via turning Australia into a Republic. It would merely mean: More power to the politicians and less to those they role over. – The terms “self-government” and “self-determination” are abused under territorialism. They do pretend that “the people” or “the population” of a territory are a genuine self or uniform entity, one with genuine individual rights and liberties or that “their” supposed representatives, at best merely representing the opinions of the majorities that elected them, would or could represent the whole of the population, while in reality, these politicians do primarily only represent their own individual interests and power addiction. – However, all those, who consider themselves to be democrats or republicans should be free to rule themselves or be ruled in whichever form they prefer for themselves, under full exterritorial autonomy. They, too, do not have a right to a territorial monopoly. - J.Z., 18.11.97, 30.11.07, 28.12.11. - POWER, CRIMES, QUEEN, KING, POLITICIANS, PEOPLE, POPULATION, TERRITORIALISM, REPRESENTATION, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION.

MONARCHISM: I trust the British Queen, restricted to her present powers, more than I’d trust any of the elected politicians, with his present or even still more powers. We are back to the times when monarchs were the last resort to uphold some basic rights and liberties of oppressed citizens, against rapacious, dishonest and power-hungry aristocrats, who ignored the rights and liberties of their subjects although they were also supposed to be their protectors. – Don’t vote in any new and irresponsible powers over you. – Their present ones are already excessive and, largely, wrongfully used. – J.Z., 10.7.99, 4.12.07, 28.12.11. – CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY VS. MODERN TERRITORIALIST & ABSOLUTIST REPUBLICANISM

MONARCHISM: I’d rather have a widely respected constitutional monarch with limited veto powers as the supreme leader or head of State than any temporary political hack, selected and appointed by a political party, or voted in by the majority of prejudiced and under-informed voters, usually only another ambitions power addict. A constitutional monarch is far less subject to “politics as usual”, if at all. – J.Z., 7.11.94, 4.12.07, 28.12.11. - REPUBLICANISM

MONARCHISM: Quesnay is likewise of the opinion that government should be centralized in a single person.” – M. Beer, An Inquiry into Physiocracy. – He had a point: One person is easier to enlighten, replace or to execute than are a million bureaucrats and many millions of ignorant and prejudiced voters, all with territorial powers and vested interests and all too many popular prejudices. – J.Z., 17.8.94, 4.12.07. – However, it would be more just, peace promoting and liberating to grant individual full individual sovereignty or consumer sovereignty towards all kinds of governance, community and societies, all peacefully competing with each other for members or subscribers. In this way progress, enlightenment and prosperity would also be advanced as much as is possible for human beings. – J.Z., 6.6.12.  GOVERNMENT, CENTRALIZATION, TYRANNY & DEMOCRACY

MONARCHISM: Rather only one monarch than millions trying to stand over me, with their votes and their beloved statist institutions and laws. – I would not have much of a chance to reason with a monarch – but I would have even less of a chance to reason with millions of average guys to bring them to respect my individual rights and liberties. – The remaining monarchs are constitutional monarchs and not as full, as a rule, of popular errors, myths and prejudices as most of their subjects are. – They do much less wrong and harm, if any, than their Prime ministers, ministers and legislators do. - J.Z., 9.3.77, 7.12.07. – PRIME MINISTERS, LEGISLATORS, REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS, PRESIDENTS, KINGS, QUEENS, PRINCES

MONARCHISM: Some people have a soul as dead they prefer a monarch at their head.” – Seen as a home-made car-sticker, 22.11.99. – Some men still love their wives as their head. – Should they have that choice or not? Who would still be as mad to want a politician or a bureaucrat as his head? Anyhow, to each his own “great leader” or his own form of self-government or self-management. No one has the right to interfere with the affairs of others, least of all a pompous and powerful bureaucrat or politician, as far as the affairs of others than their own volunteers are concerned. “To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!” – J.Z., 22.11.99, 28.12.11. - PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS & OF FREE SOCIETIES, DIS., REPUBLICANISM

MONARCHISM: The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other.” – Walter Bagehot: The English Constitution: The Monarchy. - Monarchism rests on the serious error that one man could have sufficient insight into the affairs of millions of others to be able to run them better than these millions could themselves. – J.Z., 4.4.89 - - But who really needs or wants a strong government? Those foolish enough to do so should be able to have it, exterritorially – but then they should leave all others alone, to do their own things to or for themselves. - - Did any strong monarchy ever cause rapid progress? – And did any strong monarch ever understand the mass of mankind or even the mass of his own subjects? And how much of the social sciences and of all individual rights and liberties did any one of them ever understand? - J.Z., 6.12.07. - DIS. – KINGS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, FREE CHOICE AMONG ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES – FOR INDIVIDUALS. KNOWLEDGE

MONARCHISM: The English constitutional monarchy is rather an anarchy with regard to my own affairs – so limited or absent it is for me and most other Australians as well. It is the republican freebooters, that do already exist, and their vast powers, going beyond constitutional monarchism, that threaten my property, liberty and life in numerous ways. – J.Z., 3.6.93, 28.12.11. – These politicians want even more wrongful powers in their hands and to abolish completely the limited restrictions of their powers - through governors still formally appointed by the Queen, but, as far as I know, only upon recommendation by the ruling politicians. A few times these governors have prevented ruling politicians from continuing with their wrongs. – Whitlam’s regime, for instance, was replaced by the then Governor General, Mr Kerr, – and this decision was confirmed by the subsequent land-slide victory for the opposition. – Whitlam wanted even the Governor General to toe the party line of the ALP. Well, Kerr, as Governor General, was man enough not to do so. - J.Z., 4.12.07. – Panarchism means among other things: monarchism for monarchists and republics for republicans. – J.Z., 19.2.09, 28.12.11. - MONARCHISM VS. REPUBLICANISM, PANARCHISM

MONARCHISM: the long survival of the British monarchy is probably attributable to the fact that the King reigns but does not rule!” - John Gall, Systemantics, p.76. – This book does also contain a chapter on panarchism, using unique terms. – J.Z. - ENGLAND, RULE, KING, QUEEN, CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

MONARCHISM: The Queen does not tax me. She has no destructive political powers over me or anyone else. She does not threaten my life, rights or liberties. So why should I prefer a politician over the Queen? – J.Z., 28.12.93. – She acts more anarchistically towards me than does any politician and bureaucrat. – J.Z., 3.12.07. - THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND VS. REPUBLICANISM, POLITICIANS, ANARCHISM

MONARCHISM: The territorial monopolization of experimentation in the political, economic and social spheres is a remnant of the tyranny of absolute monarchism. So is the monopoly of decision-making on war and peace, armament and disarmament, military and police organization and on international treaties and negotiations. Obviously, in these spheres the freedom of experimentation for dissenters would require full exterritorial autonomy for them – or call it fully free enterprise and competition, or consistent pluralism or polyarchism. Once the nonconformists are freed to opt out in this way, to do their own things to or for themselves, under exterritorial autonomy, then the remaining and formerly exclusive governments would, in practice, be reduced to voluntary associations, too, striving to serve their remaining customers better than their competitors, in order to survive or gain more customers. It would no longer be “politics as usual” but, rather, “business as usual”. –

The statist war machines would be largely put out of business, unless they could still find enough prejudiced and fanatic supporters. Against these, ideal militia forces of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties should be raised and sufficiently trained and suitably arm themselves, locally organized and internationally federated. Then national and civil wars could become reduced to rightful and limited police actions against genuine criminals with victims. – However, there is nothing wrong even with any kind absolute monarchism and despotism over voluntary victims only. Let these statists, traditionalists, reactionaries etc. do all their things among themselves, let these sadists deal with these masochists! - J.Z., 28.7.93, 7.1. 99, 28.12.11. - PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

MONARCHISM: While the people and, ultimately, all individuals of a population, have no veto power over our power- and tax-hungry territorial politicians, at least a constitutional and limited monarch should have such a veto power. – J.Z., 28.7.94. – The more often he or she would exercise it, to uphold individual rights and liberties, the better. – J.Z., 4.12.07, 28.12.11.

MONARCHISM: You can take monarchism out of the voters, but you can’t take it out of the politicians, since each politician – however ignorant, prejudiced and mediocre he is - wants to be the “top dog”, top man, or, nowadays, the top woman. Never mind their republican pretences. – J.Z., 26.10.93, 28.12.11. – In reality they do even now still strive towards royal absolutism, while the remaining royals have long been content with constitutional monarchism. – Some do even pretend still, that they are “divinely” inspired”, which is a sure indication of madness, at least to me. - J.Z., 3.12.07, 28.12.11. – POLITICIANS, ROYALISM, POWER, TERRITORIALISM

MONASTERIES: The self-chosen prisons of the faithful. Well, at least they don’t leave many descendants – and thus make mankind gradually much more human. – J.Z., 17.5.92, 8.12.07. – However, they are also, in some respects, limited panarchies. – J.Z., 16.2.09, 28.12.11. - NUNNERIES, PANARCHISM

MONETARY DESPOTISM: Democratize money. Repeal the central bank's issue monopoly. Repeal the legal tender power for its paper money. Abolish monetary despotism. Establish monetary freedom. Until this is done no other liberties and rights will be complete and secure. Pluralism and free choice and competition and voluntary rather than enforced collaboration, voluntary rather than enforced exchange media and standards are the solution. Monetary despotism has held sway over us for thousands of years, like slavery did - and enforced tribute payments or tax slavery still do. We ought to replace them by monetary emancipation or monetary freedom and voluntary taxation. We could either aim at these important but limited objectives directly or could realize them indirectly through achieving free choice of governments, or competing governments - and free societies, all based upon individual secessionism and voluntary membership, made possible through exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, with their long history and experience, however neglected they still are at present. Then the realization of monetary freedom in at least one of the resulting "panarchies", formed e.g., by some limited government libertarians or some of the no-government anarchists, could easily be achieved by and for them too. It would be up to others to imitate their successful examples or not. - J.Z., 11.4.93, 27.5.97, 6.6.12. - DEMOCRACY, MONETARY LIBERATION OR –EMANCIPATION, DENATIONALIZATION OF MONEY, PANARCHISM

MONETARY DESPOTISM: Governments can only be trusted to depreciate their currencies, not to preserve their value. – J.Z., 4.3.01. – But we can also trust in them to at least now and then produce a deflation with them. All governmental exclusive and forced currencies deserve only one thing: Extreme distrust and, thereupon, their abolition for all their involuntary victims and the reduction of their use to all their remaining voluntary adherents and victims. – We should all be free to secede from them and to monetarily emancipate ourselves in whichever way we do prefer for ourselves. - J.Z., 6.10.08, 6.6.12. - CENTRAL BANKING, MONETARY LEGISLATION, GOVERNMENTS, TRUST, CONFIDENCE, DISTRUST

MONETARY DESPOTISM: We have the spectacle of the world's economists gathering in discussion only of what form state regulation of the monetary system should take.” - Henry- Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 12/74. - That is like political scientists discussing exclusively despotic regimes. Actually, they do, by exclusively discussing only territorial political regimes that are, because of their territorialism, inherently despotic, even totalitarian. See my ON PANARCHY series. - J.Z., 21.3.97, 5.1.11. – Alas, Meulen, too, when it comes to monetary freedom, discussed only his own and all too limited view of it and ignored or did not sufficiently respond to objections to them. – J.Z., 28.12.11. - & THE SUPPOSED EXPERTS, CENTRAL BANKING

MONETARY FREEDOM & PANARCHISM: It is one significant step of "opting out", 34, 54, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. - Compare my Free Banking A to Z and my Free Banking Bibliography on Both are already very long but still do need much in additional input and in corrections from many others. Governments and their librarians and consultants won't do this job for us. Instead, governments continue to abuse their central banking powers, knowing nothing better and do not wish to learn about the sound and rightful alternatives to it. - In this respect, too, they are among the "unteachable" "know it-alls" who know next to nothing of what is really right, liberating or otherwise important. - J.Z., 20.10.11, 6.6.12.

MONETARY FREEDOM: 6.) Illegal private issues could be used for well publicized test cases. But under the present threat of high fines they would better be terminated fast. {Unless governments do consider them to be insignificant in their turnovers, as most of them are. – J.Z., 6.6.12.] 7.) In times of credit restrictions and currency famine, the associations of retailers could publicly declare how many million dollars in short term loans they could and would make available to pay employees with - if they were permitted to make them using shop currencies for this purpose. 8.) The search and exploration of loopholes in the restrictive monetary legislation should never cease (as it does never ceases for tax loopholes). The Australian store currencies exploited one such loophole and to my knowledge do so still. Although at present they may only be issued in consumer credits, their example and practice could easily be expanded to turn them into a general wage and salary payment means - if only the legal obstacles are removed or can safely be ignored, under certain conditions, some of these being a large degree of unemployment, rapid action by a sufficient number of people, good publicity and proximity of the next elections. In periods of large-scale unemployment large scale breaches of the restrictions, which would lead to rapid re-integration of ten-thousands if not hundred-thousands of unemployed, back into the process of production and exchange, taking them off the rolls of social service and unemployment agencies of the government, would, probably, not lead to prosecution in our political climate. Our politicians would, obviously, lose too many votes if they tried to strictly apply the repressive monetary laws these “offenders” and thereby rendered these people unemployed again. This was not the intention of the legislation and thus some courageous Australian judges might throw out charges arising out of breaches of these laws, as being opposed to the true meaning of THE LAW and the intention of the legislators or even merely as being "Un-Australian". 9.) Last, not least, there remains the possibility of individual secession from any government practising monetary despotism. Even the conventional territorial secession movements grow rapidly in times of severe depressions and inflations, while by their very nature (their own exclusive territorial and domination claims) they do create enemies against themselves. The individual secessionist, quite obviously, threatens no one and so he has a better chance to get away with it - at least once the morality and the advantages of individual secession are more thoroughly and publicly discussed than was the case so far. - J.Z. file: Unemployment incomplete comb of old files - SOME START-UP OPTIONS - Where are points 1-5? Under Start-up options? FB AZ? Still to be dug up!

MONETARY FREEDOM: I favour the free market especially in the monetary sphere – to overcome unemployment, inflation and poverty. – J.Z., 23.4.75. – Also in the sphere of free choice for individuals among all kinds of political, economic and social systems, a choice that belongs also to consumer sovereignty, free associationism, freedom of contracts and free enterprise, a still widely neglected aspect of “laissez-faire” and that has e.g. been called panarchism or polyarchism, manarchy or personarchy. – This free and self-responsible reorganization of society into all kinds of voluntary communities under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, including, naturally all the monetary and financial freedom rights their members desire and want to practise among themselves, would also abolish wars, civil wars, revolutions, through their very nature, and also, largely, involuntary poverty, through the experimental freedom it would introduce for all attempts to do away with such problems and partly already. - J.Z., 6.10.08. – PANARCHISM

MONETARY FREEDOM: Issue and accept your own sound money and clearing tokens and refuse to accept the bad money of governments altogether or at their face value. Price out all your goods, services, labour and credit or debt contracts in those sound value standards that you trust, the value standard of your own choice, but payable in any acceptable means of exchange, valued in accordance with the value standard you have chosen. – Then many problems that territorial governments were and are quite unable to solve with their kinds of monetary despotism, will soon become solved. – J.Z., 27.2.07, 25.10.07. - FREE BANKING

MONETARY FREEDOM: Monetary crises, like deflations and inflations with their mass unemployment happen again and again only because the unemployed themselves, the employers, the retailers, and all others suffering under monetary despotism, are ignorant of it, and its consequences and of its alternative, monetary freedom, disinterested in them and inclined to uphold with their popular errors, myths, prejudices and fallacies rather monetary despotism than push for full monetary and financial freedom. Insofar they supply the sanction of the victims. But politicians and government consultants make money and gain or retain power and influence by upholding monetary and financial despotism rather than their opposites. Thus the sanction of the victims and vested interests maintain monetary and financial despotism and their consequences. The territorial State model, all too fixed in most heads still, like slavery and monarchism once were and feudalism and its serfdom, also helps to uphold monetary despotism because under it monetary and financial freedom experiments among communities of volunteers are prohibited – together with all such exterritorially autonomous communities under personal laws. – Moreover, we have not yet compiled or agreed upon a human rights declaration, which would also contain all monetary, financial and other economic rights and liberties as well as the panarchistic ones. – In that respect we are still in the Dark Ages and the Age of Enlightenment has not yet started. - J.Z., 29.12.92, 7.10.08, 6.1.11. – MONETARY DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

MONETARY FREEDOM: Neither monetary nor financial freedom, peace, security, justice, wealth and progress will come through the laws of territorial governments and their other “actions”. – J.Z., 22.2.03, 21.10.07. - PEACE, SECURITY, JUSTICE, WEALTH, LAWS & TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS

MONETARY FREEDOM: Once a monetary enlightenment program is well thought out, then it would also include a program for the financing of an uprising of genuine freedom fighters against any dictatorship anywhere in the world. Such a program could be translated and transmitted to such freedom fighters - to give them a much better chance to succeed with their liberation attempt. Their freedom fight would tend to be even more and faster successful if one were also to succeed in persuading them to adopt the panarchistic platform as well. For their own current expenditures the revolutionaries could issue their own tax foundation money, accepted in all areas already liberated by them for existing taxes and a revolution tax. Their long-term program should include the voluntary contributions only - for communities of volunteers. To raise some funds they could anticipate the privatization of all of a dictatorship’s national or governmental assets, by issuing suitable security certificates and assure all its subjects their fair individual share in all government assets, less the expenditures involved in liberating them. This could provide a wide-spread financial interest of most of the subjects of a dictatorship to see it overthrown as soon as possible. In the already liberated areas full monetary and financial freedom should be introduced to overcome, as far as this is possible in revolutions and civil wars, all remaining economic crisis conditions. Primary institutions for the issue of sound alternative currencies would be associations of local shops. If rightful revolutionaries win in their armed struggle largely with the help of monetary and financial freedom steps and a panarchistic platform then their successes would also promote these liberties, indirectly, in the rest of the world. – To that extent the success of quite rightful revolutionaries and freedom fighters – anywhere in the world - should also be our concern. We might get our liberties indirectly, through them, - if they win and if we do help them to win. Provided, naturally, they are genuine freedom fighters and not just territorial nationalists of another brand or even religious fanatics or followers of just another war-lord. – J.Z., 5.10.08, 6.6.12. - & FINANCIAL FREEDOM TO FINANCE RIGHTFUL REVOLUTIONS

MONETARY FREEDOM: One significant step of "opting out", 34, 54, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505.

MONETARY FREEDOM: Without full monetary freedom men and women aren’t really free, free enterprise is not free, not are free trade and free markets, freedom of contract, freedom of exchange, free countries. Without it democracies and republics are not really free, either, nor are anarchists and libertarians. Without it decentralization is not carried far enough nor are then economic development and growth fast and assured enough. The same could be said about voluntary taxation, voluntary state membership, individual and group secessionism and the right of the people of any community to decide for themselves on war and peace, on rightful weapons and disarmament of mass murder devices, on international treaties and alliances. In short, without all the individual rights and liberties (so far still not sufficiently declared or known and largely suppressed), people aren’t sufficiently free but still governed by territorial, authoritarian and exploitative rulers, even when these are elected by the majority, a majority that is misled, mis-educated, kept in ignorance and prejudices by territorialist propaganda lies and slogans. – J.Z., 5.1.03, 31.10.07, 7.1.11. - FREE BANKING, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION & VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, NATURAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

MONEY LAUNDERING, TAXATION & GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Taxation and government budgets amount to the largest criminal money laundering schemes of all. - J.Z. 13.1.93.

MONEY MONOPOLY: POLITICALLY the broadcasting monopoly may be even more dangerous, but ECONOMICALLY? I doubt whether any other monopoly has done as much damage as that of issuing money.” – F. A. Hayek, Denationalisation of Money, p.23. - The territorial monopoly, considering a whole country and all its people as the property of a State, may be considered as a still larger monopoly. - J.Z., 24.3.97. - And a more dangerous one! - J.Z., 30.8.02. – It includes all others. – J.Z., 17.2.09, 28.12.11. – TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLIES, BROADCASTING

MONEY: Money is whatever is locally the common or wide-spread-or convenient and acceptable enough clearing or payment means. (Even the less widely used but competitive  and optional means of exchange are still a local currency, i.e., money. - J.Z., 8.1.11.) - It is a means, method and standard of the market, not of the State. - The State can coercively and legally only manipulate, depreciate-or outlaw it or prevent the best money from coming into existence - or stop its continued private issuance and acceptance and it use in value measurements, in prices, wages, salaries etc. but it cannot "create" it, because that, too, would be an abuse of the-language and of genuine rights and liberties. Others, even a territorial government, have no right to impose the use of its money upon anyone. Governments have no more rights than individuals have. The issuer of a requisitioning certificate or of an uncovered cheque does not "create" anything, either, but, rather, steals. Even the issue of otherwise sound tax foundation money requires, firstly, the imposition and levying of wrongful tributes. - Is universal acceptance possible or required for money? None of the currently imposed national currencies is universally used in all other countries. Any sound money must by rights only be accepted, at any time and at par with its face value, by its issuer, i.e., it must have only legal tender power towards him, not in general circulation. It is a mistake to call only monopoly money or the issues of the central bank (or mint) "money", because with this kind of money all other kinds of money are outlawed. This is a fact, which ought to be taken into consideration, especially seeing that the money monopoly has been almost always abused. To call it the money of monetary despotism alone “money” and to ignore all other possible and honest monies is like calling only the present "vote" a "vote", although it does not grant us "the" vote on some of the most important aspects of our lives. It only allows us the choice of a master. "No matter who you vote for, always a politician gets in." - You are not free to vote for your individual secession. You are not free to vote yourself out of monetary despotism and exploitative coercive taxation. You have no vote on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties. And still the bastards abuse the language and call it "the vote" or "the franchise", as if no democracy or self-government or self-responsibility or liberty or right could possibly go beyond that. The money of monetary despotism is like the territorial State. It has largely only disservices to offer and forces them upon unwilling consumers, all under the pretence of working for the common good. - J.Z., 14.3.91 & 16.4.97, 18.2.09, 8.1.11. – TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISM, LEGAL TENDER

MONEY: Money, in its proper form and self-regulated quantity, is not the root of any evil but the root of much good. It is lack of money, more correctly, lack of the right kinds of money, i.e., of freely competing currencies, which is the root of much evil. In other words, it is only the money of monetary despotism that is the root of many to most evils that are man-made and continue to be -imposed upon us. - J.Z., 8.8.85, 3.5.97. - Personally, I consider territorial monopolies and powers to be the greater evil. For this territorial despotism and suppression of free and voluntary communities, embraces the suppression of alternative and voluntary payment communities, too. - J.Z., 8.8.85, 3.5.97. - Ultimately, it leads as to a general holocaust, conducted with ABC mass murder devices or anti-people "weapons", still stockpiled even by "democratic" but still territorially centralized democracies – which constitute targets for such "weapons" under ancient misconceptions of territorial or population-wide responsibility of people for the criminal actions of their territorial governments. - J.Z., 8.1.11. - THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL OR THE ROOT OF MUCH GOOD? DIS., MONETARY FREEDOM VS. MONETARY DESPOTISM, LEGAL TENDER, CENTRAL BANKING, MONEY MONOPOLY, ISSUE MONOPOLY, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

MONEY: money, the economic catalyst.” - View of Dr. H. G. Pearce, according to PROGRESS, Melbourne, 7/76. – This applies, without qualifications, only to sound money, not to the great destroyer, that of monetary despotism. Just like society is the great catalyst, so the territorial State, in all its aspects, is the great destroyer. – J.Z., 31.10.08.

MONOPOLIES: A monopolist can always blame the customer. Or ignore his protests – and usually does, when he fails in “his” job. – J.Z., 3.9.98. – What come-back have we got against our territorial governments? We can only throw one set of rascals out, only to get another set into the same criminal jobs. – J.Z., 30.11.07. – VOTING, TERRITORIALISM

MONOPOLIES: Every monopoly necessarily rests on force.” – Gustave de Molinari, The Production of Security. - Except that established and maintained through superior services - Would it be difficult or relatively easy, to supply superior services to any of the present States, provided the field would be thrown open to such enterprises and experiments, to societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers? At least most of the motives and facilities for nuclear wars, conventional wars, civil wars, violent revolutions and mass murders, including terrorist acts, would then tend to disappear and this rather fast. To each his own utopia - at the own risk and expense! That would keep them so busy with their own problems, among their own volunteers, that they would hardly have any time, energy, manpower and resources left to try to run the affairs of others as well. Moreover, continued interventionist attempts would then encounter an overwhelming resistance by all other communities united in this respect - that none of them wants to be interfered with. And in few of them would defence and protection be monopolized and taken out of the hands of their members. - J.Z., 21.12.07. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, TERRITORIALISM

MONOPOLIES: From the unending arguments over taxation, school boards, sex education, etc., one might suppose that the only question about public education concerns the kind of public education we should have. However, the issue that should really be debated today is whether we should have a state-run, compulsory system at all. Throughout history, genuine progress in every other area - science, industry, medicine, the arts - has been the product of the free society, not of state monopoly.” - Duncan Yuille, leaflet on Public Education. - - All the more this applies to the comprehensive monopoly of the territorial State, which in numerous sphere excludes competition with itself. Nothing should be the monopoly of any State - but its own voluntary membership and the laws and institutions these members wish for themselves, as long as they can stand them and as long as they do not interfere with the self-concerned activities and institutions of any other communities of  volunteers. - J.Z., 21.12.07, 6.6.12. - EDUCATION, PUBLIC, SCHOOLS, "FREE & COMPULSORY"

MONOPOLIES: Government creates and sustains monopoly, and the way to eliminate it is to remove government from the economy.” - Phillip B. Demattais, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 1/77. - Not only from the economy but from the political and social spheres as well, at least as a territorial monopolist over involuntary subjects. For volunteers and at their expense and risk it should remain. These do need many further lessons of its practice, but from now on at their own expense and risk only. - J.Z., 21.12.07.

MONOPOLIES: Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?" – Thomas Paine. - However, even T. P. was not yet clear about the exterritorialist and voluntary alternatives to territorial monopoly governments. - I doubt that he ever saw a translation of Fichte's 1793 book about the French Revolution, where he defended individual secessions from the State as a characteristic of every rightful revolution and provided precedents for its practicability. - Paine died in 1809. When ideas do not cross frontiers, armies will. - J. Z., 26. 11. 06, 28.12.11, supplementing Bastiat's saying: “When goods do not cross frontiers, armies will.” – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM: GOVERNMENTS ON THE TERRITORIAL MODEL

MONOPOLIES: Governments cannot “fight” monopolies but only coercively or with legal compulsion establish and maintain them. They themselves constitute the worst, most wrongful and harmful monopoly of all, namely that of their own territorial rule. – J.Z., 27.2.89, 5.12.07. – GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

MONOPOLIES: If government were not afraid of its position, it would not declare itself a monopoly, thus making it illegal for you and me to compete with it.” - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, 17. – By monopolizing many services, e.g. postal services, it only assure that they become more expensive and of worse quality than the same services supplied under fully free market conditions. – But sometimes their real costs are hidden through subsidies taking out of tax funds. – J.Z., 6.6.12. - PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, COMPETITION WITH GOVERNMENTS

MONOPOLIES: In the whole history of the world there have been two chief methods of maintaining a monopoly - (1) By supplying goods of such quality and/or price in every market that no one else is willing to compete in that line, and (2) By persuading the government to provide a privileged position - tax exemption, tariff or quota protection, subsidies, government franchise or licence, supply of government services at below cost, government purchasing agreements, legislative prohibition of competition or special concessions for powerful friends. - - If all government protection of monopolies were removed the only remaining monopolies would either be so efficient that they would be a benefit to consumers, or so short lived that their effect would be negligible. We propose to remove monopolies by removing their protection.” - Progress Party Platform, Australia, 4.4 Monopolies. - I do not know whether any State-branch of the PP is still active. - J.Z., 21.12.07. - LIBERTARIAN PARTIES, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, POLYARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

MONOPOLIES: Isn't it strange that government pretends to hate monopolies while itself - the only real monopoly - zealously guarding its 'right' to so cruelly mismanage those things under its direct control?” - Clell (?) Porter, in LEFEVRE'S JOURNAL, Fall 77. - In every State the greatest monopoly is the State's territorial monopoly. - J.Z., 21.12.07. - GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

 MONOPOLIES: It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible.” – Ayn Rand. - Alas, we never had a fully free market as yet anywhere. Ayn Rand herself opposed it, e.g. in the sphere of monetary freedom and choice of value standards, as well as in the free enterprise of providing "governmental" services and in that of consumer sovereignty towards such services. - If she had clearly taken the next logical steps of her limited libertarianism, then the world might already be a much more free, peaceful, just and advanced world by now, for her influence was great, thus her omissions had very severe consequences. - She was a great thinker and writer, but we should not rest on her laurels. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - & THE FREE MARKET, MONOPOLIES, EXCLUSIVE CURRENCIES, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & AYN RAND

MONOPOLIES: It is interesting to note that the term monopoly originally meant: an exclusive grant or franchise from the king to operate in a given area free from competition.” - R. J. Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.188. - The greatest monopolist of all, the territorial one, granting subsidiary monopolies to some of his subjects at the expense of all of the other of his subjects. And the victims are foolish enough to play zero-sum games even for amusements, via betting, gambling and lotteries etc. - J.Z., 20.12.07.

MONOPOLIES: It is not by monopolists, but by their victims, that monopolies are maintained.” – Bastiat, Economic Sophisms, p.134. – Compare Ayn Rand’s remarks about the “sanction of the victim”. – Ulrich von Beckerath used to remark that monetary despotism represents the monetary religion of the people. Also that its “experts” and leading functionaries are its priests. – Unfortunately, all religious do have a tendency to maintain themselves, regardless of the immoral and irrational notions and practices that they do contain, and this even in the competition between them practised by religious liberty or religious tolerance. How fast or how slowly will the future panarchistic practitioners of State Socialism etc. become converted by the much more successful panarchies of those who practise many or even all economic liberties and rights? – J.Z., 18.2.09. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, STATISM, PREJUDICES, MONOPOLY, DIS.

MONOPOLIES: It seems contradictory but territorial governments, which themselves form the greatest monopoly in every State, do also legalize, promote and protect all kinds of monopolies - and then appear as protectors against them. Why do they do this? They find it, probably, easier, to control, regulate and exploit monopolies rather than free enterprises. – And they are another opportunity of “jobs for the boys” for them. – If they themselves remained the only monopoly in existence then their own continued existence would not be so secure as it still seems to be. – It might be a continuance of the ancient policy of “divide and conquer!” – J.Z., 18.2.09.

MONOPOLIES: Monopolists, as well as their victims, can mostly be relied upon to vote for the continuance of their monopolies. – J.Z., 25.3.86. – For instance: After suffering under the postal monopoly for centuries, how many would be prepared to vote for its abolition? However, under individual secessionism and full minority autonomy there would be a growing number of people with their own and competitive postal services. Not to speak of the email, other computer and the mobile phone options they do already possess. – J.Z., 18.2.09. - MONOPOLY

MONOPOLIES: No decisions, actions and relationships are to be monopolized. Let us make and enjoy or suffer our own friends and enemies, internationally as well as internally. Under that condition no new and powerful enemies would arise and they old ones would tend to disappear. There would be almost no bone of contention left, none strong enough to motivate us to war. Nor could we any longer raise the funds and conscripts for military adventures. Wars, revolutions, civil wars and terrorism would run out of ready followers. The productive and creative alternative actions of their individual choices would snatch them away. Why fight someone else when you could do what you want to do? The few remaining individual aggressors and criminals would face competitively developed defence and protection measures and organizations of the vast majority. Neither official nor private crimes would any longer pay. - J.Z., 5.2.93. - MONOPOLIZED DECISION-MAKING, SELF-DETERMINATION DOWN TO INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, OR, RATHER, UP TO IT

MONOPOLIES: No monopoly or privilege for any State, parliament, government authority or department! - J.Z., 6.7.91.

MONOPOLIES: One has to realize that the approval or toleration of a single monopoly means the denial of a really free market and free competition. –- - Another translation or version: One has to realize that the approval or toleration of every single monopoly means the denial of a really free market and of free competition, free trade, free enterprise, freedom of association and freedom of contract. – Solneman, Drei Kernfragen zur Vermoegensverteilung, S.28.  - “Vermoegensverteilung” = Wealth Distribution. – Alas, K. H. Z. Solneman = K. H. Zube, my father, in some respects, still thought in such terms. In particular when it came to land reform, of the type he envisioned. Although he was a panarchist, he did not apply panarchist thinking to land reform but, rather, wanted his kind of land reform imperialistically applied all over the world! – See his Manifesto for Freedom and Peace: - J.Z., 7.12.07.

MONOPOLIES: The communists’ all-embracing monopoly is the worst of all. – J.Z., 10/72. – It, too, is only a particular form of the territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 18.2.09. – TOTALITARIANISM, COMMUNISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATE SOCIALISM, STATE CAPITALISM

MONOPOLIES: The motive for the governmental territorial monopoly is that free people could provide and also buy better services than a territorial government can offer its subjects. Otherwise there would be no sense at all in upholding a territorial monopoly. If the territorial governments were to offer the best services most cheaply then their subjects would not have to be forced to “buy” them. Public services should thus be renamed: Public Disservices. – Just like taxes should be called by their real names: Tributes. - J.Z., 74/75, 31.7.78, 7.12.07. - MONOPOLY, TERRITORIAL, OF GOVERNMENTS

MONOPOLIES: The State is a compulsory monopoly in which payment is separated from receipt of service.” – Murray N. Rothbard, Power & Market, p.106. - The territorial State only! Voluntary or competing governments, communities and societies, that are only exterritorially autonomous, under personal laws, do not fall under that judgment. - J.Z., 8.1.11. – DIS., MONOPOLY STATE, STATE, TERRITORIALISM, TAXATION, PUBLIC SERVICES, TERRITORIALISM

MONOPOLIES: The States’ monopolies for territories, peoples, currencies and laws must be abolished.” – Thomas Mueller, in ESPERO, 4/5, Oct. 95. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, SECESSIONISM

MONOPOLIES: The tale is told of a tolerant Roman Catholic chaplain, who said to his Protestant opposite number: “Yes, we are both serving God; you in your way, and I in His.” – The competing supplier might address a public-spirited monopolist in much the same terms: “You are serving your customers in your way; and I in theirs.” – Anthony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, p.167. - Central banking serves the interest of the government. Free banking serves rather the victims of territorial governments. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - MONOPOLY, JOKES, COMPETITION

MONOPOLIES: there are too many monopolies - - The Monopoly of Government? Well, who do I object to about that?” - George, Humbert's Revenge, 1973. – TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENT, STATES, Q.

MONOPOLIES: There would be, of course, little need for government under Spooner's system. He called for an immediate end to the state monopolies over currency, post offices, and the administration of justice. Such services could be best performed by voluntary stock companies. As many companies as the market would bear could be organized and, in the competition, a citizen could shop for the cheapest and most effective service. What government would remain would evidently be broken into small subdivisions with its functions clearly distinguished; a citizen could then pay only for those services he used.” - Introduction by Charles Chiveley to Lysander Spooner, Works, I/54, - PUBLIC SERVICES, GOVERNMENTS & COMPETITION

MONOPOLIES: This country would not be a land of opportunity, America would not be America, if the people where shackled with government monopolies.” – Calvin Coolidge: Speech of acceptance, Aug. 14, 1924. – The militia or national guard has long been under government control, as well as the other armed forces and there are, supposedly, more than 20 000 gun control laws. Territorialism is the worst governmental monopoly, followed by the taxation privilege and the money issue monopoly, now expressed by the Federal Reserve System. Nor should e.g. the postal monopoly be forgotten and the xyz compulsory licensing systems. – J.Z., 13.12.07. – Or the foreign policy and war, peace-making and disarmament monopoly of territorial governments, all part and parcel of territorialism. – J.Z., 28.12.11.

MONOPOLIES: To monopolize any goods or services can never be in the interests of the consumers – nor of any of the alternative producers under real free enterprise. – J.Z., 11.10.76, 7.12.07. – CONSUMERS, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE ENTERPRISE, FREE MARKET

MONOPOLIES: Two centuries ago Adam Smith understood that producers prefer monopoly to competition in the markets in which they sell. Governments, as suppliers of services, seek to monopolize the markets in which they provide services, either by rules that prohibit entry or by pricing below cost of production. Again, the question occurs: Why does the public permit the restrictions on entry and the loss of efficiency to persist and even to grow?” - Allan H. Meltzer, Why Government Grows, p.6. – Q., TERRITORIALISM

MONOPOLIES: Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the third kind of monopoly, state monopoly. State monopoly occurs when competition is prevented in one way or another by the government. It is far and away the most important kind of monopoly, both historically and presently. Ironically, one of its most common causes - or at least excuses - has been the attempt to prevent or control monopolies of the first two kinds.” - David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p.48. - TERRITORIALISM

MONOPOLIES: When important issues affecting the life of an individual are decided by somebody else, it makes no difference to the individual whether that somebody else is a king, a dictator, or society at large.” – James Taggart (1992) – It makes a very great difference whether e.g. “society at large” is “represented” by territorial democratic or republican governments and their laws and regulations or by individual free consumers, buyers, producers etc., engaged only in voluntary exchanges. – J.Z., 7.1.08. - It also makes a great difference whether the services one wants are competitively package deals, freely chosen by oneself, like a travel, accommodation and restaurant deal, supplied by communities or societies of volunteers (competing or voluntary governments) or by territorial governments, to whose decisions, services and disservices one is compulsorily subjected. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - MONOPOLY OF DECISION-MAKING, GOVERNMENT, SOCIETY, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, DIS.

MONOPOLIES: When the monopolist controls one of the vital conditions of human survival, he has the power to starve to death all those who do not obey his orders.” – Ludwig von Mises, Human Action. - In totalitarian States, not only in their concentration camps and prisons, the territorial governments control the food supply, even the water supply. And they do make use of that power, not only of their power to control the exchange media and the value standard, in their own interest and not in that of their involuntary victims. - The non-totalitarian but also territorial States have still all too much in common with the totalitarian States. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - MONOPOLY, COMMUNISM, NATIONALIZATION, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

MONOPOLIES: Whosoever expects good service from a monopoly service deserves all the bad service he will get. – J.Z., 23.7.75. - TERRITORIALISM, CENTRAL BANKING

MONOPOLIES: With impeccable logic, Tucker argued that monopoly is never present in nature but only in organized society in which power has been concentrated in the hands of government.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.160. – TERRITORIALISM, NATURE, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LAW

MONOPOLIZED DECISION-MAKING, SELF-DETERMINATION DOWN TO INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, OR, RATHER, UP TO IT: No decisions, actions and relationships are to be monopolized. Let us make and enjoy or suffer under self-chosen friends and enemies, internationally as well as internally. Under that condition no new enemies would arise and they old ones would tend to disappear. There would be almost no bone of contention left, none strong enough to motivate us to war. Nor could we any longer raise the funds and conscripts for military adventures. Wars, revolutions, civil wars and terrorism would run out motives and thus out of ready followers. The productive and creative alternative actions of their individual choices would snatch them away. Why fight someone else when you could do what you want to do? The few remaining individual aggressors and criminals would face competitively developed defence and protection measures and organizations of the vast majority. Neither official nor private crimes would any longer pay. - J.Z., 5.2.93.

MONOPOLY CAPITALISM: As long as there are dozens of millions of potential employers to choose from, one could not speak or write about “monopoly capitalism” and one remains, largely, independent from the accumulated and invested capital. – J.Z., 10.8.05. However, both, employers and investors on the one side and employees and consumers on the other side should be very much concerned about all of the remaining real and legalized monopolies. The worst of them is that of territorial statism and among its economic flaws the worst are the monetary despotism of central banks and the tribute levying powers of the State. – J.Z., 29.10.07. - EMPLOYERS COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER FOR LABOUR, DIS. – FREE ENTERPRISE, CAPITALISM – AS THE UNKNOWN IDEAL

MONROE DOCTRINE: I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war.” – Thomas Jefferson (1823) – Alas, in the meantime, the USA, as a territorial State, has also become a Warfare State itself, attempting to act imperialistically, as a policeman for the whole world, and this without full knowledge and appreciation of all individual rights and liberties and of a liberation program for all, one that deserves the name. Majoritarian democracy, even if purely conducted, is neither rightful nor good nor attractive enough to all the diverse peoples in the world. – At least there are some armistice periods between their wars! - J.Z., 18.2.09, 6.6.12. – VOTING, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITIES, TERRITORIALISM, NON-INTERVENTIONISM, WARFARE STATE, WAR AIMS, LIBERATION, IMPERIALISM, TERRITORIALISM

MONTESQUIEU, C. L.: According to Frey, the general ideal of FOCJ may be found in Montesquieu, 1749, “De L’esprit des lois, Paris, Garnier. - Isn’t FOCJ going beyond M.’s and by now conventional division of powers? - J.Z., 28.12.11.

MOORE, CAROL: ON PANARCHISM & SECESSIONISM, WITH COMMENTS BY JOHN ZUBE & CHRISTIAN BUTTERBACH: Carol Moore wrote to the LP Platform Committee 2002: LP Platform Needs "Community" Language - - Dear Libertarian Party Delegate and/or Activist: As I have argued frequently over the years, many people are scared away from the Libertarian Party because they fear that liberty means they would have to accept drugs, prostitution, factories, garbage dumps and other undesirable activities in their residential, business or other communities. - I think it is extremely important that we add one simple sentence that would assure people that they have the right to form private communities which allow them to restrict activities they dislike. - If you agree with the concept, and language similar to the below, being added to the Platform, please write one or more of the platform members below. [Left out here. - J.Z.] - The more of us request this kind of change, the more likely it will be made. - Carol Moore in dc. - - Please feel free to forward. - - Current LP Platform - Suggested Change in CAPITALS: I. Individual Rights and Civil Order - 19. - Freedom of Association and Government. Discrimination. - Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. - We support repealing any such laws rather than extending them to all individuals. - Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. - Anti-discrimination laws create the same Problems. - While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws, which attempt to limit or ban it. - WE ALSO DEFEND INDIVIDUALS' (The right of individuals to ... - J.Z.) - RIGHTS TO FORM SELF-GOVERNING, PRIVATE, CONTRACTUAL COMMUNITIES (exterritorially quite autonomous and operating under personal laws. - J.Z.) THAT ACTUALIZE AND PROTECT FAMILY, CULTURAL, IDEOLOGICAL OR OTHER VALUES. (all at their own expense and risk. - J.Z.). - - (However, even with these additions, the subject will not be clear enough to most LP members and most outsiders. - Much more enlightenment is needed on this subject and you should point out some of the few so far available and affordable references. - J.Z.) - - I responded with an email of 18.6.02: Dear Carol, - you know what can happen if e.g. constitutional clauses, like the welfare clause and the interstate trade clause, anti-trust acts etc., are all too generally formulated and then the original meaning becomes reversed or widely misinterpreted over long periods. - Compare also what has happened regarding banking, legal tender and gold standards, slavery, secessionism, the P.O., militias, and all points of the bill of rights, over the ages, if the formulations are kept all too general and also all too incomplete. - Former secessionists and revolutionaries repressed secessions and revolutions, sometimes with even more blood being wrongly spilled than was wasted during their original efforts. - I just wrote to a left anarchist (who had produced an anarchist text floppy, containing only 1.06 Mbs in unzipped anarchist texts, after finding that with Winzip I could include 5,8 Mbs or 907 pages, RTF, of 2 zipped updated LMP literature texts (just finished) for PEACE PLANS 1546-1768, in plain text, reduced to 1.269 Mbs, i.e., still without quite utilizing the full potential of the "humble & outdated floppy") - among other things, the following passage and it reminded me to reply to your e-mail today: "The US Libertarian Party is just pushing for a resolution to include a secessionist platform that would permit volunteers to form autonomous communities on any ideological, religious, political, economic etc. basis shared by its members. Alas, the required exterritorial aspect is not yet stressed because the territorial model predominates still in most people's heads, in spite of the existence of numerous "virtual communities" on the Internet and the long tradition of personal laws and personal law communities, which is much longer than that of the territorial ones." - My growing ON PANARCHY encyclopedia comes now to 24 volumes on 24 microfiche (later digitized. – J.Z., 28.12.11.) and it has led to a new website by an Italian anarchist and libertarian Gian Piero de Bellis, at , in several languages. - We plan to put, between us, and with the help of other anarchists and libertarians, many relevant texts onto a CD and to my surprise, today, when compiling my 2 new supplementary literature lists on a single floppy disk, we could even include many of them only a humble floppy, in zipped format! - - There are many different ways in advocating volunteer communities. De Bellis does it under the term "Polyarchy". The volunteer communities proposed by Greg Flanagan can be found under "Libertocracy". Le Grand E. Day did it under "Multigovernment", Herbert Spencer under "The Right to Ignore the State". To my knowledge, all the different terminologies applied, including "individual sovereignty", have not yet been compiled and compared sufficiently. (The beginnings of a list: See under NAMES.) Nettlau and Landauer approved the panarchy idea. Most other anarchists, though, have so far taken insufficient note of this kind of freedom framework for almost all people, only the incurably and psychopathically aggressive people excepted. - Perhaps the most suitable term for volunteer communities, in our time, might be: Full exterritorial autonomy for all minority groups that desire it, at their own expense and risk, anywhere, under a revival and extension of the old personal law and personal community tradition, that existed extensively e.g. in the Middle East and elsewhere, for far longer than the national territorial monster States did exist, which created and maintained most of today's remaining and man-made problems. Literature exists on the Middle's East's "millet system" or dhimmi [djemma]. Alas, it was imperfectly applied, with a remaining over-lord ship and a head-tax of one gold piece every year. - Since even all majorities are actually constituted out of many dissenting minorities, all minorities in combination, striving for full exterritorial autonomy for all of them, could form an overwhelming majority. - The LP, as well as ISIL, LA and other libertarian movements, have so far failed to advocate and mobilize this freedom potential for themselves and for all others, being held back by their territorial model for a limited government for all people. That limited government model, at least at the present stage of enlightenment, is not suitable to attract the majority to it. On the contrary, it rouses often fanatic opposition, as you can see e.g. in the "arguments" of the Anarchist FAQ. - Alternatively, one could advocate full experimental freedom for all kinds of volunteer groups in the political, economic and social sphere. From it we should come to expect the same benefits that we derived from religious freedom (including freedom for atheists etc.), artistic and literary freedom, freedom for hobbies and crafts, technical and scientific experimental freedom, freedom to experiment in agriculture and in personal life style choices. - That would not greatly and immediately threaten the power addicts. They would be able to rule safely and for prolonged periods over the remaining fools, their own followers, as demonstrated by the persistence of religions, churches and sects. They would even be safer from take-over bids by other parties, during the next elections or from revolutionaries, assassins, terrorists and military insurrections. Thus, this freedom has something to offer to almost everyone. - Naturally, I would not give much for the chances of present mis-leaders, in the long run, in competition with volunteer communities that practise free trade, free migration, monetary freedom, voluntary taxation and other liberties among themselves. But they do have, usually, a high and exaggerated opinion of themselves and their own abilities. (There are exceptions: These do e.g. admit that they do not know how to end inflations, mass unemployment and how to readily accept and integrate into the process of production large streams of refugee, to improve the general standard of living. Nor do they know how to prevent war. They only advocate the ancient territorial non-solutions at every opportunity. Nevertheless, they believe to be entitled to rule millions of others and to know enough for this purpose. To be sure, for many years, if not decades, they are likely to find millions of voluntary victims, for whom each will be THE guru.) - The experimental freedom involved could, within hours to days, demonstrate, for instance, how to end inflations and mass unemployment without sacrifices and with immediate and great benefits. The mass media would take note of many to most of the SUCCESSFUL experiments. - With the unemployment problem, the refugee problem, of ca. 24 million people, and that of the remaining slavery, 27 million women and children in particular, would also be largely solvable within a short period. The frontiers would be opened - for all members of volunteer communities. And the anxious ones, still fearing freedom, could close themselves off as much as they liked, in their own volunteer communities. Nobody would be authorized and empowered to force the practice of any genuine individual liberties and rights upon dissenters, in their own affairs among themselves. But each of their members would also be entitled to individually secede from them and thus engage in a one-man revolution. - No forced integration, no forced segregation, but voluntary integration combined with voluntary segregation, as long as each group, or better still, each member of each of the different groups, can stand the practice of its beliefs among the members. - All the misjudgments and atrocities due to collective responsibility notions would soon come to an end, including most terrorist acts. The innocents and other dissenters could separate themselves form the guilty ones. The terrorist "idealists" would be free to practise their beliefs - at the own expense and risk, quite unhindered, and thus their antagonism would largely disappear. Their only sacrifice would have to be the same as that of all others: their territorial prejudices and claims, like "Africa to the Africans", "Asia to the Asians", "Arabia or Palestine to Arabs only", "Israel to Jews only", etc. - Monetary and financial freedom would release an almost unlimited demand for labor, services and products and remove the fear of competitors for scarce, forced and mismanaged currencies. - What is involved is only something more of the same kind of tolerance for tolerant actions that is already practised in most cosmopolitan large cities, a tolerant coexistence of very diverse people and their groups. That peaceful coexistence would go further, would be more consistent and applied in all spheres where it could do much good. - Rapid progress, even in the protection of environments, and a rapid spread of wealth and higher living standards could be expected as a result. They could almost be guaranteed by and for those who really understand what is involved. - - The best historical survey of panarchism etc., that I have so far found, is: LIU, SHIH SHUN, Exterritorialilty, Its Rise and Its Decline, 1925, 237 pp, which I fiched, 24x reduced, back in PEACE PLANS 383. A primer on the subject, full of facts and thoughts. One day it will be considered as a classic. (GPdB put it on - his panarchistic - polyarchic website.) Minority autonomy ought to be everyone's concern. … - Most LP members are so far mentally insufficiently prepared for this freedom alternative, so necessary for our times, against not only the terrorist threat but also the continuing and growing threat from ABC mass murder devices (although the number of the older ones of these has become reduced and will be reduced over the next 10 years. - One could ask: Why not immediately? - Because the "enemy" remains insufficiently and all too terribly wrong defined, collectively and territorially!). - - You have long stood up for decentralism and secessionism. But without extending them to exterritorial secessions and volunteer communities and full individual sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, secessions do not go far enough. - Unless you yourself become clear enough on this subject, you cannot hope to enlighten others sufficiently. Not that it would be easy, once you are clear on this yourself. - However, this, too, i.e. a barrier built up by popular prejudices, myths and errors, represented even among libertarians, might amount merely to a Berlin Wall, which might come down quite suddenly and unexpectedly, particularly if it is systematically tackled. - - My two peace books on the subject are online, in English at (At least the first 20 PEACE PLANS issues that have been digitized. Also my father’s Manifesto for Freedom and Peace, with its chapter on panarchism, is online there.) - J.Z., 31.8.11.) - Before you get all too much involved in daily LP chores, or peace programs - limited also to all too general and misleading notions like "isolationism", "non-intervention" and "non-violence", please consider rethinking your own thoughts on this very important subject. - Every word and associated idea does count, here, too, negatively or positively. The subject is much too important to gloss it over with a few glib words. It has depths, which are quite unexpected for most people and most people's mind are not open to the unexpected and not prepared to explore the depth of a subject by themselves. - Full monetary freedom is just one particular application of this panarchistic freedom. It goes much further than the limited imagination of most limited government advocates of "The" gold standard, as if not a variety of gold standards had existed and had been proposed. They attached themselves, mostly, to the worst version of it! (Free choice in value standards, exchange media and clearing options is the completely libertarian and panarchistic alternative in this sphere.) - The great varieties of business-like self-management schemes that are possible, proposed and have been experimented with, do also provide a whole spectrum of diverse options that should be of interest to anarcho-capitalist as well as to libertarian socialists. - There exists also a whole spectrum of enlightenment options as well as of proposals for expropriating the bureaucrats and politicians for the benefit of their individual victims, of the masses of property they do mismanage in our names. See for instance my proposal on this, which is in PEACE PLANS 19 C. Also my microfilm pilot scheme and my CD-ROM project and the ca 56 projects listed on my main website, as well as the ca. 1000 projects in PEACE PLANS 20. The latter are now also e-mailable. - Then there are all the numerous alternative health and education options, which are now advocated and experimented with. They do also offer a panarchistic spectrum and practice. - People are already conditioned to self-determination and free experimentation in technology and science, in fashions, arts, literature, hobbies, crafts, gardening, interior decoration, personal life style choices. What is required is largely only the theoretical and practical application of this wide-spread experience to those three spheres which are so far still pre-empted by territorial governments: the political, social and economic spheres, to the extent that they are territorially mismanaged and regulated and legislated upon by territorial governments. - My friend, Ulrich von Beckerath, used to say: The revolution is already 90% won. All we have to be concerned about is the remaining 10%. But that 10% is important, as important as e.g. a shortage of sound currency or a surplus of unsound and forced currency of 10%. - A list of all libertarian projects could gather world-wide support and world-wide division of labor from many to most libertarians. - Then there are the host of ideas on how to cope with inflation and deflation and involuntary mass unemployment and their crises. The few sensible ideas on this subject will only come to light once the whole spectrum of these views is sufficiently surveyed and when full monetary and financial freedom is established for volunteer communities, to undertake their own experiments at their own risk and expense. - The masses of formerly State socialist utopians and radicals have now largely re-directed their efforts into ecological and conservation efforts, often just as badly informed and directed as their former efforts were. - Full experimental freedom for them, at their own expense and risk, without having to win any election battle or any revolution, could attract their energies and improve their minds in as short a time as is possible for them. - PIOT, John Zube, somewhat revised: 6.6.12. -  ---- Original Message -----From: Carol Moore To: John Zube - Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002. - -Subject: Re: 020619 [19.6.02] Carol Moore, second mailing, after I got the first back, without comment, having sent it to the other e--mail address given in your message. - John Zube wrote: Dear Carol, -- there is a great difference between exterritorial secession and territorial secession. The first can be a quite individualistic and voluntaristic act. - (**That's right, you're Mr. Panarchy :-) - The second is always a collectivist act and implies more or less the subordination of individuals and minorities, or even of the majority, to the views of those ruling that territory. - (**While in practice that too often happens, it is not necessarily true, if it is done on private property that voluntarily joins the political entity.) - Those [dissenters] living in a secessionist territory would either have to try to achieve another territorial secession for themselves or to migrate, if they could find a territory more to their liking and were accepted by its ruling regime. The individual would still not be sovereign. - (**If one thinks in term of the community and not a large entity being the basic political unit it makes it easier for secessions to work. Think of Switzerland, which allows this.) - The difference cannot be expressed sufficiently if it is merely implied and has to be interpreted into a statement. Your statement COULD be so interpreted, and you, possibly, meant it to be so interpreted, but seeing how the territorial model dominates most minds, it is unlikely to be so understood by most people. Thus one should be more explicit about it, even if the extra verbiage is not sufficiently understood, for the time being, by most of those reading it. - One could refer to sites or other writings where explanations can be found. - (**It's important to be clear ... I'm glad you have the panarchy website because it is a topic I wanted to get into! Will check it out when work more on secession issues next month. ) - CAROL - - - The exterritorial autonomy option and personal law tradition has numerous precedents and some surviving practices. Alas, its literature if far dispersed and largely unknown or generally ignored by most social reformers, anarchists and libertarians. Even those, who advocate aspects of this exterritorial autonomy, remain largely unaware of other such advocates and their writings. I am presently too busy to look up your website, as you are probably too busy to look up mine or to read long letters. But when you do get around to it, please look up, at least for the de Puydt article on panarchy and the reproduction of the only 1 page long article on the "Cosmopolitan Union" by Werner Ackermann. - I would not expect you to browse through, at this stage of your career, some of my 24 volumes, on 24 microfiche, of my sub-series ON PANARCHY. Sooner or later I hope that at least the most important documents and discussions on this subject will be made available on a CD-ROM. To my knowledge you have not yet "seceded" from the popular media, like print on paper and websites, apart from your O.K. to include your decentralist newsletter in my series. If party activity is compulsive for you, far be it from me to try to keep you off it. I had sent my message again, because I had made some mistake in your e-mail address and so it could not be delivered. Your quick delete fingers are not to blame but, rather, my inaccurate own ones. - The best wish of all: PIOT, John Zube. (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams! With that program, fully understood and consistently applied - the LP could soon win full exterritorial autonomy for its own supporters and would help all other groups to achieve the same for themselves, thus turning them into allies rather than enemies. It is an old Christian saying that the best way to defeat an enemy is to make a friend out of him. One does not have to subscribe to this belief or others in order to respect, "love" - or be just enough towards others and to wish them full autonomy over their own affairs. In that way the LP could become the leader of a world-wide league of all minorities, with the common platform: Full exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities. - Somewhat revised and corrected: J.Z., 13.8.11, 6.6.12. - - - Christian Butterbach responded to this on 2.7.02: Dear John, I can only thank you again for this inspiring encyclopaedic summary, to which I will have to revert often, as soon as I get to fill my web site. [Some time later, Gian Piero de Bellis produced a much better summary on - J.Z., 31.8.11.] Some of the things you say are particularly close (I mean more than usually anyway) to my own ideas and will help me to formulate them. I will have to reduce somewhat the time invested in my email communications, but that is more easily said than done, in order to get some web site work done ... - PIOT, Chris. - From Carol Moore email of 23.9.11: George Donnelly and friends have finalized details for another free online liberty conference for the coming weekend (September 23-25). It includes a couple dozen libertarian and agorist speakers on philosophy and strategy. See for details and how to connect to the videos and chat via Facebook. - I’m speaking on "Alternative Constitutions for Independent Communities" on Saturday September 24th at 11 AM Est. I would love for you to join me and participate. - Note that this will be an extension of my March talk "Libertarian Decentralism and Secessionist Strategy" now at (And I've got a better web cam now!) The whole March conference is at that George Donnelly youtube channel. - Other speakers include Angela Keaton, Gary Chartier, Stephan Kinsella, Megan Duffield, Jill Pyeatt, Kevin Carson, Ken Drawchuk, Bretigne Shaffer and lots more. - If you can't afford to go to all the big freedom festivals around the country and if you want to get new insights into libertarian and agorist ideas, this is your opportunity to see and communicate with great libertarians nationwide. - See you then! Carol in DC. - PS: Encourage me to update my website and get going on the issue by joining - Carol Moore in DC. - - - - - - - - twitter - carolmoore1776. - - NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without judicial or legislative oversight or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no recourse nor protection save to secede from the union. - I am glad that more and more libertarian conferences take place online. - J.Z., 23.9.11.

MOORE, CAROL: Page 10, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. – 18ff, 23-29, 38-39, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.

MOORE, J. B.: A Digest of International, Law, 8 vols., Washington, Government Printing Office, 1906.

MOORES IN ENGLAND: Moors in England had been granted extraterritorial jurisdiction from a treaty of 1721 onwards. - Ref. in: SHI SHUN LIU's "Extraterritoriality: its rise and its decline", New York, Columbia University, 1925. - See: CAPITULATIONS

MORAL GOVERNMENTS. CONSENT, UNANIMITY, PANARCHISM: The existence of a moral government is not logically impossible in the conventional philosophical sense, but virtually impossible in practice. A moral government would have to 1) gain the consent of every citizen (*) that it alone will execute his right to retaliation, and 2) maintain that delegated right through contractual means, somehow providing for the non-coercive incorporation of children (**) into the State system.” – Don Franzen, Reply to Peter Crosby’s The Utopia of Competition, in THE PERSONALIST. – (*) Only of their own and voluntary members. (**) Up to a certain age or degree of maturity their parents or guardians would have a say on this. - J.Z. n.d.

MORALITY & POLITICS: Morality ought to decide politics. And its primary requisites are: voluntarism, autonomy, exterritorialism, individualism, secessionism and panarchism. - J.Z., 4.6.92. - It amounts to consistent pluralism, democracy, anarchism, voluntarism and libertarianism. - J.Z., 7.1.93. - Territorial politics is inherently and inevitably immoral, by its very nature, at least for all its dissenters. Those who agree with it are accessories to its crimes against its victims. - J.Z., 10.12.03. - TERRITORIALISM

MORALITY: Because only the claims of morality are genuine, the idea of war (*), which by its nature settles contradictory claims by violence is illegitimate The moral claims do not require, and as a rule, cannot be settled arbitrarily by resorting to armed conflict. For the conflict does not settle the moral dilemma, it only suppresses it. Morality and peace are, in Perry’s philosophy, indivisible, since both have that essential regard for the individual person that allows for the full development of the humanity of mankind.” - Irving Louis Horowitz, War and Peace in Contemporary Social and Philosophical Theory, a Condor book, 1957, 1973, Chapter 12: Ralph Barton Perry: Universal Individualism, p.179. – What help are such abstract considerations in the face of open aggression against a peaceful country and its population? Genuine morality should be clearly expressed and publicized in time in form of quite rightful war and peace aims. And these aims should already be practically realized within the country that might be attacked. Only then will it be almost impossible, for any dictatorship, to attack and defeat such a country, because then its own soldiers and civilians will not any longer support such a wrongful regime but, rather, its enemies, as their own and natural allies. Alas, so far, the innocent populations are guilty of not having bothered to find out, realize and publicize such rightful war and peace aims and thus they leave themselves open to attacks. Their differences to despotic regimes are only by degrees, large or small. Fundamentally, they are territorial despotisms as well. – The author speaks as if rightful policing of criminals and aggressors would not be necessary. – As if mere appeals to the “morality” of aggressors and criminals would be enough. Appeals to and sufficient organization, enlightenment, training and even suitable armament of their victims are required, internally as well as externally, as long as frontiers are still allowed to exist. – (*) on the side of the aggressor – J.Z., 29.9.07, 9.1.11. - & WAR AIMS, QUITE RIGHTFUL ONES, DECLARED IN TIME, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, PUBLICITY, SECRET ALLIES, CAPTIVE NATIONS, CAPTIVE PEOPLES, DEFENCE, LIBERATION, ENEMIES, SECRET ALLIES, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

MORALITY: But it may well be hailed as a tragedy, the tragedy being that no device has been found by which these private decencies can be transferred to public affairs. As soon as people have power they go crooked and sometimes dotty, too, because the possession of power lifts them into a region where normal honesty never pays. For instance, the man who is selling newspapers outside the Houses of Parliament can safely leave his papers to go for a drink, and his cap beside them: anyone who takes a paper is sure to drop a copper into the cap. But the men who are inside the Houses of Parliament - they can't trust one another like that, still less can the government they compose trust other governments. No caps upon the pavement here, but suspicion, treachery, and armaments. The more highly public life is organized, the lower does its morality sink; the nations of today behave to each other worse than they ever did in the past, they cheat, rob, bully, and bluff, make war without notice, and kill as many women and children as possible; whereas primitive tribes were at all events restrained by taboos. …” - E. M. Forster in his Anthology: I Believe - 19 Personal Philosophies, p.48. - Just look at the incompleteness and distortions of the governmental bills of rights or human rights declarations! - J.Z., 22.12.07. - TERRITORIALISM, POWER, PARLIAMENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, RULERS, POLITICIANS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PREMIERS, MINISTERS, STATES VS. PANARCHIES OR POLYARCHIES OF VOLUNTEERS, TRUST

MORALITY: Ethics, or the principles of right conduct, ignore all crime and wrongdoing. It simply says such and such are the principles on which men should act; and when these are broken it can do nothing but say that they are broken.” – Herbert Spencer. - - Ethical or moral arbitration and adjudication systems are also possible, as well as ethical and moral policing and penal systems. But to develop them to their highest potentials they should operate in free competition and under consumer sovereignty and upon voluntary subscriptions, or insurance contributions, paid in advance. – J.Z., 6.12.07. - ETHICS, CRIME, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, CRIME

MORALITY: For moral law operates in depressions as well as in booms. It operates in the same manner at all times, in all places and under all conditions. It is as insensitive to human desires as is the law of gravity.” - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.9. - The moral laws of full monetary freedom, for instance, are not permitted to operate in a depression and to end it. They are outlawed by the laws of monetary despotism. If monetary freedom had been introduced in time, any deflation and any inflation could have been avoided. Apparently, B. M. was unaware of these rights and liberties and their suppression but considered depressions as if they were natural catastrophes. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - & DEPRESSIONS, MASS UNEMPLOYMENT, SALES DIFFICULTIES & NUMEROUS BANKRUPTCIES

MORALITY: Give currency to reason, improve the moral code of society, and the theory of one generation will be the practice of the next.” – T. L. Peacock. – - Why should sound theories require a generation to become widely practised? Why should there not be freedom for already convinced minorities to put them into practice among themselves, almost immediately? Why should they depend on majority opinion and changes of territorial laws? – J.Z., 8.12.07. - & REASON, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, DIS., Q.

MORALITY: Hume, Warnack and Machie … tell us that the function of morality is to mitigate the bad effects of man's limited generosity and sympathy. The idea is that morality takes society a little closer to what it would be, if, contrary to fact, we were able to sympathize with all those people whom our actions were likely to affect, instead of just those who are nearest and dearest to us.” - Ian Hinckfuss, SOCIAL ALTERNATIVES, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1982. - I hold that there is hardly lack of sympathy but rather lack of understanding what causes poverty, oppression, wars, civil wars and terrorism. Largely lack of basic political, economic and social rights and liberties, including freedom for communities of volunteers to experiment with those systems that they prefer for themselves. Territorialism interdicts such free and tolerant experiments. Sympathy, like love and charity, are by far not enough to cope with the world's remaining problems. Even today all too few people have clear enough ideas on all basic individual rights and liberties. Or do you know where they are taught or fully expressed? Do you know of an ideal declaration of this kind? Are you prepared to work towards one? - J.Z., 20.12.07. – Q.

MORALITY: I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us.” - Thomas Jefferson. – The diversity of ethical systems alone is already a sufficient reason for the establishment of communities of volunteers only, none of them with a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 23.1.08. - THE GENUINE DOCTRINES OF EPICURUS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MORALITY: I believe that right and wrong do exist, that any man can ‘know’ them, that they are built into us and into the fabric of the universe. …” - Jim Downard, THE CONNECTION 135, p.27. – I agree with him except for the fabric of the universe, of which I know nothing. - However, we have been all too much institutionalized by territorial statism and its politics, which has little to do with morality and much with immoral and irrational powers. We are left only with limited moral choices in the private spheres and thus never fully developed fully into moral and responsible citizenship. All larger and wider decisions are still made by our feudal territorial lords, although by now we are allowed to elect our masters. But that “right”, and the territorial power we granted them through it, if we voted for them, gives them even more power over dissenters and among them are most likely to be found not only the less enlightened minorities but also the more enlightened minorities. Anyhow, all minorities have the right to self-rule and self-rule only, which they cannot get territorially, except by usurping territorial power and then they have a permanent battle on their hands. The majority could obtain self-rule (one without eternal internal opposition - inevitable under territorialism), relatively easily, also only under exterritorial autonomy. It would be enough if it simply voted-in this kind of self-determination, self-government and independence, via its representatives or a referendum. – J.Z., 5.12.07. - Thereby it would avoid a lot of troubles for itself. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - RIGHT & WRONG, MAJORITY, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, UNANIMITY

MORALITY: If the State cannot be properly viewed in terms of law, as a legal association based on the principle of contract (*), in what terms must it be regarded? One theory is that it is a moral institution, but it cannot directly make men moral. (**) Moral action must be action proceeding from the free choice of the individual person (***); and if the act is done under the compulsion of that command, the act is morally neither good nor bad, but simply neutral. But the State can ensure the conditions under which free moral development of persons is possible (****); that is to say - since these conditions are what we call rights - rights - rights of personal liberty, of freedom of thought, discussion and the like.” (*****) - John Locke in F.B. Willmott, A Philosophy of Production, p.45. - - (*) That would be an exterritorially autonomous community of volunteers, under its own personal laws. - - (**) Especially since as a territorial State it is already immoral in xyz ways towards all too many people and neither its constitutions nor laws nor human rights declarations are fully moral ones. What can be achieved by such a teacher and practitioner? - - (***) Precisely what the territorial State prevents in those spheres that it has monopolized. - - (****) Another utopian assertion or belief. - - (*****) The "and the like" needs spelling out, in detail. This job has still not been done well enough. - Simply for lack of interest? As if not the rights and liberties of all of us, here and now on Earth were involved but merely those of some aliens on an alien planet, still not discovered and visited by us! - J.Z. 22.12.07. - COMPULSION & THE STATE

MORALITY: In a community of saints the Moral Law (*) would be the only law needed to provide such a community with perfect peace, complete order and universal justice. It is only when such a community is invaded by amoral or immoral people - or when some of the saints fall from grace - that man made regulations are required to hold the immoral or amoral elements in line.” - Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.53. - As concepts of morality still differ greatly, they can so far only be realized in their variety among their believers, in a voluntary way, in their own communities, established on their own moral notions, and tolerant enough to put up with different moral ideas and practices in other communities of volunteers. Every attempt to territorially impose the own moral notions upon dissenters is itself immoral. A close to perfect moral code or international law will gradually develop out of the inter-actions of such diverse communities, none with a territorial monopoly. - - (*) When and where has it ever been fully expressed? It is certainly not to be found complete in the Bible or in the Koran or in any other "holy" book or in any governmental human rights declaration. - Who of the great prophets or great leaders or saints was aware of all individual rights and liberties? - Who is now? - J.Z., 20.12.07.

MORALITY: It is no more the function of government to impose a moral code than to impose a religious code. And for the same reason.”– Robert M. MacIver (1882-1970), [1947]. Scottish Sociologist. – Let communities of volunteers choose their own moral code for all their internal relationships, their personal laws, all under full exterritorial autonomy. Only in international relations would they have to respect all the individual rights and liberties that the volunteers of other such communities claim for themselves. – J.Z., 3.1.08. - PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT, RELIGION, ETHICS, VALUES

MORALITY: It is the great peril of our society (*)that all its mechanism may grow more fixed while its spirit grows more fickle." - Chesterton. - Free spirits need free individual secessionism and associationism. Otherwise they won't get to the top or won't achieve what they are capable of achieving. - Even otherwise great minds do still mix up these two terms - and a few others. Already Confucius advised to straighten out our language, especially our terms and to be very careful in their use. An encyclopedia of the popular errors, prejudices, myths, wrongful definitions, false conclusions and assumptions etc., together with the best refutations so far found for them, would be a great help. It should be started in WIKIPEDIA fashion online. I haven't got the time, energy and skills to do it, only the interest. Others do have the time, energy and skills - but not the interest - and I don't know how to get them interested. Do you? – (*) The State is not our society! - - J.Z., 6.4.91, 12.1.93, 20.10.11. - ENLIGHTENMENT, EDUCATION, DIS., PREJUDICES, MYTHS, DOGMAS, ERRORS, IGNORANCE, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, SOCIETY

MORALITY: Knowing that freedom, to be real in a practicable sense, requires a universally respected framework of moral certainties, Hayek, ever since "The Road to Serfdom", has been devoting most of his time to determining what he calls ‘the constitution of liberty’." - John Chamberlain, "THE FREEMAN", 12/76. - Even libertarians have still many moral uncertainties among them, e.g. regarding abortion, drug use, alternatives to the classical gold standard, fully free migration, exterritorial institutions as alternatives even to limited governments, the degrees to which their limited governments ought to be limited, whether party politics is rightful, whether defensive force or only non-violent methods ought to be used etc. They can only hope to come to an agreement on tolerant experiments and practices among volunteers, whether these are libertarians or non-libertarians, and on international law rules, in accordance with individual rights, to keep the peace between these. In other words, even the various libertarian and anarchistic faiths cannot provide many or comprehensive moral certainties that are certainties for any but their believers. The limited government, even of the Hayek type, is not a moral certainty or a framework based upon moral certainties. On the contrary. The constitution of liberty does not exist under and cannot be built upon compulsory membership, monopolistic decision-making in many important spheres, compulsory taxes, in short, upon territorialism, no matter how hard and, otherwise consistently, one tries. - J.Z., 8.1.93. – Unfortunately, even Hayek did not attempt to draft an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties and throw it up to public discussion. – J.Z., 18.2.09. – Too many have mentally surrendered to utilitarianism or relativism and do not see and recognize any absolute moral values, and this in spite of the never refuted teachings by Immanuel Kant on the subject. – We need now an encyclopaedia of the best refutations of popular errors, myths and prejudices, as well as an ideas archive and talent centre, probably, more than ever before. - J.Z., 28.12.11. & THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, MORAL CERTAINTIES, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, HAYEK

MORALITY: Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p.983. - There are also kinds of unforgivable ignorance, and disinterest, especially when it comes to basic rights and liberties. - J.Z., 31.10.76, 22.12.07. – However, within communities of likeminded volunteers, people should be free to infringe their own rights and liberties as much as they want to. If they wiped themselves out altogether, I would not mind. But they should not exterminate their babies, infants and children as well. These might still develop into moral and mature human beings, in spite of their parents. – They would not have inherited all of the “sins”, flaws, notions or spleens of their parents. - J.Z., 18.2.09, 28.12.11. – However, for the time being probably no more can be achieved in this sphere than e.g. separate panarchies for the abortionists and for the anti-abortionists. – Neither should get or retain the power to legislate for the other group. - J.Z., 6.6.12.

MORALITY: Morality is moral only when it is voluntary.” - Lincoln Steffens. - - Thus, by definition, panarchies and polyarchies should be much more moral communities than territorial States can ever be, even though, at least initially, each of them is rather likely to apply a somewhat different moral code among its members. - J.Z., 20.12.07, 28.12.11. - & VOLUNTARISM

MORALITY: Morality ought to decide politics. And its primary requisites are: voluntarism, autonomy, exterritorialism, individualism, secessionism and panarchism. - J.Z., 4.6.92. - It amounts to consistent pluralism, democracy, anarchism, voluntarism and libertarianism. - J.Z., 7.1.93. - Territorial politics is inherently and inevitably immoral, by its very nature, at least for all its dissenters. Those who agree with it are accessories to its crimes against its victims. - J.Z., 10.12.03. - & POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM

MORALITY: No morality can be founded on authority, even if the authority were divine.” – A. J. Ayer, Essay on Humanism. - On the other hand, a quite genuine morality is itself the highest authority. – So far we had largely only flawed, incomplete or all too fictitious “moralities”. – There exists, to my knowledge, as yet no complete and generally recognized declaration of individual rights and liberties. Nor even a movement attempting, finally, to provide it. – That does indicate to me a very high degree of immorality combined with an inexcusable complacency about morality and ethics, governmentally declared “human rights” and genuine individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 8.12.07, 28.12.11. – However, those believing that they can establish it by a secular authority or divine revelations, should be free to establish and maintain their concept of morality among their own believers. – J.Z., 6.12.07. - & AUTHORITY GOD, HUMANISM, DIVINITY, RELIGION

MORALITY: Of government, at least in democratic states, it may be said briefly that it is an agency engaged wholesale, and as a matter of solemn duty, in the performance of acts which all self-respecting individuals refrain from as a matter of common decency.” - H. L. Mencken -  DECENCY, INDIVIDUALS VS. GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM

MORALITY: Or, in terms of the evolution formula, conduct is moral according as it makes the individual or the group more integrated and coherent in the midst of a heterogeneity of ends.” - Herbert Spencer, in Durant, Herbert Spencer, p.47. - - That could be interpreted as a defence of territorialism rather than panarchistic diversity of communities of volunteers, all with somewhat different moral codes for themselves. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - MEANS, ENDS, DIS., RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS

MORALITY: right conduct … can only exist where my actions are in harmony with the whole moral system.” – Auberon Herbert, A Politician in Sight of Heaven. – It need not be in harmony with all other kinds of moral and ethical systems practised by volunteers among themselves. What it needs to be fully in harmony with is only the moral system of the self-chosen community or society of volunteers. Beyond that precondition merely a policy of defensive reactions to aggressions by others is required and the abstention from committing acts against the volunteers of other communities, which they would perceive to be aggressive ones. (Mere words or images or free actions of others, in their spheres, do not constitute aggression. - J.Z., 9.1.11.) When societies consist largely only out of communities of like-minded volunteers, all free to do their own things to or for themselves, then conflicts between such societies will become rare, thus defensive reactions and police military actions for protection against aggression will not be needed very often. For the few cases in which individuals or small groups of different communities clash with each other, arbitration and other adjudication processes can be agreed-upon in advance. In such cases Jerome Internoscia’s New Code of International Law, 1910, in 3 languages, side by side, should always be consulted. – J.Z., 6.12.07, 28.12.11. – I reproduced it on microfiche but have not yet digitized it, since I could proof-read it in only one language, not in French or Italian. – J.Z., 6.6.12.


MORALITY: The established rules of morality and justice are applicable to nations as well as to individuals; … the former as well as the latter are bound to keep their promises; to fulfil their engagements to respect the rights of property which others have acquired under contracts with them.” – Alexander Hamilton, Vindication of the Funding System, 1791. – Presently, nations and their governments are even less inclined than individuals to do so than they were then. They are acting barbarically even to the extent of scientifically and technologically preparing for mass murder and genocide. Their organizational form and the ideas they are based upon, see to that. Their organizations amount to organized irresponsibility on a massive scale. – J.Z., 10.7.86. - Which rules of morality and justice are firmly established in our times? - J.Z., 11.5.87. - - Even if the top mass murderers were finally punished or even executed, which has happened, if at all, only to a few of them and then after very long delays, under governmental systems of justice, their single lives could not make up for the dozens to millions of their victims. - Which State has ever lived up to Hamilton’s ideal for long? How many States managed “their” affairs without the robbery of taxation without individual consent? The metaphysics and dogmas and “principles” of territorial “political sciences” are not much better than those of religions. – J.Z., 5.12.07. - NATIONAL, Q., TERRITORIAL OR VOLUNTARY & FREELY CHOSEN RELATIONSHIPS?

MORALITY: The idea of forcing someone to be moral is a contradiction in terms.” - Paul Lepanto, Return to Reason, p.125. - Unless it is done to protect the rights of others. Then one does not try to turn the coerced offender into a moral being but merely prevents him, if one can, from acting effectively as an aggressively immoral being with victims. - Not if one just forces someone to abstain or cease with an immoral action against anybody. However, different understandings or interpretations of morality exist and their holders should be free to practise them - but only within communities of like-minded volunteers. - J.Z., n.d. & 22.12.07, 9.1.11. – & MORAL ACTION DEFENCE OR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AGAINST CRIMINALS OR AGGRESSORS, DIS.

MORALITY: The Moral Element in Free Enterprise: Let us encourage usefulness to one's fellows by all means, but let us not confuse it with the importance of the ends which men ultimately serve. It is the glory of the free enterprise system that makes it at least possible that each individual, while serving his fellows, can do so for his own ends. But the system is itself only a means, and its infinite possibilities must be used in the service of ends which exist apart.” - F. A. Hayek, THE FREEMAN, 10/75. - Even Hayek did not explore free enterprise in the provision of political, economic and social systems and individual consumer sovereignty towards such suppliers. - Just like Plato, he was still engaged in the utopian attempt to make the territorial State work better than it ever did or could. - To my knowledge, he did not respond to Nozick's concept of a "meta-utopia", either. Just like he ignored his German predecessors in advocating monetary freedom. - In other words, he, too, was a victim of the absence of a genuine free market for ideas, even for freedom, peace and justice ideas. And this as a great and life-long scholar! – Everyone has his limitations! - J.Z., 22.12.07, 18.2.09.

MORALITY: The open-ended society of Adam Smith, favoring freedom as primarily a moral goal, and viewing prosperity as an incidental accompanying blessing, …” - Bastiat, in G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.181. – Alas, the “open-ended” society of the 19th century was never open-ended enough. In the main: it did not permit dissenters to secede exterritorially and try other systems among themselves. At most it allowed them emigration into other territorially ruled countries, somewhat better ruled but not good enough, as this cannot be done territorially for a whole population subjected to centrally imposed rules, under the “principles” of “one law for all” and “equality before the law”, as if the law were a moral and efficient divinity or divine revelation. – J.Z., 6.12.07. - DIS., OPEN SOCIETY, FREEDOM & PROPERTY

MORALITY: The religious revolution was followed by the social revolution. The social revolution will be followed by the moral revolution.” – (Auf die geistige Revolution folgte die soziale Revolution. Auf die soziale Revolution wird die moralische Revolution folgen.) - Hans Habe, 1976, Leben fuer den Journalismus, Band 3. - And that will ultimately have to consist only out of one-man and voluntary group revolutions. - J.Z., 1.2.02. - REVOLUTION, PANARCHISM, ONE-MAN REVOLUTIONS, VOLUNTARISM, PROTESTANTISM

MORALITY: The very concept of morality is meaningless in any context in which the individual is not free to choose to act immorally.” - Robert Patton in THE FREEMAN, Jan. 73. - Free choice to act immorally and this not only in a sexual sense, by Christian standards! - J.Z., 22.12.07. – But only towards voluntary victims! – J.Z., 18.2.09. – Or at the own expense and risk. – J.Z., 6.6.12.

MORALITY: There are many religions but there is only one morality.” – John Ruskin. – Aren’t there also many different concepts of justice and many different ideas on human rights and liberties? Is there already unanimity e.g. on capital punishment and abortion? Even in the sphere of morality there should be free choice for individuals to join one or the other system of attempting to achieve the highest morality or justice, freedom, equality, rights, progress, enlightenment etc. among volunteers. – We should recognize that not only for e.g. monks and nuns. The justice or international law between such different systems should largely be based on the best declaration of individual human rights and liberties that could presently be compiled. But within competing moral systems, practised by their volunteers, even the best declaration of individual rights should not be enforced. The members of diverse panarchies should be free to restrict their own rights and liberties as much as they like – but not those of outsiders or non-members. – Ruskin, too, did not provide, to my knowledge, an ideal moral code, or tried to. - J.Z., 5.12.07, 9.1.11, 6.6.12. - & RELIGION, DIS., JUSTICE, PUNISHMENT, RIGHTS, ABORTION, INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, DIS., Q.

MORALITY: There are some who would say that a man need only obey the accepted moral code of his community. (*) But I do not think any student of anthropology could be content with this answer. Such practices as cannibalism, human sacrifice, and head hunting have died out as a result of moral protests against conventional moral opinion. (**) If a man seriously desires to live the best life that is open to him, he must learn to be critical of the tribal customs and tribal beliefs that are generally accepted among his neighbors.” (***) - Bertrand Russell, Authority and the Individual, p.82. - (*) It all depends whether he has accepted it, i.e. whether it is a voluntary community that he has individually accepted by becoming its member or remaining a member. - (**) What if they were practised only among volunteers? - (***) He should opt out, secede, withdraw and establish or join a community of volunteers with moral beliefs and practices. Does he have the right to initiate a war against a tribe with such practices - if they are confined to their volunteers? I would deny that. To a large extent such tribes would be self-extinguishing. And, if all their members are free to secede and make use of that option and find asylum in better societies, such tribes would tend to disappear, possibly fast. Abraham's tribe might have grown fast largely through the abolition of child sacrifices and of collective responsibility actions. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - CUSTOMS & TRADITIONS, DIS., Q.

MORALITY: Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other.” - Rousseau. - When and where were they ever sufficiently combined in territorial States? - Only the panarchies or polyarchies of volunteers could ever come close to that ideal. - J.Z., 22.12.07. - & POLITICS

MORALITY: Verbinded meine Moralitaet den anderen zu gleicher Moralitaet? Ich bin nicht Exekutor des Sittengesetzes sondern nur meiner Rechte." - Fichte, Beitrag ... (Does my morality oblige the other to the same morality? I am not the executor of the moral law for all but merely that of my own rights.)

MORALITY: We have a moral obligation not to judge other people's standards by our own.” - Brian W. Aldiss, "Danger: Religion!" - As long as they do apply them only to themselves! - J.Z., n.d. - & TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

MORALITY: What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike.” – Alfred North Whitehead. - - Or so they believe. Are they right? Only within their own communities of volunteers and by their own standards – until they have learnt to appreciate better ones! – J.Z., 6.12.07. - & MAJORITIES, DIS.


MORANT, G. S. de: Exterritorialite et interets etrangers en Chine, Paris, Paul Geuthner, 1925.

MORE RIGHTS, LIBERTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT ONLY OPTIONALLY: I am in favour of more rights, liberties, responsibilities, opportunities and choices for you - even if you are not. But I also hold that none of these or any particular combination of them should be forced upon you or anyone else, except defensively, upon criminals with victims and other aggressors. - J.Z., 17.7.84, 14.1.93, 9.1.11, 26.12.11. – TOLERANCE & VOLUNTARISM VS. COERCION & COMPULSION

MORLEY ON LIBERTY & PERSUASION: Those who cling to the tenets of liberty limit the action of the majority, as of the minority strictly to persuasion. Those who dislike liberty, insist that earnestness of conviction justifies either a majority or a minority in using not persuasion only, but force. - John Morley, On Compromise, 214. - The actions of the majority, as well as of the minorities, towards dissenters in the same territories, should be limited to persuasion, unless the liberty to act in accordance with their beliefs, among themselves, is forcefully denied to them by people who are not members of their volunteer groups. Then rightful and forceful resistance and liberation efforts are justified and would be facilitated through the program of exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups and through militias of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties – to the extent that they are rightly claimed. Internally, and towards consenting victims, both might apply more than persuasion to uphold their systems among themselves, as long as their members remain free to secede from them. And both, majorities and minority groups, once they have obtained freedom of action and experimentation for their self-responsible actions, should try to persuade outsiders mainly only by their examples and demonstrations and by sufficiently recording and publishing their experiences, which under developed retrieval facilities and freedom of information would then be at the disposal of everybody upon demand and payment of the costs involved. But the continuing missionary attempts to persuade outsiders to adopt the lifestyles and social, political and economic system, which one prefers for oneself, should be largely given up as a waste of time and energy. Only when one is forced to live only under territorial systems does one have no better way than persuasion to attempt to change the opinions and actions of the ruling majority or minority. - J.Z. 12.6.92, 7.1.93, 27.12.11.

MORMON CHURCH: The Mormon Church, until defeated by the US Army, may be considered to have been an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers. Hint by Ulrich von Beckerath. I have no literature references as yet. The church itself can probably offer much historical evidence. - None of the Mormon apostles, who sometimes visit me, did know anything about that aspect or showed any interest in it. - J.Z. - Alas, it was exterritorial only as far as the US Federation was concerned.  Even within the State it was not realized as exterritorially autonomous. Only in underground activities, like polygamy, did the faithful act exterritorially. - J.Z., 1.9.04.

MOROCCO: FRANKFURTER ILLUSTRIERTE vom 5.II.55 enthaelt einen Aufsatz ueber die Rechtsverhaeltnisse von Marokko. Es gibt da drei Rechtsgemeinschaften: (1) die mohammedanische fuer Araber und Berber, (2) die juedische, (3) die fuer Europaeer. - - Das Recht des Beklagten bezw. Angeklagten ist massgebend. - Bth., 2.2.55. - - (The FRANKFURTER ILLUSTRIERTE of 5.2.55 contained an article on the legal conditions in Morocco. There 3 legal communities exist: 1.) the Islamic one for Arabs and Berbers, 2.) the Jewish one, 3. one for Europeans. - - The right of the accused decides. – U. v. Beckerath, 2.2.55.) - I believe that these exterritorialist treaties were repealed in 1955. - They may have been the last of the regular “capitulations”.  Moreover, many Jewish people were deported. Our times are oh, so advanced, progressive and civilized! – J.Z., 27.12.04. - The right of the accused should not be automatically adopted. He may think that e.g. compulsory marriage, sexual mutilation, human sacrifices, the burning of widows and the murder of dissenters are honorable and even dutiful activities and whatever else belongs to you, is not really your own, by HIS "standards", customs and "laws". - J.Z., 20.10.11. – The victims of such customs should be free to secede from them before they fall victim to them. – J.Z., 6.6.12.

MORRIS, DESMOND: The Naked Ape, 1967, Corgi Book edition, 1969. He discusses territorialism far more realistically, including its narrow limits, than Robert Ardrey did and without drawing Ardreys dogmatic conclusions, from the behavior of  SOME to MANY animals upon ALL human beings, e.g. on pp 21, 28, 72, 111, 128, 129, 139, 150, 154, 159, 160, 167. – J.Z., n.d., JZL.

MORRIS, J. H. C. & NORTH, P. M.: Cases and Materials on Private International Law, Butterworths, London, 1984, indexed, 757pp.

MORRIS, J. H. C.: The Conflict of Laws, 3rd. ed., Stevens & Sons, London, 1984, indexed, 544pp.

MORRIS, JONATHAN DAVID, One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State, 2004, on, - an article generally in favor of secessionism, not only territorial secessionism but down to individual secessionism. - - On secessions, down to families and individuals. - Just imagine what life would be like if states could secede from unions, towns from states, families from towns, and people from families. It would be a true system of checks and balances. - SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, EXTERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM

MORSE, H. B.: The International Relations of the Chinese Empire, 3 vols., London, N. Y,, Longmans, Green & Co,, 1910-18.

MORSE, H. B.: The Trade and Administration of the Chinese Empire, London, N. Y., Longmans, Green & Co., 1908. Treats Exterritoriality.

MOSER, Versuch des neuesten europäischen Völkerrechts. (Frankfurt a. M., 1777- 80), vol. vii, p. 833. - Quoted in LIU, ibid, page 44.

MOTOR REGISTRATION: Scrap the expensive and useless old bomb - and tax extortion racket: the Department of Motor Transport. - J.Z., 1975, 23.12.07. - It is only one of thousands associated with territorialism. - J.Z., 9.1.11, 6.6.12.

MOVEMENTS: Can any sound movement really grow and hope to succeed or should it without clearly separating itself from its lunatic fringe and other foolish hanger-on? - J.Z., 7.7.82. - Financially these people may be an asset to an organization or periodical - but, otherwise … After all, these people could or should form their own organization or publication. - A panarchist platform would have scope for even these varieties of interests, opinions, ideas, dogmas, errors and prejudices. - J.Z., 7.7.82. - LUNATIC FRINGES, PANARCHISM

MOVEMENTS: Each group has its own social structure which binds it together. Group movements are always movements for independence in order that subjugated or oppressed groups may attain self-realisation." - Quathafi, [Gaddhafi] The Green Book. - The anarchist and libertarian movements do not have much of a structure and some anarchist groups attempt to avoid any structure. Very different degrees of independence are striven for and some might act only under paranoid illusions of subjugation or of oppression policy or of "conspiracies" against them. - J.Z., - 12.1.93. - Compare the anarchists, who should be Free Traders, joining the Protectionists, under the cover of vague and mostly false "anti-globalization” notions. - J.Z., 10.10.03, - That tyrant made dissidents and minorities disappear, if they did not shut up and obeyed. One of his favorite methods seems to have been to bury people alive. - Self-realization for him meant only the self-realization of himself and of many of his family members in their worst natural inclinations. - If tyrannicide had been a common policy, he would not have survived for so many decades. - J.Z., 20.10.11, 28.12.11.

MOVEMENTS: Each movement is its own worst enemy. – J.Z., 6.11.90. – Until it makes panarchism its primary aim. – J.Z., 5.8.92. - IDEOLOGIES, ENEMIES & PANARCHISM

MOVEMENTS: It is characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic elements rise to the top." - Robert Linder, Must You Conform? 1956. - Scum as well as cream rises to the top. In coercive and territorial associations and movements it tends to be the scum. For exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities this trend would tend to be reversed. Under panarchism the incompetent would be fast weeded out or enlightened. They would either have to put up or shut up, being subjected to consumer sovereignty and individual secessionism and extensive competition. - J.Z., 20.6.92, 14.1.93. - LEADERSHIP

MULTI-AUTONOMISM: Full autonomy for all - on an exterritorial and voluntary basis and under personal laws. - J.Z., 5.9.88. – Full autonomy for all voluntary associations, on the basis of exterritoriality and personal laws. – J.Z., 5.9.88. Only then could no one’s ideal, system or belief forced upon all others in a territory. . – J.Z., 7.12.07. - Full autonomy for all groups of volunteers desiring this for themselves, on an exterritorial autonomy or personal law basis, in each case at the expense and risk only of these volunteers. - J.Z., 5.9.88, 4.3.89, 27.12.11. - PANARCHISM

MULTI-AUTONOMY: Full autonomy for all groups, on an exterritorial, voluntary and personal law basis, in each case at the expense and risk of the voluntary participants. - J.Z., 4.3.89. – PANARCHISM

MULTICULTURALISM & PANARCHISM:  The choice is a between territorially imposed monoculture or imposed multiculturalism on the one hand and freely chosen diversity, under exterritorial autonomy, for individuals and consenting groups. – J.Z., 1.8.95, 7.1.99.

MULTICULTURALISM: Multicultural tolerance is not enough. We must also become tolerant towards multiple kinds of politics being practised, at the same time and in the same country, as well as a towards all the variety of economic, ideological and social systems, all practised peacefully, autonomously, exterritorially and tolerantly among volunteers. - J.Z., 11 Aug. 89, 10 Oct. 89. - VS. FULL TOLERANCE & PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, MINORITY AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MULTICULTURALISM: Multiculturalism and pluralism do not go far enough while they do not permit individuals to choose for themselves the political, economic and social system under which they prefer for themselves. – J.Z., 25.1.05. - PANARCHISM & PLURALISM

MULTICULTURALISM: Multiculturalism as a territorial political policy is nonsense. Freedom, rights and tolerance for individual choices are decisive rather than such “policies”. Under freedom all cultures are free. But freedom goes further than that. It would not only grant freedom of expression and information to all the different cultures but also freedom of action and experimentation, even in the economic, social and political spheres, to all kinds of societies, communities, movements and groups of volunteers. That is what all of us are morally entitled to. That is what our territorial politicians are not prepared to concede to cultural and other minorities. That is largely the practical way to achieve solutions to most of our remaining problems. “Release all creative energies!” – was a frequent appeal by Leonard E. Read. Even those of crime fighters and those of the providers of internal and external security and of alternative societal systems - should be included under that motto. None of our territorial politicians has any genuine solution to offer. They are good only in adding to our problems and in coining deceptive election slogans. – J.Z., n.d. & 4.12.07. – Among their remaining true believers they should be free to do so, but only exterritorially, no longer territorially, for whole populations, in which there are, finally, more and more dissenters to their policies. – J.Z., 28.12.11.

MULTICULTURALISM: Multiculturalism does not fully free diverse cultures but subjugates them to centralized rule and exploitation, via imposed laws and taxation. Genuine multiculturalism would exist only if all the diverse cultures, represented by volunteers, could gain for themselves full exterritorial autonomy under their own personal laws. Precisely this kind of multiculturalism remains suppressed under what is now called multiculturalism. – J.Z., 30.7.98, 30.11.07, 9.1.11.

MULTICULTURALISM: Multiculturalism should be an individual option, not an imposition, upon anyone, anywhere or anytime. - J.Z. 11 Nov. 92. - Voluntary instead of compulsory segregation, but also voluntary instead of compulsory integration should be among our individual and group options. - J.Z., 9.12.03, 6.6.12.

MULTICULTURALISM: Multiculturalism, multi-religiosity and freedom of expression and information are important but not enough. We must get multi-politics and multi-economics too – or freedom of action for political, economic and social experiments or full exterritorial minority autonomy. That can only be achieved on the basis of personal law and voluntary membership. - One territorial State for all was never anywhere a satisfactory solution for all who lived in that territory. We should not assume that it ever will or could be. Even anarchists and libertarians are split into numerous diverse groups and do endlessly argue among themselves about some minor or even important points. The statists are even more diverse because they are less principled. Their temporary compromises do not constitute unity but merely armistices. – J.Z., 9.10.88, 1.4.89, 7.12.07. 28.12.11, 6.6.12. - & PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

MULTICULTURALISM: Obviously, it is not practicable as yet to try to establish really free societies territorially. They must be built up, rather, under free competition between multiple social, economic and political systems, societies, communities and ideologies, not only in the religious sphere or that of arts or private life-styles. This would be possible under personal law or full exterritorial autonomy, always only for volunteers. It must become possible for all minorities to practise all their kinds of ideologies, not only religious ones, in this way, i.e., under full tolerance for all tolerant actions. Then, upon an equal starting position for all, in an age that is still predominantly statist oriented, free societies would get their best chances. They would no longer be confined to try to persuade the statists to adopt all individual rights and liberties but could leave them to their own ideas, methods and institutions, while merely demonstrating the non-statist alternatives among themselves. That would be the best response to the fear of freedom that is still in the minds of most statists and also to  numerous misunderstandings they still believe in about the freedom alternatives. They should be left undisturbed in their own practice of non-territorial statism, instead of threatening to abolish it violently or via legislation, together with the abolition of territorialism. All kinds of statism for statists and also all kinds of anarchism and of libertarianism for all kinds of anarchists and libertarians. We might then still have heated opinion exchanges but not about actions, since all would be free to undertake the actions they prefer – AMONG THEMSELVES. – J.Z., 7.3.93, 4.12.07, 28.12.11. - MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM & REGULATED “FREE” ENTERPRISE & “FREE” TRADE, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITY RULE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM INSTEAD OF RELIANCE ONLY ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION & INFORMATION. FREE SOCIETIES, ANARCHISM, STATISM, LIBERTARIANISM, TO EACH HIS OWN.

MULTICULTURALISM: The choice is a between territorially imposed monoculture or imposed multiculturalism on the one hand and freely chosen diversity, under exterritorial autonomy, for individuals and consenting groups in all spheres, especially the political, economic and social ones, now still monopolized by territorial States. – J.Z., 1.8.95, 7.1.99, 28.12.11. - & PANARCHISM

MULTICULTURALISM: the current fad for 'multiculturalism', for encouraging people to cling to their foreign (*) roots instead of adapting to the culture (**) into which they choose (***) to move."- Stanley Schmidt, editorial, ANALOG, 5/92, p. 4. - -  (*) own! (**) They migrated usually for other reasons. (***) They usually choose not another culture but more political and economic freedom. Their “shopping baskets” should only be filled with their own choices, not with those of the local nationalists. - Would the territorial nationalists e.g. want them to throw away all their books in their mother tongue and read only writings of the new country? - J.Z., 18.1.93, 5.2.93. - I do even favour full exterritorial autonomy for all immigrants, if they do prefer that for themselves. - J.Z., 9.1.11. – By migrating to another country one does not renounce one’s culture, traditions, beliefs, habits, knowledge, personal preferences etc. and does not have to subscribe to the uniformity spleens of former immigrants. Only totalitarian and democratic territorialists would assume otherwise. The existing local majorities and minorities should, naturally, remain free to retain their preferences among themselves. They have no more right to impose uniformity upon new immigrants than upon tourists. They are not exclusive owners and landlords of whole countries or continents, entitled to prescribe “house rules”, except in their own clubs and other private associations and relationships. – Voluntary segregation should be distinguished from compulsory segregation, just like voluntary integration should be distinguished from compulsory integration. To each his own culture, laws and institutions, to the extent that they prefer them for themselves. But also freedom for those victimized by any “culture” or tradition to secede from it and join or start another one. – J.Z., 27.12.11. ????

MULTICULTURALISM: The fashionable multiculturalism and non-racist immigration policies of Australia, England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Germany do already recognize that no country or continent does rightly and exclusively belong to any particular race or ethnic group, any nationality or ideology. Alas, upon this limited and classical liberal background attempts are made at new nationalistic “nation-building” upon an exclusive territorial model, and all the different groups are coercively subjected to the same constitution and laws, jurisdiction and other institutions and processes of majoritarian or somewhat representative democracies. That is all right for all those in favor of them but not for any of the peaceful dissenters who would rather do their own things to and for themselves and do have the individual rights and liberties to do so, even though they are not recognized at present by territorial governments or what has been misnamed the “United Nations”. – J.Z., 16.5.96, 9.1.99.


MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: Government, however (*) necessary for order in society, is, in the final analysis, organized force. Try not paying your taxes and you’ll see what I mean. Multinational corporations, on the other hand, are strictly voluntary organizations. Nobody is twisting your arm to buy a Chevy, a Mazda, 10 gallons of Shell, a Sony color TV or any other product from the MNC.” – William H. Peterson, THE FREEMAN, 8/76. – (*), thought to be? – J.Z. - MULTINATIONALS & GOVERNMENTS: VOLUNTARISM VS. CONTROLS

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: If a corporation shifts its production facilities within a country, the unions can and do follow. But they do not have any bargaining power for workers hired in Belgium or Mozambique. - - Deliberately ignored by opponents of the multinational corporation was the fact that other nations were building plants in the United States at the same time. Companies in Japan, Germany, England, Switzerland, and other industrial countries were investing capital and equipment in various areas of the world, including America, creating new jobs and contributing to world-wide economic growth. Multinationalism is not a one-way street, and never was. Everyone benefits from it and always did. - - No matter, though. The United Nations viewed the multinationals as a threat to its prestige; dictatorial governments saw them as liberators of their own oppressed subjects; and unions feared them …” - Jerome Tuccille, Who's Afraid of 1984? p.127. - I favour full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws for multinational corporations. - And I did not apply or take a grant or donation etc. from any of them for taking this stand. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - MULTINATIONALS

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: If all nations were replaced by multinational corporations - at least at the option of individual citizens - then we would be much closer to peace. - J.Z., 27.4.83. - MULTINATIONALS

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: In fact, to mark a break with the past and knowing the hatred inspired and spread by the states towards 'multinational' firms, we could say that we are all 'multinationals,' (or transnationals) meaning that we are the result of the mixing of many people and many cultures from various places since the beginning of time.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his new, 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy. - TRANSNATIONALS, MULTINATIONALS, POLYARCHY, PANARCHY

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: International corporations should be autonomous – in all but the ownership of scarce natural resources. – J.Z., 2/73. In this respect the form of “open cooperatives” would be far more just and effective than any involvement in natural resources by governments. – It does not require expropriation. Everyone in an open coop would still be rewarded according to his work and capital input. - J.Z., 7.12.07. – However, even this form of productive organization should only be introduced on a voluntary basis. If it is as good as it is supposed to be then it will spread being more and more widely adopted by more and more volunteers. – J.Z., 18.2.09, 28.12.11. - MULTINATIONALS, INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS, PANARCHISM, NATURAL RESOURCES, OPEN COOPERATIVES

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: Multinational – I love you! – J.Z., 17.8.74. – As the first effective competitors to the territorial nation States! – J.Z., 7.12.07. – Let the multinationals take us ahead. – J.Z., 75.

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: Multinational companies are truly the servants of demanding consumers around the world. … When governments are slow to grasp the fact that their role has changed from protecting their people and their national resource base from outside threats to ensuring that their people have the widest range of choice among the best and cheapest goods and services from around the world … they discourage investment and impoverish their people.” – Kenichi Ohmae, director of the Japanese office of the American management consultancy McKinsey. The Borderless World, 1990, x-xi. - FREE TRADE

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: Multinational corporations of the world have probably done more to put people in decent houses, to put food in their bellies and shoes on their feet than most governments have.” - THE AUSTRALIAN, quoted in an article by Lang Hancock, 1975. . - Full monetary and financial freedom for all multinationals! Also Free Trade and exception from all territorial immigration restrictions. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - MULTINATIONALS

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: Numerous nationalists, statists and leftists have raised "objections" against multinational corporations and globalization. They seem to be unaware that countries like e.g. Australia and the USA are governmentally organized multinational corporations as well, extending over vast territories and also corporations of the worst type, statist ones, far more coercive and monopolistic, as territorial States, than most multinationals are. (They are multinationals in the sense that their citizens and subjects come from ca. 200 different nations.) You cannot secede from such States. You are forced to contribute to them and invest in them. You do not get your certified share in them and cannot, thus, sell it if you want to. Whatever job you do, you are also working as a part-time serf for this governmental and territorial multinational. To what you call a multinational corporation you can give notice, its assets you can sell, or refuse to buy, likewise its products and services. Try doing this with governmental services, refuse your "voluntary" tax contribution, ignore its monopolies and you might end up in prison or dead. Territorial governments are certainly the most exploitative, wrongful and harmful corporations. - Yet the critics of private multinationals seem to love their territorialist governmental superiors, when it comes to sheer power. (What is good e.g. about the UN?) If you really think that all existing multinationals are bad, why don't you start a good one? In your attempt to do so, you would soon find out where the real and main threats are for your genuine individual rights and liberties. - If you were merely objecting to privilege granted by governments to multinationals, e.g. patent- and copyrights, I would agree with you. These should be done away with. A free market would offer better options to innovators and writers than legalized monopolies. - J.Z., 14.12.82, 23.12.07. - MULTINATIONALS, DIS.

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: One can buy or sell their shares. One can buy or sell their products or services - or one can ignore them altogether. In other words, they are very different from the single nation territorial and all too statist, monopolistic, collectivist, coercive and exploitative governments, which tax, oppress, conscript, regulate and even kill us, when they consider this to be justified or necessary. Thus it is hard to understand why some people consider the multinational corporations to be even worse than territorial States are. I for one prefer them at any time to territorial governments. - J.Z., 21.4.80, 28.12.11. - MULTINATIONALS

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: The MNC’s are getting out of control. In the past few years, while the bureaucrats of different countries were fighting each other, the traders were cooperating internationally and now comprise 50 of the largest 100 economic units on earth. The faster technology advances, the greater the advantage of the MNC over the nation-state. Many important areas of knowledge have a doubling on the order of ten years. The nation-state gained its power in a far more static world. As scientific and technological advances accelerate, the balance of power will shift further toward the MNC. The evidence is growing that trade rather than coercion is the wave of the future.” – Ron Kimberling, INDIVIDUALIST, 6/72. - TRADE VS. COERCION

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: The multinational company has the capacity to diminish the power of centralized government - indeed, perhaps even to distribute power more equitably throughout the world", said Walter E. Schirmer in 1974. His projection at the time turned out to be amazingly prescient. …” - Jerome Tuccille, Who's Afraid of 1984? p.131. - MULTINATIONALS

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: The old cliché “World Peace Through World Trade” sounds kind of corny, but it's becoming a reality just the same. Already we're moving beyond world trade into the next phase," he said in 1974. "What's developing is an interlocking corporate structure on a world scale. We're all becoming investors in everyone else's economy. War, hell! The multinational corporations can't afford a major war. They'll do everything they can to avoid one." - Richard Bode was not alone in recognizing the multinationals as an emerging force for world peace in 1974. Historian Arnold Toynbee made the same observation in a magazine article, adding that they were the healthiest force on earth while oppressive political regimes were growing more rickety and inefficient. Critics of the multinationals expressed the fear that they were becoming so powerful they could flout the laws of individual nations and operate with impunity like latter-day pirates, but it soon became apparent that these corporations were better citizens than the local political rulers themselves.” - Jerome Tuccille, Who's Afraid of 1984? p.128. - One of the positive aspects of multinationals is that, due to their international spread they are not dependent upon any particular State. If one treats them too bad, they could simply altogether withdraw all their activities from it. The mere threat to do so can often already serve to keep a bad territorial government somewhat in line. However, the statist expropriators and taxers or tribute-gatherers are still with us, so that multinationals will move as much of their activities as they can into less regulated and taxed countries, boosting the economies of these countries, probably better than the governmental foreign aid efforts. - J.Z., 23.12.07. – DIS.

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: We must see the wisdom of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation that the MNC is a shining example of the “enormous recent achievements” in international relations, that “combining modern management with liberal trade policies, it is arguably the most creative international institution of the twentieth century.” - - I agree. The multinational corporation is far and away the greatest force for world development and, as implied by IBM, for world peace.” – William H. Peterson, THE FREEMAN, 8/78. – On the other hand, we should not overlook how some multinationals are involved in providing some territorial governments with the capacity to provide nuclear mass murder devices. – J.Z., 8.12.07. – Like other corporations they also strive for privileges, monopolies, subsidies and bailouts. – J.Z., 6.6.12. - DIS.

MULTINATIONALITY: from ascribed nationality to asserted multi-nationality …” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his new, 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MULTIPLE CRISIS THEORIES: Mere further arguing about the cause and cure for economic crises will not soon enough settle such questions. – J.Z., 5.10.08. – Not only should all the diverse crisis theories (at least ca. 150) be listed together, with all their pro and con, but volunteers should be free to apply among themselves whatever crises cures they do believe could or would work. No territorial government should any longer have a monopoly power to either cause or attempt to cure any economic crisis. Full experimental freedom for all. Especially since the “cures” by territorial governments usually do not work at all or make matters even worse. – J.Z., 7.2.09. – Competing societies, communities and governance systems could at most spoil their own affairs, not those of all other. They could fail or succeed like many businesses and enterprises already do in their spheres. – Their all-over effect would be positive and quite rightfully achieved. - J.Z., 6.6.12. - PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, HYPOTHESES, DEFLATION, DEPRESSION, INFLATION, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM VS. MONETARY & FINANCIAL DESPOTISM

MULTIPLE PASSPORTS & MULTIPLE NATIONALITIES: While territorialism is still predominant, this would be one step forward for freedom-seeking individuals. – J.Z., 27.12.11. – INTERNATIONALISM, FREE TRAVELER

MUNDY, JOHN H. & RIESENBERG, PETER: The Medieval Town, Van Nostrand Co., Princeton, N.J., 1958, 190 pp., JZL, contains at least 3 references to exterritorial autonomy of trading posts, knights and colonist courts: pp. 36, 58, 137. Page 43: "Town air makes free". It provided an opportunity for the individual secession of serfs and slaves as well as other oppressed people. "The villager could move to town. There, he was protected by the town peace, guarding its citizens against pursuit and seizure. Once resident beyond immediate recall and having performed his civic duties, the countryman became a citizen." - This was still merely small scale or decentralized territorialism. Some cities are supposed to have been started entirely by refugee slaves and serfs, raising primitive palisades before their pursuers arrived. Once in their history, the whole of England and of Prussia constituted such a refuge or asylum for victims of other countries. Now one can at best flee to countries with other or lower kinds of territorial suppression and exploitation. - J.Z., n.d. & 28.12.11.

MURPHY, ROBERT, But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - Robert Murphy - But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - Ludwig von Mises Institute, July 07, 2005.  – The panarchistic trend would rather to into the opposite direction. The war lords would be unsaddled and their victims as much liberated as they want to be liberated. – J.Z., 6.6.12. - DIS.

MURPHY, ROBERT, The Possibility of Private Law, [Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005] Mises Daily Article - In a recent article, I discussed the possibility of private, competing security agencies. I took for granted the background rule of law (or lack thereof), and merely made the relative argument that a monopoly institution of violence (i.e. the State) would not aid the achievement of a working consensus on legal norms, and that in fact (as history shows) government-controlled societies are certainly susceptible to civil war. In the present piece, I will elaborate on how law itself could be efficiently and equitably produced in a private setting. – Exterritorially autonomous institutions, societies, communities and governments systems and their personal law do now have to be invented or envisioned, since they do already have a very long history. However, like science and technology, they remained under-developed because, mostly, they did not enjoy full exterritorial autonomy. Moreover, they existed in ages of ignorance, barbarism and numerous popular errors and prejudices, insufficient literature and other communication avenues. Even now many genuine individual rights and liberties are not yet widely enough recognized and realized. - J.Z., 6.6.12.

MUSIC PRODUCTION, TRADE & ENJOYMENT IS ALREADY PANARCHISTIC: Music production, reproduction, distribution, storage and enjoyment is largely panarchistically organized. As a result, different kinds of music lovers may avoid or may merely verbally criticize each other. As a rule they do not fight and their friendships and exchanges tend to be peaceful and international. - J.Z., 26.7.87.

MUSIC, HOBBIES, ENTERTAINMENTS, DRAFTS, DANCING, EATING OUT, ARTS, CRAFTS ETC.: Millions watch and cheer sports events or participate in them or pursue private hobbies, crafts and arts in a retreat from public affairs to private matters in which they abdicate interest in and responsibility for public affairs, which, as a result, often seem to go from bad to worse. Indeed, it appears to be much easier to gain personal satisfactions in this way. In this limited private sphere, with some efforts and costs one can get considerable positive results. However, the consequences of the majority thus withdrawing from their rights and duties as human beings and citizens - all too limited as these still are, under all territorial governments - are likely to be disastrous. Public affairs are much too important to remain in the hands of a few power addicts in charge of territorial States. - There are similarities between the "pacem et circenses" (bread and circus performances) policies of the ruling Romans towards the people of Rome and the "Gemuetlichkeit" (private complacency?) of Germans under the Nazi regime and also with the private hobby, craft and amusement activities pursued today by most people, while a nuclear holocaust is well prepared for all of mankind. We need something like a reverse retreatism. From the common preoccupation with minor private affairs into public affairs, but this on the basis of a libertarian and tolerant philosophy and practised on the basis of personal laws and voluntary communities that are only exterritorially autonomous. - J.Z., 27.1.82, 23.12.07. - SPORTS, HOBBIES, LIFESTYLES, FASHIONS, MOVIES, LITERATURE, STUDIES, CLOTHING, HAIRSTYLES

MUSIC: LET EACH DANCE TO HIS OWN. - J.Z., in pamphlet: Tolerance. - If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away." - Henry David Thoreau

MUSIC: Much of modern music is a turn-off, at least for me. Luckily, this is greatly facilitated by switches on radios, TVs, gramophones, cassette- and video-recorders as well as DVD-players. – J.Z., 23.4.89, 6.12.07. - If only I could already switch off all government interferences in this way. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - MODERN MUSIC


MUTUAL AID: Does one have to be either hammer or anvil? Does one have to play only zero-sum games? Is the choice merely between ruling or being ruled? Do we really have to fight or struggle for existence or, merely, to work productively and freely? Examples for such claims exist only in the army and the territorial State in general. The contrary is already the rule: Mutual aid, as e.g. in production based on the division of labour and free exchange, at least for consumer goods and services. - J.Z., n.d. - DARWINISM, STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, COMPETITION

MUTUAL AID: It is your concern when your neighbor's wall is on fire.” - Horace [Quintas Horatius Flaccus], Epistles, I, xviii, 84. -  SOLIDARITY, SOCIAL CONTRACT, HELP, ASSISTANCE

MUTUAL AID: Man is appealed to, to be guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, or at best tribal, but by the perception of his one-ness with each human being. (*) In the practice of mutual aid, which we can trace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support, not mutual struggle, has had the leading part.” – Peter Kropotkin. - - However, even mutual aid, as well as any other political, economic or social system is to be practised only among volunteers! - - (*) At least by his common interest with like-minded people in a community of volunteers, who want to be left alone to do their own things and are prepared to leave all other communities alone to do their things for or to themselves. – J.Z., 15.9.07. - RATHER THAN MUTUAL STRUGGLE, COOPERATION & COMPETITION, AMONG VOLUNTEERS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, DIVERSITY, HARMONY, SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT, LEAVING EACH OTHER ALONE, TOLERANCE, COMMUNITIES, SOCIETIES, PANARCHISM

MUTUAL AID: Men are made for mutual help, says Seneca … - soldiers for pay merely, without regard to the cause; whose motto is, the right is where the best pay is.” – Hugo Grotius, On the Laws of War and Peace.

MUTUAL AID: The teachings of the division of labor would replace fighting by mutual aid.” - My re-translation from German into English: “Die Lehre von der Arbeitsteilung“, erfaehrt man, „setze an die Stelle des Kampfes ‚gegenseitige Hilfe’.” – Ulrike Heider, Die Narren der Freiheit, S.128, ueber Mises, Die Gemeinwirtschaft, Jena, 1932, S.287. - Heider is biased against market economics and blind to the fact that in free exchange, under division of labor, in a really free market, mutual aid is also involved, as well as profit-making by all participants. – She remained unaware how foolish her “judgment” often is on those, she considers to be fools. - J.Z., 4.12.07. - DIVISION OF LABOUR, WITHIN & BETWEEN ENTERPRISES & COUNTRIES, DIS.

MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION: MAD! With panarchism against the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) policies that are “armed” with WMDs – towards peace, justice, freedom, progress, prosperity, even intelligence expansion, life extension and the Stars. - J.Z., 04-11. - This madness is still a practised "policy" between some territorial governments and, as such, a very good reason for the directly or indirectly targeted subjects to deprive all such governments of ALL their powers. Living for decades under the threat of this kind of DAMOCLES SWORD is a good enough reason for such actions, on its own. - You do not really appreciate or love yourself, your partner, your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, friends and associates - if you continue to do nothing about it and not even think and discuss WHAT you should be free to do about it. - J.Z., 20.10.11. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, NUCLEAR OVER-KILL, NUCLEAR "STRENGTH", POWER MADNESS, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

MUTUAL CONVENIENCE RELATIONSHIPS: Let's replace single convenience relationships by mutual convenience relationships. - A suggestion by Don Werkheiser, to replace those old terms which are all too misunderstood or distorted by now. - See also the corresponding distinctions Rothbard made in "Power and the Market". - J.Z., n.d. - A book by Don Werkheiser on this subject was supposed to have been published after his death. I have not seen it yet. - J.Z., 23.12.07. - VS. SINGLE CONVENIENCE RELATIONSHIPS

MUTUAL FREEDOM: Term used by Alan Gewirth in "Must One Play the Moral Language Game?" - AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY, April 70.

MUTUAL TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIAL UNIFICATION: Not unification is required for strength but mutual tolerance, on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy. Then, for all other and common purposes one could organize some common defence and arbitration services. - J.Z., 18.7.87.

MUTUAL TOLERANCE: Not unification is required for strength but mutual tolerance, on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy. Then, for all other and common purposes one could organize some common defence and arbitration services. - J.Z., 18.7.87. - VS. TERRITORIAL UNIFICATION, PANARCHISM

MUTUALISM, A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mutualism. - One of the classic writings on Mutualism is Piotr Kropotkin (1902) Mutual Aid. A factor of evolution, Allen Lane, London, 1972 - For a later text see: Clarence Lee Swartz (1927) What is Mutualism? - - Mutualism should not be seen as a conception stressing only cooperation. Competition, whenever pursued with transparency, honesty and creative far-sightedness, is also a powerful tool for evolution and betterment of personal and social life. - An interesting simulation on how co-operation (understood as trust and absence of aggression) can develop spontaneously and freely is in Robert Axelroad (1984) The Evolution of Co-operation, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1990. - Another text on the same theme is: Matt Ridley (1996) The Origins of Virtue, Softback Preview, England, 1997. - Gian Piero de Bellis in: "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - Gian Piero de Bellis in: "Waiting for the bomb."

MUTUALISM: Economists, in attempting to improve the welfare of society, look for potential transactions in which at least one party becomes better off while no one becomes worse off. The idea is that, without imposing value judgments upon others, we can be safe only by encouraging transactions to take place, which are mutually beneficial in they eyes of the participants. To go further than this cooperative trading, and to justify some activities which bring good to some only at the expense of harming others, requires that we put ourselves in a dictatorial roe in evaluating one man’s gain versus another man’s lows. Coercive Redistribution. Which brings us right back to the government. All moves that the state makes involve this trading-off of one’s gain against another’s loss. Private transactions, contrarily, are inherently just – all voluntary arrangements are mutually beneficial or else they would never have been freely created by the people involved.” – Thomas W. Hazlett, The Handshake and the Sword, THE FREEMAN, Nov. 77. - TRADE, WIN-WIN-GAMES, PRIVATE & VOLUNTARY VS. OFFICIAL & COERCIVE ACTIONS, COERCIVE REDISTRIBUTION

MUTUALISM: i.e. a society founded on the principles of association and equal exchange.” - St. Edwards, Proudhon, p.55.

MUTUALISM: In a free society, those who earn more than the national average are entitled to enjoy their possessions, for they've gained them in a system of voluntary exchange; the well-being they have bestowed upon other people! There are no valid reasons for anyone to be plagued by feelings of guilt on this score. There is genuine reciprocity in the free society, but its opponents are blind to the market's built-in mutuality.” - Edmund Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 7/75. - RECIPROCITY, FREE EXCHANGE, FREE MARKET, VOLUNTARISM, FREE SOCIETIES, WEALTH & RICHES THAT ARE EARNED

MUTUALISM: Its law, they say, is service for service, product for product, loan for loan, insurance for insurance, credit for credit, security for security, guarantee for guaranty. It is the ancient law of retaliation, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, as it were turned upside down and transferred from criminal law and the vile practices of the vendetta to economic law, to the tasks of labor and to the good offices of free fraternity. On it depend all the mutualist institutions, mutual insurance, mutual credit, mutual aid, mutual education; reciprocal guaranties of openings, exchanges and labor for good quality and fairly priced goods, etc. This is what the principle of mutualism claims to use, with the aid of certain institutions, …” Proudhon, in S. Edward's Proudhon, selections from his writings, p.59/60. - Panarchies would mutually protect their voluntarism, personal law and exterritorial autonomy - in their common interest. - J.Z., 9.1.11.

MUTUALISM: One which empowered people instead of dis-empowering them.” - Larry Gambone, ANY TIME NOW, No. 10, Sum. 00, p.1. - PEOPLE, EMPOWERMENT

MUTUALISM: Scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.” - 17th c. proverb. - Hyman Quotes, p.277. - Mutualists are at least mutually tolerant, not necessarily close friends or associates as in the above example. - J.Z., 9.1.11. - MUTUAL AID, TRADE, EXCHANGE, HELP, COOPERATION

MUTUALISM: The economic problem can be solved only through ‘a system of reciprocal service. Mutualism must supercede hierarchy. …” - John Bowle, Political Opinion in the 19th century, p.160, on Proudhon.

MUTUALISM: the labourer is no longer a serf of the State, swamped by the ocean of the community. He is a free man, truly his own master, who acts on his own initiative and is personally responsible.” – Proudhon, as quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.243. – If only he were, then he would long ago achieved self-liberation in this sphere. – J.Z., 3.12.07. - LABOR, WORKERS

MUTUALISM: The term mutual has a certain anti-Darwinist connotation. Mutuality or reciprocity should be regarded as the positive counterpart to privilege in a hierarchical order. Mutuality is based on horizontal connections and relations. This does not mean though, that every hierarchical order must be rejected: such an order is acceptable, if it has come about as the result of decisions freely taken, by the parties concerned, and if the parties can dissolve it. (See P. Heintz, Anarchismus und Gegenwart, 1951, Berlin 1973, pp. 110-113.)" - Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 46. - I seek a copy of the book by Heintz. - J.Z., 15.1.93.

MUTUALISM: You need others. Take care that they need you, too, or you are finished.” - John Henry Mackay, Settling of Accounts. ("Abrechnung") - NEED, OTHERS, RELATIONSHIPS, EGOISM, SELFISHNESS, TRADE, EXCHANGE

MUTUALITY: And this freedom will be the freedom of all. It will loosen both master and slave from the chain. For, by a divine paradox, wherever there is one slave there are two. So in the wonderful reciprocities of being, we can never reach the higher levels until all our fellows ascend with us. (*) There is not true liberty for the individual except as he finds it in the liberty of all. (**) There is no security for the individuals except as he finds it in the security of all. (***) - Edwin Markham. - - (*) At least they should have the freedom and chance to ascend or advance in whatever direction they do, presently, want to go. In the long run they would still contribute to progress, even when merely serving as deterrent examples. We do not have to advance all at the same time and at the same speed - but the possibility to do so and even to advance faster or to lag behind should exist for all individuals. - - (**) Not all have to make the fullest possible use of e.g. their liberty of speech and press, but if they want to, they should be free to do so. - - If each could be, by his own individual choice, as free or un-free as he wants to be, together with like-minded people, then the security of all of us would be greatly increased. Panarchism and Polyarchism aim at that. - J.Z., 23.12.07, 9.1.11. - SOLIDARITY, RECIPROCITY, INTERDEPENDENCE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

MY COUNTRY: As a panarchist I claim not only exterritorial autonomy within the borders of the country I was born in or settled in but in all the rest of the world, for myself and all my voluntary associates. I do readily recognize the same right for the members of all other communities of volunteers. No one should be more or less penned-in between national territorial walls, like a convicted criminal in a prison and subjected to national prison rules or to the rules made by others for their domesticated animals, against his will. Excepted from this liberty are only those who had severely infringed the basic rights and liberties of others and had been found guilty by a competitive juridical system. – J.Z., n.d., 12.1.99. - Cosmopolitan cities, in spite of their territorial governments, do already constitute a model of panarchistic "unity" and independence in diversity. In them all kinds of groups exist and are active, at least with degrees of exterritorial autonomy, sports clubs, professional and cultural organizations, for instance. Their exterritorial autonomy practice, voluntarism and extensive mutual tolerance ought to be extended to all voluntary political, economic and social groups and their utopias, platforms and panaceas or systems. - J.Z., 8.12.03. - RIGHTLY, IS EVERYWHERE. IT IS NOT CONFINED TO ANY FORMER TERRITORIAL NATION STATE & ITS BORDERS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, FREE MIGRATION VS. IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS, META-UTOPIA IDEA OF ROBERT NOZICK.



MY WAY: If a person possesses a tolerable amount of common sense and experience, his own mode of laying out his existence is the best, not because it is the best in itself, but because it is his own mode.” – John Stuart Mill, ON LIBERTY. – Even in the absence of a minimum amount of common sense, experience and knowledge, his own and self-chosen way of life is the best for him and the fastest way for him to progress. Only non-interference with others can be demanded of him and even enforced. – J.Z., 8.4.89. – Anyhow, if one is free and also obliged, by survival needs, to make all important decisions on one’s own affairs oneself, one would usually be so busy with them that one has no time or energy to spare to attempt to meddle with the affairs of others. – J.Z., 6.12.07. - I DID IT MY WAY, ETC., SELF-DETERMINATION, PANARCHISM

MYOB: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS: A condition where everyone minded only his own business would be a condition of maximum tolerance. - J.Z., in pamphlet: TOLERANCE. - That principle should be applied no only in economics, by those in favour or it, but also by LAISSEZ FAIRE or FREE MARKET advocates, to those not trusting the liberties but being opposed to them. - Moreover, it should be applied to all ideologies, parties, movements etc. in the political and economic spheres as well. - J.Z., 15.10.11. – Laissez faire for all volunteers, regardless of what political, economic or social system they wish to tolerantly apply to themselves only. – J.Z., 27.12.11. - MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, TOLERANCE

MYSELF: As one recovered alcoholic put it, ‘The only person I need to be is myself. I can be really good at that. In fact, I can never fail if I am simply me and let you be you’.” – M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy. - SELF-OWNERSHIP, BEING ONESELF, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, BE YOURSELF, NON-INTERFERENCE, LEAVING OTHERS ALONE

MYSPACE.COM: Group Url: It offers numerous websites that are relevant to individual secessionism, individual sovereignty, voluntary associationism, panarchism, polyarchism, from individual drop-outs or underground living tips to whole mobile corporations or communities on land or see, under a great variety of terms. For instance: Self-Principality, Micro-Nations, Sea-Steading, Dynamic Geography, Micropatrology. Self-ownership / individual sovereignty - Wikipedia - Micronation - Wikipedia - cybernations, fantasy countries, model countries. - Institut Français de Micropatrologie - What Is A Micronation? - League of Secessionist States - Secession - Wikipedia - Urban secession - Wikipedia - Economic secession - Wikipedia - Temporary Autonomous Zone - Wikipedia - Permanent Autonomous Zone - Wikipedia - Pirate utopia - Wikipedia - Pirate utopias were described by historian Peter Lamborn Wilson (aka Hakim Bey) in his 1995 book Pirate Utopias: Moorish Corsairs & European Renegadoes, and in his earlier essay Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ), as secret islands once used for supply purposes by pirates that were early forms of autonomous "mini societies" existing beyond the realm and reach of governments. These pirate enclaves typify proto-anarchist societies in that they operated beyond mere laws and governance and, in their stead, embraced freedom. [Freedom, based upon robbing others? - J.Z., 26.9.11.] - Phyle (φυλή; "clan", "race", "people") - Wikipedia - Phyle is an ethnological and sociological term for a tribe, particularly in ancient Greece, or derived from this, an ancient name of Fyli * A sociological analog of a biological phyla, mentioned in a novel The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson which includes three great tribes. - Panarchism - Wikipedia - PanArchy - PanArchie - PanArchia - PanArquia - - complexity and networked governance in the information age, including economics, sociology, culture, political science, commons, etc. - Panarchism / Exterritoriality - / / / THE EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE: Info on all the solutions leading to Peace and Prosperity! - Panarchisme - Wikipédia - Isonomy (isonomia) - Wikipedia - legal concept that all citizens of a nation are subject to the same laws. Austrian Economist F. A. Hayek regarded the maintenance of isonomic law as one of the necessary conditions for freedom in his influential book The Constitution of Liberty. - [That leaves entirely open the question: What constitutes a nation? All the people living in a territory or only their groups of volunteers? - J.Z., 26.9.11.] - Non-aggression principle / axiom - Wikipedia - Libertarian Management - Wikipedia - New Utopia - Wikipedia - The Principality of New Utopia is a libertarian micronation founded in the mid 1990's by Oklahoma resident Lazarus Long, his family and business associates. It is generally dismissed by those who see Long's claims as overstated and unattainable. It is conceptually similar to several unrelated attempts at establishing sovereign libertarian city-states on man-made islands extending as far back as the 1960s, including such efforts as the Atlantis Project the Republic of Minerva as well as The Palm & World projects in Dubai - Principality of New Utopia - The Principality of New Utopia is a constitutional sovereignty based on the principles of free enterprise and capitalism, embracing a substantially tax free economy, with assurance of freedom and privacy in connection with any commercial enterprise. - Tech-Utopia - the Utopian Technology Consortium: A consortium of technology research and development companies dedicated to bringing cutting edge technologies to all areas of the globe. Our consortium is based offshore in the Carribean's latest free trade zone country; The Principality of New Utopia. - Misteriosa Shire of The Principality of New Utopia - Formerly in old Great Britain a Shire was an administrative district, equivalent to a county. The Earl is the official charge or administrator of the Shire. This is the administrative model we have chosen for Misteriosa Shire. Misteriosa Shire is an administrative district within the Principality of New Utopia. It is a 4 square mile district in the West and South of the territory of New Utopia - Ethnicity / cultural tribalism - Wikipedia - An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community. From an objective standpoint, an ethnic group is also an endogamous population, that is, members of an ethnic group procreate primarily with other members of their ethnic group, something which is measurable in terms of characteristic average genetic frequencies. These differences, however, usually do not approach the magnitude of racial difference in that the genetic differences within an ethnic group are greater than the difference between any two ethnic groups. The characteristic of endogamy is reinforced by proximity, cultural familiarity, and also social pressure (in extreme cases, by legal command) to procreate within the ethnic group. - Intentional Communities - Intentional Community is an inclusive term for ecovillages, cohousing, residential land trusts, communes, student co-ops, urban housing cooperatives, and other projects where people strive together with a common vision. - City-state - Wikipedia - region controlled exclusively by a city, and usually having sovereignty. Historically, city-states have often been part of larger cultural areas, as in the city-states of ancient Greece and Phoenicia, the Aztecs and Mayans of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, or the city-states of Renaissance Italy. City-states were common in ancient times. Though sovereign, many such cities joined in formal or informal leagues under a high king. In some cases historical empires or leagues were formed by the right of conquest (e.g., Mycenae, or Rome), but many were formed under peaceful alliances or for mutual protection (e.g., the Peloponnesian League). In the Middle Ages, city-states were particularly a feature of what are now Germany, Italy and Russia. A number of them formed the Hanseatic League, which was a significant force in trade for a number of centuries - Perpetual traveler / permanent tourist (PT) - Wikipedia - a lifestyle and a philosophy. people who live in such a way that they are not considered a legal resident of any of the countries in which they spend time. In this way, they seek to avoid the legal obligations which may accompany residency, such as taxes, jury duty, and military service. For example, while PT's may hold citizenship in one or more countries that impose taxes based solely on residency (the United States is unusual, in that it taxes all citizens, regardless of their residency status), their legal residence will most likely be in a tax haven. They may spend the majority of their time in other countries, never staying long enough to be considered a resident. - Micronations.Net - Apart from a few serious secessionist movements, most micronations are essentially nation-state simulations, with varying degrees of seriousness. Unlike role-playing games, micronations have real people who compete for fame, fortune and power, and engage in lively debate and entertainment. Many nations incorporate popular sports and economic simulations. - [DYNAMIC GEOGRAPHY] Network Operators - Patri Friedman - Wikipedia - Dynamic Geography - : A Blueprint for Efficient Government - - home of the Seasteading Project, which aims to build sovereign, self-sufficient floating platforms, thus creating new territory on the oceans. Our fundamental principle is to approach this ambitious vision in a realistic manner. This includes using conventional technologies whenever possible, coming up with profitable business models, and progressing by bootstrapping through a reasonable series of steps. - Seastead - Wikipedia - Seasteads are floating platforms which could be used to create sovereign micronations, or otherwise serve the ends of ocean colonization. The term was first used in a paper by Wayne Gramlich, and later in a book by Gramlich, Patri Friedman and Andy House, which is available for free online[1]. Their research aims at a more practical approach to developing micronations, based on currently available technology and a pragmatic approach to financial aspects. - [FLOATING CITY] Network Operators: Floating city - Wikipedia - settlements that use buoyancy to remain in the atmosphere of a planet. Buckminster Fuller first proposed the concept for Earth, by building a geodesic sphere that would be heated by sunlight, and float. A similar design would permit settlers to live on Venus, where at ground level the temperature is too hot and the atmospheric pressure too great. It would also permit settlement of the outer three gas giants, which have no ground. The main industry of floating cities in gas giants might be to extract Helium-3 or other useful materials from their atmospheres. Jupiter is unacceptable for habitation due to its high gravity, escape velocity and radiation, but the solar system's other gas giants are more practical. - Ephemerisle - Walking city - Wikipedia - idea proposed by British architect Ron Herron in 1964. In an article in avant-garde architecture journal Archigram, Ron Herron proposed building massive mobile robotic structures, with their own intelligence, that could freely roam the world, moving to wherever their resources or manufacturing abilities were needed. Various walking cities could interconnect with each other to form larger 'walking metropolises' when needed, and then disperse when their concentrated power was no longer necessary. Individual buildings or structures could also be mobile, moving wherever their owner wanted or needs dictated. - Freedom Ship - the City at Sea - The Freedom Ship has little in common with a conventional ship; it is actually nothing more than a big barge. The bolt-up construction and the unusually large amount of steel incorporated into the ship meets the design engineer's requirements for stability and structural integrity and the cost engineers requirements of "economic feasibility" but the downside is a severe reduction in top speed, making the ship useless for any existing requirements. For example, it would be too slow to be a cruise ship or a cargo ship. But what if this big, overweight, barge was assigned a voyage that required slowly cruising around the world, hugging the shoreline, and completing one revolution every 3 years? If the designers then incorporated the following amenities into this barge, what would be the results? * 18,000 living units, with prices in the range of $180,000 to $2.5 million, including a small number of premium suites currently priced up to $44 million. * 3,000 commercial units in a similar price range * 2,400 time-share units * 10,000 hotel units * A World Class Casino * A ferryboat transportation system that provides departures every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, to 3 or more local cities giving ship residents access to the local neighborhood and up to 30,000 land-based residents a chance to spend a day on the ship. * A World-Class Medical Facility practicing Western and Eastern medicine as well as preventive and anti-aging medicine. * A School System that gives the students a chance to take a field trip into a different Country each week for academic purposes or to compete with local schools in numerous sporting events. For example; The Freedom Ship High School Soccer team plays a Paris High School team this week at home and an Italian team next week in Italy, while the Freedom Ship High School Band presents a New Orleans Jazz musical at a concert hall in London. * An International Trade Center that gives on-board companies and shops the opportunity to show and sell their products in a different Country each week. * More than 100 acres of outdoor Park, Recreation, Exercise and Community space for the enjoyment of residents and visitors.

MYTHS: government is a shared myth. When the myth dies the government dies.” - Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune, p.43. - Only competing governments, i.e. governments of volunteers only and confined to exterritorial autonomy, can be more than myths, can be ideals freely chosen by individuals for themselves only and practised as long as they still find them attractive enough for themselves, even when outsiders consider them to be horrible examples of self-abuse, of things not to do, of absurd and counter-productive actions. - The road must be opened for flawed systems as well as all kinds of better ones than those applied in the past or present. - Experimental freedom even for all political, economic and social systems! - J.Z., 23.12.07. - PREJUDICES & REALITY, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

MYTHS: Let them alone. If people are busy living out myths you don’t like, leave them do it.” – Samuel R. Delaney, Dhalgren, p.278/79. - PEOPLE, BELIEVERS, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, LET ALONE, LEAVE THEM, NON-INTERVENTION, NON-INTERFERENCE, NON-AGGRESSION, NON-VIOLENCE, NON-INITIATION OF FORCE, ZERO AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

MYTHS: Liberty is a concrete entity, not very different from a hat, a table, or a snow shovel. (*) One ought to be able to recognize it when one sees it. But it is no longer very much in evidence because we have so consistently been fed and nourished on political myths - to the exclusion of freedom. Most of us living in the twentieth century have not noticed the erosions of freedom since our political leaders have ingeniously directed our minds to myths by which they may most easily control and direct our destinies.” - George H. Douglas, THE FREEMAN, 12/74. - - (*) Only once such a relationship is actually realized. - J.Z., 23.12.07. - LIBERTY, FREEDOM, REALITY







[Home] [Top]